Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Immunology logoLink to Immunology
. 1979 Jul;37(3):705–709.

Reactivity of smooth-muscle antibodies with F- and G-actin.

P Andersen, J V Small, H K Andersen, A Sobieszek
PMCID: PMC1457738  PMID: 500125

Abstract

The reactivity of human smooth-muscle antibodies (SMA) with F- and G-actin was investigated by means of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Polystyrene tubes were coated with F-actin, G-actin and tropomyosin. The optimal reactivity of SMA with F-actin was achieved with tubes coated with actin concentrations in the range of 10-100 mug/ml, while both lower and higher amounts yielded lower reactivity. The reactivity with G-actin was low and only a little higher than the reactivity with tropomyosin or uncoated tubes, but much lower than the reactivity with F-actin. The differences in reactivity of SMA with F- and G-actin could not be explained by differences in binding of the two forms of actin to the tubes, although 1.7-2.5 times more F-actin than G-actin bound to the polystyrene surface after coating with equivalent amounts of protein. SMA-negative sera did not react with F-actin coated tubes indicating that the binding of antibody was not due to non-immunological binding of immunoglobulins. Human SMA thus react better with F- than with G-actin.

Full text

PDF
705

Images in this article

708Figure 1
on p.708

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersen P., Small J. V., Sobieszek A. Studies on the specificity of smooth-muscle antibodies. Clin Exp Immunol. 1976 Oct;26(1):57–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey K. Tropomyosin: a new asymmetric protein component of the muscle fibril. Biochem J. 1948;43(2):271–279. doi: 10.1042/bj0430271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bray D., Thomas C. The actin content of fibroblasts. Biochem J. 1975 May;147(2):221–228. doi: 10.1042/bj1470221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Celis J. E., Small J. V., Andersen P., Celis A. Microfilament bundles in cultured cells. Correlation with anchorage independence and tumorigenicity in nude mice. Exp Cell Res. 1978 Jul;114(2):335–348. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(78)90491-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fagraeus A., Lidman K., Biberfeld G. Reaction of human smooth muscle antibodies with human blood lymphocytes and lymphoid cell lines. Nature. 1974 Nov 15;252(5480):246–247. doi: 10.1038/252246a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gabbiani G., Ryan G. B., Lamelin J. P., Vassalli P., Majno G., Bouvier C. A., Cruchaud A., Lüscher E. F. Human smooth muscle autoantibody. Its identification as antiactin antibody and a study of its binding to "nonmuscular" cells. Am J Pathol. 1973 Sep;72(3):473–488. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gabbiani G., Trenchev P., Holborow E. J. Increase of contractile proteins in human cancer cells. Lancet. 1975 Oct 25;2(7939):796–797. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)80008-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldman R. D., Lazarides E., Pollack R., Weber K. The distribution of actin in non-muscle cells. The use of actin antibody in the localization of actin within the microfilament bundles of mouse 3T3 cells. Exp Cell Res. 1975 Feb;90(2):333–344. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(75)90323-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnson G. D., Holborow E. J., Glynn L. E. Antibody to smooth muscle in patients with liver disease. Lancet. 1965 Oct 30;2(7418):878–879. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(65)92505-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. LOWRY O. H., ROSEBROUGH N. J., FARR A. L., RANDALL R. J. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lidman K., Biberfeld G., Fagraeus A., Norberg R., Torstensson R., Utter G., Carlsson L., Luca J., Lindberg U. Anti-actin specificity of human smooth muscle antibodies in chronic active hepatitis. Clin Exp Immunol. 1976 May;24(2):266–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Norberg R., Biberfeld G., Fagraeus A., Lidman K., Thorstensson R., Utter G. The reaction of cells with anti-actin sera in relation to the amount of cellular actin. Clin Exp Immunol. 1977 Jun;28(3):512–516. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sobieszek A., Bremel R. D. Preparation and properties of vertebrate smooth-muscle myofibrils and actomyosin. Eur J Biochem. 1975 Jun 16;55(1):49–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1975.tb02137.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Spudich J. A., Watt S. The regulation of rabbit skeletal muscle contraction. I. Biochemical studies of the interaction of the tropomyosin-troponin complex with actin and the proteolytic fragments of myosin. J Biol Chem. 1971 Aug 10;246(15):4866–4871. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Utter G., Biberfeld P., Norberg R., Thorstensson R., Fagraeus A. Ultrastructure of in vitro formed actin-anti-actin immune complexes. Exp Cell Res. 1978 Jun;114(1):127–133. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(78)90044-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Voller A., Bidwell D. E., Bartlett A. Enzyme immunoassays in diagnostic medicine. Theory and practice. Bull World Health Organ. 1976;53(1):55–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Immunology are provided here courtesy of British Society for Immunology

RESOURCES