The Interacting Head Motif Structure Does Not Explain the X-Ray Diffraction Patterns in Relaxed Vertebrate (Bony Fish) Skeletal Muscle and Insect (Lethocerus) Flight Muscle

Divergent Molecular Phenotypes in Point Mutations at the Same Residue in Beta-Myosin Heavy Chain Lead to Distinct Cardiomyopathies

In genetic cardiomyopathies, a frequently described phenomenon is how similar mutations in one protein can lead to discrete clinical phenotypes. One example is illustrated by two mutations in beta myosin heavy chain (β-MHC) that are linked to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (Ile467Val, I467V) and left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) (Ile467Thr, I467T). To investigate how these missense mutations lead to independent diseases, we studied the molecular effects of each mutation using recombinant human β-MHC Subfragment 1 (S1) in in vitro assays. Both HCM-I467V and LVNC-I467T S1 mutations exhibited similar mechanochemical function, including unchanged ATPase and enhanced actin velocity but had opposing effects on the super-relaxed (SRX) state of myosin. HCM-I467V S1 showed a small reduction in the SRX state, shifting myosin to a more actin-available state that may lead to the "gain-of-function" phenotype commonly described in HCM. In contrast, LVNC-I467T significantly increased the population of myosin in the ultra-slow SRX state. Interestingly, molecular dynamics simulations reveal that I467T allosterically disrupts interactions between ADP and the nucleotide-binding pocket, which may result in an increased ADP release rate. This predicted change in ADP release rate may define the enhanced actin velocity measured in LVNC-I467T, but also describe the uncoupled mechanochemical function for this mutation where the enhanced ADP release rate may be sufficient to offset the increased SRX population of myosin. These contrasting molecular effects may lead to contractile dysregulation that initiates LVNC-associated signaling pathways that progress the phenotype. Together, analysis of these mutations provides evidence that phenotypic complexity originates at the molecular level and is critical to understanding disease progression and developing therapies.

Targeting the sarcomere in inherited cardiomyopathies

Variants in >12 genes encoding sarcomeric proteins can cause various cardiomyopathies. The two most common are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Current therapeutics do not target the root causes of these diseases, but attempt to prevent disease progression and/or to manage symptoms. Accordingly, novel approaches are being developed to treat the cardiac muscle dysfunction directly. Challenges to developing therapeutics for these diseases include the diverse mechanisms of pathogenesis, some of which are still being debated and defined. Four small molecules that modulate the myosin motor protein in the cardiac sarcomere have shown great promise in the settings of HCM and DCM, regardless of the underlying genetic pathogenesis, and similar approaches are being developed to target other components of the sarcomere. In the setting of HCM, mavacamten and aficamten bind to the myosin motor and decrease the ATPase activity of myosin. In the setting of DCM, omecamtiv mecarbil and danicamtiv increase myosin activity in cardiac muscle (but omecamtiv mecarbil decreases myosin activity in vitro). In this Review, we discuss the therapeutic strategies to alter sarcomere contractile activity and summarize the data indicating that targeting one protein in the sarcomere can be effective in treating patients with genetic variants in other sarcomeric proteins, as well as in patients with non-sarcomere-based disease.

Analysis methods and quality criteria for investigating muscle physiology using x-ray diffraction

X-ray diffraction studies of muscle have been tremendously powerful in providing fundamental insights into the structures of, for example, the myosin and actin filaments in a variety of muscles and the physiology of the cross-bridge mechanism during the contractile cycle. However, interpretation of x-ray diffraction patterns is far from trivial, and if modeling of the observed diffraction intensities is required it needs to be performed carefully with full knowledge of the possible pitfalls. Here, we discuss (1) how x-ray diffraction can be used as a tool to monitor various specific muscle properties and (2) how to get the most out of the rest of the observed muscle x-ray diffraction patterns by modeling where the reliability of the modeling conclusions can be objectively tested. In other x-ray diffraction methods, such as protein crystallography, the reliability of every step of the process is estimated and quoted in published papers. In this way, the quality of the structure determination can be properly assessed. To be honest with ourselves in the muscle field, we need to do as near to the same as we can, within the limitations of the techniques that we are using. We discuss how this can be done. We also use test cases to reveal the dos and don’ts of using x-ray diffraction to study muscle physiology.

The muscle M3 x-ray diffraction peak and sarcomere length: No evidence for disordered myosin heads out of actin overlap

X-ray diffraction studies of muscle have provided a wealth of information on muscle structure and physiology, and the meridian of the diffraction pattern is particularly informative. Reconditi et al. (2014. J. Physiol.https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.267849) performed superb experiments on changes to the M3 meridional peak as a function of sarcomere length (SL). They found that the M3 intensity dropped almost linearly as sarcomere length increased at least to about SL = 3.0 µm, and that it followed the same track as tension, pointing toward zero at the end of overlap at ∼3.6 µm. They concluded that, just as tension could only be generated by overlapped myosin heads, so ordered myosin heads contributing to the M3 intensity could only occur in the overlap region of the A-band, and that nonoverlapped heads must be highly disordered. Here we show that this conclusion is not consistent with x-ray diffraction theory; it would not explain their observations. We discuss one possible reason for the change in M3 intensity with increasing sarcomere length in terms of increasing axial misalignment of the myosin filaments that at longer sarcomere lengths is limited by the elastic stretching of the M-band and titin.

The molecular basis for sarcomere organization in vertebrate skeletal muscle

Sarcomeres are force-generating and load-bearing devices of muscles. A precise molecular picture of how sarcomeres are built underpins understanding their role in health and disease. Here, we determine the molecular architecture of native vertebrate skeletal sarcomeres by electron cryo-tomography. Our reconstruction reveals molecular details of the three-dimensional organization and interaction of actin and myosin in the A-band, I-band, and Z-disc and demonstrates that α-actinin cross-links antiparallel actin filaments by forming doublets with 6-nm spacing. Structures of myosin, tropomyosin, and actin at ~10 Å further reveal two conformations of the "double-head" myosin, where the flexible orientation of the lever arm and light chains enable myosin not only to interact with the same actin filament, but also to split between two actin filaments. Our results provide unexpected insights into the fundamental organization of vertebrate skeletal muscle and serve as a strong foundation for future investigations of muscle diseases.

The myosin interacting-heads motif present in live tarantula muscle explains tetanic and posttetanic phosphorylation mechanisms

Striated muscle contraction involves sliding of actin thin filaments along myosin thick filaments, controlled by calcium through thin filament activation. In relaxed muscle, the two heads of myosin interact with each other on the filament surface to form the interacting-heads motif (IHM). A key question is how both heads are released from the surface to approach actin and produce force. We used time-resolved synchrotron X-ray diffraction to study tarantula muscle before and after tetani. The patterns showed that the IHM is present in live relaxed muscle. Tetanic contraction produced only a very small backbone elongation, implying that mechanosensing-proposed in vertebrate muscle-is not of primary importance in tarantula. Rather, thick filament activation results from increases in myosin phosphorylation that release a fraction of heads to produce force, with the remainder staying in the ordered IHM configuration. After the tetanus, the released heads slowly recover toward the resting, helically ordered state. During this time the released heads remain close to actin and can quickly rebind, enhancing the force produced by posttetanic twitches, structurally explaining posttetanic potentiation. Taken together, these results suggest that, in addition to stretch activation in insects, two other mechanisms for thick filament activation have evolved to disrupt the interactions that establish the relaxed helices of IHMs: one in invertebrates, by either regulatory light-chain phosphorylation (as in arthropods) or Ca²⁺-binding (in mollusks, lacking phosphorylation), and another in vertebrates, by mechanosensing.

Special Issue: The Actin-Myosin Interaction in Muscle: Background and Overview

Muscular contraction is a fundamental phenomenon in all animals; without it life as we know it would be impossible. The basic mechanism in muscle, including heart muscle, involves the interaction of the protein filaments myosin and actin. Motility in all cells is also partly based on similar interactions of actin filaments with non-muscle myosins. Early studies of muscle contraction have informed later studies of these cellular actin-myosin systems. In muscles, projections on the myosin filaments, the so-called myosin heads or cross-bridges, interact with the nearby actin filaments and, in a mechanism powered by ATP-hydrolysis, they move the actin filaments past them in a kind of cyclic rowing action to produce the macroscopic muscular movements of which we are all aware. In this special issue the papers and reviews address different aspects of the actin-myosin interaction in muscle as studied by a plethora of complementary techniques. The present overview provides a brief and elementary introduction to muscle structure and function and the techniques used to study it. It goes on to give more detailed descriptions of what is known about muscle components and the cross-bridge cycle using structural biology techniques, particularly protein crystallography, electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. It then has a quick look at muscle mechanics and it summarises what can be learnt about how muscle works based on the other studies covered in the different papers in the special issue. A picture emerges of the main molecular steps involved in the force-producing process; steps that are also likely to be seen in non-muscle myosin interactions with cellular actin filaments. Finally, the remarkable advances made in studying the effects of mutations in the contractile assembly in causing specific muscle diseases, particularly those in heart muscle, are outlined and discussed.

Mammalian muscle fibers may be simple as well as slow

Squire and Luther consider new evidence for a simple lattice structure in mammalian skeletal muscle.

Myosin Cross-Bridge Behaviour in Contracting Muscle-The T1 Curve of Huxley and Simmons (1971) Revisited

The stiffness of the myosin cross-bridges is a key factor in analysing possible scenarios to explain myosin head changes during force generation in active muscles. The seminal study of Huxley and Simmons (1971: Nature233: 533) suggested that most of the observed half-sarcomere instantaneous compliance (=1/stiffness) resides in the myosin heads. They showed with a so-called T₁ plot that, after a very fast release, the half-sarcomere tension reduced to zero after a step size of about 60Å (later with improved experiments reduced to 40Å). However, later X-ray diffraction studies showed that myosin and actin filaments themselves stretch slightly under tension, which means that most (at least two-thirds) of the half sarcomere compliance comes from the filaments and not from cross-bridges. Here we have used a different approach, namely to model the compliances in a virtual half sarcomere structure in silico. We confirm that the T₁ curve comes almost entirely from length changes in the myosin and actin filaments, because the calculated cross-bridge stiffness (probably greater than 0.4 pN/Å) is higher than previous studies have suggested. Our model demonstrates that the formulations produced by previous authors give very similar results to our model if the same starting parameters are used. However, we find that it is necessary to model the X-ray diffraction data as well as mechanics data to get a reliable estimate of the cross-bridge stiffness. In the light of the high cross-bridge stiffness found in the present study, we present a plausible modified scenario to describe aspects of the myosin cross-bridge cycle in active muscle. In particular, we suggest that, apart from the filament compliances, most of the cross-bridge contribution to the instantaneous T₁ response may come from weakly-bound myosin heads, not myosin heads in strongly attached states. The strongly attached heads would still contribute to the T₁ curve, but only in a very minor way, with a stiffness that we postulate could be around 0.1 pN/Å, a value which would generate a working stroke close to 100 Å from the hydrolysis of one ATP molecule. The new model can serve as a tool to calculate sarcomere elastic properties for any vertebrate striated muscle once various parameters have been determined (e.g., tension, T₁ intercept, temperature, X-ray diffraction spacing results).