Skip to main content
. 2010 Feb 2;107(8):3517–3521. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914723107

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Delays between individual docking and fusion events and SNAP25 dependence of the overall fusion rate. (A) Distribution of delay times, normalized to integrate to unity (t-LP = 10K, v-LP = 150, 32 °C, 175 delays from 8 acquisitions; bin width = 100 ms). (B) The same delays as in A, presented as a survivor function (SI Text). Inset shows the full span of the distribution, including a small fraction of delays (<15–20%) which occur on >1 s timescales. (C) Effect of the limited time resolution on the sampling of the true delays. The mean delay for fast fusions (delays Inline graphic s) versus acquisition period Tacq. The mean delay extrapolated to Tacq = 0 ms is Inline graphic ms. (D) Comparison of fusion rates between SBLs reconstituted with Syx·SNAP25 (190 fusions, 7 acquisitions, t-LP = 10K) and with Syx alone (60 fusions in 19 acquisitions, t-LP = 10K). SBLs were formed from t-SUVs reconstituted side by side. Identical v-SUV preparations were used. Omission of SNAP25 resulted in a 12-fold reduction in the normalized fusion rate (v-LP = 200, T = 30–32 °C).