Tomographic Three-dimensional Reconstruction of Insect Flight Muscle Partially Relaxed by AMPPNP and Ethylene Glycol

Rigor insect flight muscle (IFM) can be relaxed without ATP by increasing ethylene glycol concentration in the presence of adenosine 5′-β′γ- imido]triphosphate (AMPPNP). Fibers poised at a critical glycol concentration retain rigor stiffness but support no sustained tension (“glycol-stiff state”). This suggests that many crossbridges are weakly attached to actin, possibly at the beginning of the power stroke. Unaveraged three-dimensional tomograms of “glycol-stiff” sarcomeres show crossbridges large enough to contain only a single myosin head, originating from dense collars every 14.5 nm. Crossbridges with an average 90° axial angle contact actin midway between troponin subunits, which identifies the actin azimuth in each 38.7-nm period, in the same region as the actin target zone of the 45° angled rigor lead bridges. These 90° “target zone” bridges originate from the thick filament and approach actin at azimuthal angles similar to rigor lead bridges. Another class of glycol-PNP crossbridge binds outside the rigor actin target zone. These “nontarget zone” bridges display irregular forms and vary widely in axial and azimuthal attachment angles. Fitting the acto-myosin subfragment 1 atomic structure into the tomogram reveals that 90° target zone bridges share with rigor a similar contact interface with actin, while nontarget crossbridges have variable contact interfaces. This suggests that target zone bridges interact specifically with actin, while nontarget zone bridges may not. Target zone bridges constitute only ∼25% of the myosin heads, implying that both specific and nonspecific attachments contribute to the high stiffness. The 90° target zone bridges may represent a preforce attachment that produces force by rotation of the motor domain over actin, possibly independent of the regulatory domain movements. Force production by myosin heads during muscle contraction has long been modeled as a transition of attached crossbridges from a 90° to a 45° axial angle. Efforts to image crossbridge forms and angles intermediate between 90° heads in ATP-relaxed insect flight muscle (IFM)¹ and the 45° angled bridges in rigor have used nucleotide analogs such as adenosine 5′-β′γ-imido] triphosphate (AMPPNP) in stable equilibrium states to drive the crossbridges backwards from the 45° angle in rigor to an attached 90° preforce form, otherwise similar to myosin heads in ATP-relaxed fibers (Reedy et al., 1988; Tregear et al., 1990). However, AMPPNP alone will not fully relax IFM, and crossbridges binding AMPPNP retain many rigor-like features (Schmitz et al., 1996; Winkler et al., 1996). On the other hand, AMPPNP in combination with ethylene glycol will relax IFM. When poised at a critical glycol concentration, muscle stiffness is as high as rigor, suggesting crossbridge attachment, but fibers will not bear sustained tension (Clarke et al., 1984; Tregear et al., 1984). Two-dimensional (2-D) analysis of electron micrographs showed that this stiff glycol-PNP state resembled ATP-relaxed fibers in having dense collars every 14.5 nm along the thick filament and thin crossbridges originating from these collars at various axial angles around 90°. However, unlike relaxed muscle, stiff glycol-PNP fibers showed both 90° angled bridges that were regularly spaced every 38.7 nm and more intensity on the 19.3-nm layer line in optical and x-ray diffraction patterns (Reedy et al., 1988; Tregear et al., 1990). Crossbridges in this partially relaxed, glycol-PNP state are important because they may represent the form of the initial attachment of myosin with bound nucleotide preceding force generation (Marston and Tregear, 1984; Tregear et al., 1984; Reedy et al., 1988). This putative preforce 90° crossbridge could not be characterized in 3-D because its variable form and lattice arrangement precluded imaging by averaging methods of 3-D reconstruction. Recently, nonaveraging tomographic methods have been developed and successfully applied to rigor and aqueous-PNP, facilitating characterization of variable crossbridge forms that occur in situ (Taylor and Winkler, 1995, 1996; Schmitz et al., 1996; Winkler and Taylor, 1996). IFM is superb for structural study because the symmetry and spatial arrangement of filaments results in paired crossbridges on opposite sides of the actin filament. This in turn has given rise to a unique shorthand terminology. The individual crossbridge forms are not unique to IFM, only their symmetrical placement about the thin filament. The filament arrangement also facilitates the microtomy of a type of thin section with coplanar filaments that provide views of the entire crossbridge. The best of these, the myac layer, is a 25-nm-thick longitudinal section containing alternating myosin and actin filaments. In rigor, the maximum number of myosin heads attach to actin, forming doublet pairs every 38.7 nm, the “double chevrons” (Reedy, 1968). “Lead bridges,” which form the pair proximal to the M-band, consist of both heads of a myosin molecule and show an overall axial angle of 45° (Taylor et al., 1984). “Rear bridges,” which form the pair proximal to the Z-disk, consist of a single myosin head angled closer to 90°. Crossbridges originate from the thick filament along helical tracks so the azimuths of their origins follow a regular pattern. Relative to the thin filament in the myac layer, the lead bridges originate from the left-front and back-right of the adjacent thick filaments, while rear bridges originate from the left-back and right-front. At their actin ends, the crossbridge attachments follow the changing rotation of the actin protomers along the actin helix. The combination of the azimuth of the origin and the azimuth of the crossbridge contact to actin define the azimuthal angle of the crossbridge.Target zone is the name given to the region of the thin filament where crossbridges bind (Reedy, 1968); by implication this is the region of the thin filament where actin monomers are most favorably placed for actomyosin interaction. In our previous 3-D reconstructions of rigor and aqueous-PNP (Schmitz et al., 1996; Winkler et al., 1996), it was recognized that troponin maintained a constant position with respect to the most regularly positioned crossbridges, the lead bridges, and could thus be used as a landmark to determine the actin dyad orientation in the lead bridge target zone. The most sterically favorable actin position for crossbridge binding in the IFM lattice is midway between troponin densities, where lead bridges bind. The strained structure of the rigor rear bridges suggests that they bind at the very edge of the target zone (Schmitz et al., 1996; Winkler et al., 1996). The target zone defined by lead bridges alone is narrower than target zones previously considered for rigor muscle (Reedy, 1968) because it does not include rear bridge targets. When aqueous AMPPNP was added to rigor IFM, the tension dropped by two thirds, but the stiffness remained as high as rigor. This initially suggested a reversal of the power stroke, but 3-D reconstructions revealed that the lead bridges remained attached, midway between troponin densities, at axial and azimuthal angles close to rigor. The drop in tension without a large change in axial angle seemed to contradict the lever arm hypothesis for motion producing force. However, a cause for the loss of tension was found in tomograms, which showed that rear bridges detached and were replaced by nonrigor bridges bound to actins outside of the rigor target zone, to sites not selected by crossbridges even under the high-affinity conditions of rigor. These nontarget bridges in aqueous-PNP had variable axial and azimuthal angles and appeared to bind actin with variable contact interfaces. This suggested that they were nonspecifically bound to actin. Moreover, their variable structure did not suggest how a simple axial angle change could convert them to a familiar form, such as an angled rigor bridge. However, an intriguing doublet crossbridge group with a consistent structure was recognized in aqueous-PNP. Immediately M-ward of the “lead” rigor-like bridge was a “nonrigor” bridge bound at a 90° or antirigor angle. In this doublet, called a mask motif, both lead and M-ward nonrigor bridge pairs had similar azimuths and contact interfaces with actin and bound within the lead bridge target zone. A simple angle change could convert the M-ward, nonrigor bridge in a mask motif to a single headed lead bridge. Thus, in the mask motif, the lead bridge could be at the end of the power stroke, with the M-ward, nonrigor bridge near the beginning. The pairing of rigor and antirigor angled crossbridges bound to the same target zone suggests that crossbridges might act as a relay during muscle contraction (Schmitz et al., 1996). The affinity of myosin for actin in aqueous-PNP is high compared with weak binding intermediates thought to represent the beginning of the power stroke (Green and Eisenberg, 1980; Biosca et al., 1990). Therefore, the M-ward crossbridge in the mask motif may not represent the best candidate for a preforce crossbridge. Thus, it is important to characterize crossbridge structure in a state with lower actomyosin affinity, such as the stiff glycol-PNP state, where earlier 2-D analysis indicated that weakly attached 90° bridges are prevalent (Reedy et al., 1988). In this work, we have used two spatially invariant features, troponin position and lead crossbridge origins, to identify distinct classes of crossbridges. The invariant position of troponin recognized in 3-D reconstructions allows us to identify the lead bridge target zone and the actin dyad orientation relative to the bound crossbridges. In addition, the “front-back” rule for the azimuth of the origins of the lead target zone bridges distinguishes crossbridges that bind actin with the correct azimuth for specific binding from those that bind nonspecifically. By fitting the myosin subfragment 1 (S1) atomic structure to the in situ bridges, we can compare the positions of the motor and regulatory domains. Previous results and models have introduced the idea that during a power stroke, the crossbridge rotates over the actin binding site while acting as a long, relatively rigid lever arm (Huxley and Simmons, 1971), while others propose that the motor domain position remains constant and light chain domain movements provide a shorter lever arm (Rayment et al., 1993b ; Whittaker et al., 1995). Our previous results (Reedy et al., 1987, 1988; Schmitz et al., 1996; Winkler et al., 1996) and the present work show (a) that regulatory domain position can vary significantly while motor domain position remains constant and (b) that the motor domain can bind actin with varying orientations. This work supports the possibility that both rotation of the motor domain on actin and movements of the regulatory domain could contribute to the power stroke.