1. Starch-gel electrophoretograms of myosin and tropomyosin preparations in 8m-urea, from longissimus dorsi and psoas muscles of the pig, were characterized by laser densitometry. 2. The typical pattern for freshly prepared myosin from both muscles was similar, there being five electrophoretically distinct components. 3. The number of electrophoretically distinct components in both muscles increased after freeze-drying, but the effect of freeze-drying was more marked in longissimus dorsi. 4. Extraction with 8m-urea containing 2% β-mercaptoethanol decreased the number of major electrophoretically distinct components of the fresh myosin of both muscles to four. 5. Although there was also some simplification of the patterns after freeze-drying the greater susceptibility of the myosin from longissimus dorsi was still evident. 6. The typical pattern for freshly prepared tropomyosin in 8m-urea differed in the two muscles: in each case it was more complex than that of the corresponding myosins. 7. The pattern of tropomyosin from neither longissimus dorsi nor psoas was altered significantly after freeze-drying. 8. Electrophoretograms of pig longissimus dorsi tropomyosin in 8m-urea differed from those of longissimus dorsi tropomyosin from sheep, ox and rabbit. 9. Extraction of the tropomyosins in 8m-urea and 2% β-mercaptoethanol simplified the electrophoretic pattern to two major components with samples from pig, sheep and ox, and to one major component with samples from rabbit. 10. It was concluded that classification of skeletal muscles as ‘red’ or ‘white’ is insufficient to account for the degree of functional specialization which the electrophoretograms suggest.
Research Article| May 01 1969
Electrophoretic differentiation of myofibrillar proteins in the pig
A. L. Parsons;
J. L. Parsons;
J. M. V. Blanshard;
Biochem J (1969) 112 (5): 673–678.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
A. L. Parsons, J. L. Parsons, J. M. V. Blanshard, R. A. Lawrie; Electrophoretic differentiation of myofibrillar proteins in the pig. Biochem J 1 May 1969; 112 (5): 673–678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1120673
Download citation file: