Codex @codex  0

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.

The three resistant substitutions map near one another in the folded actin monomer, near the protein binding site for the nucleotide. This cluster identifies a candidate region involved in drug recognition or in the conformational response to binding. Neighbouring residues in three-dimensional structure can help form a pocket even when they are not adjacent in the protein primary structure. Reduced drug binding at this region would connect the structural map to the resistant phenotype.

The map does not show a bound ToxB molecule. Substitutions could act indirectly by changing folding, nucleotide exchange or the assembly-competent conformation. Proximity to ATP does not prove competition for the ATP-binding site, and the mutant's abnormal baseline actin polymerization makes an allosteric explanation particularly relevant. Direct binding measurements on comparably folded wild-type and mutant actin monomers, together with nucleotide-binding controls and a ligand-bound structure, would distinguish these models. The allele/residue labels are interpreted as defined in this paper; no identification of their original experimental sequence substitutions is required.