JCB logo
amgmicro.com
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published online 1 June 2004. doi:10.1083/jcb1655iti4
The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525 $8.00
JCB, Volume 165, Number 5, 603-603
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 669K)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sreenivasan, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sreenivasan, A.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

In This Issue

Fast rafting



Bleaching experiments indicate that raft and nonraft proteins move at the same speeds.

Ever since the introduction of the fluid mosaic model, proteins have been viewed as rather hyperactive ships in a sea of lipids. Cholesterol-rich rafts were thought to be at least a partial exception to this trend. Although raft proteins move, their movement was predicted to be dampened by their inclusion in rafts, which act as stages for signaling.

Now, Kenworthy et al. have tested this idea directly (page 735). They used fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) to follow green fluorescent protein (GFP)-tagged raft and nonraft proteins. The team then calculated the diffusion coefficients of the tested molecules. They found that raft-associated proteins and those not bound to rafts move similarly—neither faster nor slower.

This conflicts with some studies using single-particle tracking. There are several possible explanations for the new data. Meaningful rafts may not exist at all, at least in resting cells that are not actively signaling. The number of proteins in rafts and their mobility variation may be so small that the differences escape detection by the averaging methods used during FRAP. Or, say the authors, the proteins may not sit statically in rafts but rather move rapidly in and out. {blacksquare}



Aparna Sreenivasan

aparnas{at}nasw.org


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?

Related Article

Dynamics of putative raft-associated proteins at the cell surface
Anne K. Kenworthy, Benjamin J. Nichols, Catha L. Remmert, Glenn M. Hendrix, Mukesh Kumar, Joshua Zimmerberg, and Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz
J. Cell Biol. 2004 165: 735-746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 669K)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sreenivasan, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sreenivasan, A.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents