User:Steven J. Koch/Notebook/Kochlab/2010/09/05/Cell (2008) Yildiz, Tomishige, Gennerich, Vale strain coordinates stepping: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
(→Notes) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
* Very important is that they use 12 mM PIPES buffer for their experiments (they call it BRB12), instead of what I think is much more common BRB80 (80 mM PIPES). Hancock point this out as a potential reason (along with the added lysines they put in the neck linker) for the high processivity even with longer neck linker. See: [[User:Steven J. Koch/Notebook/Kochlab/2010/09/04/Curr Bio (2010) Shastry, Hancock neck linker kinesin1,2]] | * Very important is that they use 12 mM PIPES buffer for their experiments (they call it BRB12), instead of what I think is much more common BRB80 (80 mM PIPES). Hancock point this out as a potential reason (along with the added lysines they put in the neck linker) for the high processivity even with longer neck linker. See: [[User:Steven J. Koch/Notebook/Kochlab/2010/09/04/Curr Bio (2010) Shastry, Hancock neck linker kinesin1,2]] | ||
** After reading both this paper, and the Hancock paper, and the Hackney papers, my opinion is that the use of extra lysines in the Yildiz work and the low ionic strength buffer makes it difficult to interpret any processivity results. | |||
* They say that introducing a cystein rescues the speed by shortening the neck linker. However, the speed only goes from 100-ish to 250-ish nm/s. 250 nm / s is not full "rescue," so I don't know why they seem to imply that it is. | |||
* The optical trapping work, I think is easier to interpret, because probably ionic interactions are not as important at the high forces used (>1pN). | |||
==FriendFeed Thread== | ==FriendFeed Thread== | ||
Revision as of 09:44, 6 September 2010
Citation
Yildiz, A., Tomishige, M., Gennerich, A., & Vale, R. D. (2008). Intramolecular strain coordinates kinesin stepping behavior along microtubules. Cell, 134(6), 1030-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.07.018.
Other links
- Mendeley
Notes
- Very important is that they use 12 mM PIPES buffer for their experiments (they call it BRB12), instead of what I think is much more common BRB80 (80 mM PIPES). Hancock point this out as a potential reason (along with the added lysines they put in the neck linker) for the high processivity even with longer neck linker. See: User:Steven J. Koch/Notebook/Kochlab/2010/09/04/Curr Bio (2010) Shastry, Hancock neck linker kinesin1,2
- After reading both this paper, and the Hancock paper, and the Hackney papers, my opinion is that the use of extra lysines in the Yildiz work and the low ionic strength buffer makes it difficult to interpret any processivity results.
- They say that introducing a cystein rescues the speed by shortening the neck linker. However, the speed only goes from 100-ish to 250-ish nm/s. 250 nm / s is not full "rescue," so I don't know why they seem to imply that it is.
- The optical trapping work, I think is easier to interpret, because probably ionic interactions are not as important at the high forces used (>1pN).
FriendFeed Thread
<html> <iframe width="500" height="400" frameborder="0" src="?embed=1" ></iframe></html>
