title: Macromolecular structure of reassembled neurofilaments as revealed by the quick-freeze deep-etch mica method: difference between NF-M and NF-H subunits in their ability to form cross-bridges.
abstract: Neurofilament (NF) structure and ability to form cross-bridges were examined by quick-freeze deep-etch mica and low-angle rotary-shadow electron microscopy in NFs purified from bovine spinal cord and reassembled in various combinations of NF subunits. When NFs were reassembled from triplet proteins, NF-L, NF-M and NF-H, they were oriented randomly and often fragmented, but their elongated filaments (12-15 nm wide) and the cross-bridges (4-5 nm wide) connecting them were similar in appearance to those of isolated bovine NFs or in vivo rat NFs. Projections extended from the wall of the core filament in almost the same pattern as the cross-bridges and were the same in width and interval (minimum interval, 20-25 nm) as the cross-bridges. Projections were more conspicuous when core filaments were separated by 60 to 80 nm or more, while cross-bridges were more conspicuous when core filaments were close to each other. Projections or cross-bridges extended bilaterally at intervals of 20 to 25 nm where core filaments expanded and formed a network between filaments which were far from one another. When NFs were reconstructed from NF-L alone, only core filaments appeared, the same width as the filaments of triplet NFs. The core filaments were occasionally in almost direct contact with each other, with no projection or cross-bridge. When NFs were reassembled from NF-M alone or NF-L + NF-M, although NF-M core filaments were shorter and slightly thinner than NF-L + NF-M core filaments, both had projections, and both had cross-bridges, but cross-bridges were less evident. Cross-bridges were almost the same in width as those of triplet NFs, but significantly shorter and much less frequent although the minimum interval was the same, and core filaments were not attached to each other. In contrast, when NFs were reconstituted from NF-H alone or NF-L + NF-H, both had conspicuous projections and cross-bridges, similar to those of triplet NFs. Thus, when NFs contained NF-H, they formed frequent cross-bridges and long projections with extensive peripheral branching. When NFs contained NF-M but no NF-H, they tended to form cross-bridges, and to form projections that were shorter and straighter and without peripheral branching. That is, there appears to be a significant difference between NF-M and NF-H in ability to form cross-bridges and thus in interaction with adjacent NFs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anatomy, Osaka University Medical School, Japan.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Gotow
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Takeda
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tanaka
authors.forename: P H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Hashimoto
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001923:Brain Chemistry; D002417:Cattle; D005613:Freeze Etching; D007382:Intermediate Filaments / Q000737:chemistry / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D016900:Neurofilament Proteins / Q000737:chemistry / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D013116:Spinal Cord / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: D016900:Neurofilament Proteins; C051774:neurofilament protein H; C061195:neurofilament protein M