Figure 7. Relationship between mechanical unfolding and frameshifting.

(a) In vitro frameshifting efficiency¹⁹ versus mean unfolding force. (b) Unfolding kinetics of SF206 extracted from force distributions using Dudko’s method⁵². Bell’s model is used to fit the force-dependent unfolding rates to extract rate constants at different forces (k) and unfolding transition state positions (X^≠). (c–e) In vitro frameshifting efficiency¹⁹ versus unfolding kinetics at the stretching forces of 0, 25, and 40 pN, respectively. The correlation is best at a stretching force of around 25 pN (see Supplementary Fig. S10). (f) In vitro frameshifting efficiency¹⁹ has no correlation with mechanical unfolding transition state position X^≠. Error bars of both force and frameshifting efficiency represent standard deviations. Errors of lnk and X^≠ are reported as standard errors.