 Solution

Experiment 2: relative to untreated wild-type actin, actin monomer sequestration predicts a longer apparent actin nucleation lag, a smaller elongation slope, and a lower steady-state polymer mass. At sufficiently strong binding the trace could remain nearly flat rather than displaying clearly separated phases. The wild-type sedimentation data support a lower endpoint, but do not establish the exact kinetic changes or whether the time to plateau is longer or shorter.

Experiment 3: the halo result does not determine the drug-free actin polymerization curve of act1-129. A mutation that mainly raises drug affinity could have a nearly wild-type curve without drug. A mutation that intrinsically destabilizes actin filaments or impairs actin nucleation could instead prolong the lag, reduce growth and lower the plateau. Thus a wild-type-like untreated curve is a useful conditional reference prediction, not a result that follows from cellular hypersensitivity.

Experiment 4: act1-129 is about sixfold more sensitive in the cellular assay. If that reflects a stronger direct effect of ToxB on its actin monomers, predict greater suppression than in experiment 2: a longer or effectively absent actin nucleation phase, slower or undetectable elongation, and a still lower plateau relative to its own drug-free control. It could be almost flat. However, cellular hypersensitivity could also arise from reduced functional reserve or altered interactions with other proteins; it does not guarantee stronger inhibition of purified actin. These alternatives are exactly what the comparison with experiment 3 resolves. No numerical lag, slope or plateau can be calculated from halo sizes alone.