Biochemical Comparison of Tpm1.1 (α) and Tpm2.2 (β) Tropomyosins from Rabbit Skeletal Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tpm1.1 (α) and Tpm2.2 (β) tropomyosins (39 amino acid substitutions) were isolated from adult rabbit skeletal muscle without chemical modification of cysteine, with negligible phosphorylation as assessed by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and characterized biochemically. Reconstituted skeletal thin filaments composed of Tpm2.2 produce ∼30% less Ca(II)-induced activation of the steady-state actomyosin-S1MgATPase rate than Tpm1.1 does. This is observed at a high S1/actin ratio (6 μM myosin-S1A1, 3 μM thin filaments, pCa 4) and as a function of pCa (0.3 μM myosin-S1A1, 25 μM thin filaments). The two pCa versus MgATPase relationships are similar in terms of their steepness and midpoint. Isotype has a bearing on self-polymerization and interaction with troponin. Solutions (pH 7, ionic strength of ∼30 mM) of Tpm2.2 are more viscous than solutions of Tpm1.1, an observation explained by substitutions at the carboxy-terminal end of the molecule, including His276Asn and Met281Ile. Conversely, the enhancement of viscosity of Tpm1.1 by skeletal troponin is greater than that for Tpm2.2. Further, Tpm1.1 binds more strongly than Tpm2.2 to skeletal troponin-Sepharose, as evidenced by a later elution position in the salt gradient. Mixtures of tropomyosin and the amino-terminal CNBr fragment of troponin-T, CB1 (residues 1-151), were chromatographed on a size exclusion column in the presence of different concentrations of KCl. In 0.1 M salt, CB1 co-elutes with either isoform but is largely dissociated at 0.22 M. At intermediate salt concentrations, different degrees of complexation are observed, more extensive for Tpm1.1 than for Tpm2.2. Thus, the first reported variants of tropomyosin are distinct in their interactive and functional properties. The biochemical properties of Tpm2.2 are of particular relevance to the immature skeletal muscle thin filament.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".