Vladimir Matveev

Dear freeztar: Main points of my article: 1. Fixedly bound proteins are able however to move fast in condensed protein matrix in certain conditions. 2. ATP energy is not needed for the movement. 3. Some weight/weight ratio between gels is needed to initiate the movement. Please be so kind to explain why the title "is a bit misleading". Thanks in advance.

Thanks freeztar. The article is not new but the phenomenon is new one. I try to attract attention to it...

The battle of theories in cell physiology: YouTube - The battle of theories in cell physiology http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=cuvoGbD5h3g Phase-bulk theory vs. Membrane theory. Moritz Traube (1826-1894) Wilhelm F. Pfeffer (1845-1920) Julius Bernstein (1839-1917) J. H. van't Hoff (1852-1911) and Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932) Archibald V. Hill (1886-1977) Edward J. Conway (1894-1968) Alan L. Hodgkin (1914-1998) Andrew F. Huxley Fritz Lipmann (1899-1986) J. C. Skou Hans H. Ussing Peter Mitchell Felix Dujardin (1801-1860) Thomas Graham (1805-1869) Martin H. Fischer (1879-1962) H. G. Bungenberg de Jong (1893-1977) Dimitri N. Nasonov (1895-1957) A. S. Troshin (1912-1985) Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1893-1986) E. Ernst (Ernst Jeno) (1895-1981) Freeman W. Cope (1930-1982) Ludwig Edelmann Raymond Damadian R.C. Murphy, Z.Zhang, J.F.Brogan, J.T.Greenplate, M.M.Ochsenfeld, W.Negendank, G.Karreman, C.F.Hazlewood, and G.N.Ling. Video created by Vladimir Matveev (St.Petersburg).

Another evidences of high mobility of proteins in condensed medium Phair RD, Misteli T. High mobility of proteins in the mammalian cell nucleus. Nature 404 (6778): 604-609, 2000 Abstract: The mammalian cell nucleus contains numerous sub-compartments, which have been implicated in essential processes such as transcription and splicing(1,2). The mechanisms by which nuclear compartments are formed and maintained are unclear. More fundamentally, it is not known how proteins move within the cell nucleus. We have measured the kinetic properties of proteins in the nucleus of living cells using photobleaching techniques. Here we show that proteins involved in diverse nuclear processes move rapidly throughout the entire nucleus. Protein movement is independent of energy, which indicates that proteins may use a passive mechanism of movement. Proteins rapidly associate and dissociate with nuclear compartments. Using kinetic modelling, we determined residence times and steady-state fluxes of molecules in two main nuclear compartments. These data show that many nuclear proteins roam the cell nucleus in vivo and that nuclear compartments are the reflection of the steady-state association/dissociation of its 'residents' with the nucleoplasmic space. Our observations have conceptual implications for understanding nuclear architecture and how nuclear processes are organized in vivo. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10766243

V. V. Matveev Evidence of a New Type of Protein-Protein Interaction: Desensitized Actomyosin Blocks Ca2+-Sensitivity of the Natural One. A Possible Model for an Intracellular Signalling System Related to Actin Filaments Physiol. Chem. Phys. & Med. NMR (2000) 32:167-178 http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/matveev2000.htm Abstract: Actin filaments are certainly believed to function as an intracellular signalling system; however, this is not confirmed by direct evidence. We used a two-layer actomyosin gel with a concen tration gradient of the troponin-tropomyosin complex (TT-complex, Ca2+-sensitive system) between the two layers. To prepare one layer of the system, natural actomyosin (nАМ) rich in TT-complex was used. To prepare the second layer, we used desensitized actomyosin (dAM) without the complex. All experimental studies were made in medium with a low ionic strength. Two phenomena were ob served: (1) dAM blocks Ca2+-sensitivity of nAM when the dAM weight portion in the system (as well as in mixed nAM+dAM suspension) reaches 40% and more; further increase of the dAM portion does not affect the Ca2+-sensitivity; (2) it was electrophoretically shown that a rapid diffusion of the TT-complex from nAM gel into the dAM gel took place. The apparent diffusion coefficient for the TT-complex in dAM gel is about (1-4)·10-4 cm2/sec, i.e. three orders higher than the same values for pro tein diffusion in water. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11383138

The key problem, I think, is how to replace nanometer-minded persons by broad-minded ones... A narrow thought is a modern kind of brain deficiency. A good specialization is an impenetrable armour for all dim-wits in science. What about this?

Hi there! What do you think about this idea: According to my impression, old scientific literature is much richer then modern one in this way: it had a great field of different or even controversial ideas. As a result of "progress", a set of ideas in science becomes more and more coherent like political ideas in the former Soviet Union. Why? My answer: grant system has made unification of brains. If you want to survive you MUST be in agree with big shots of science. If you have some original idea you should conceal it. Instead of your own way you should choose big shot's way. Finally, it may be the way to only one "commonly accepted" idea in the future. It's a convergence of slaves. Maybe it's a good theme for some article, maybe not. I heard that grant-giving organizations understand the problem but they do not know how to solve it. Thanks Buffy for your words: "I hate doing things the conventional way." I thought I am alone in the Conventional World.

My short answers: Buffy: It is a serious problem. We should awake it up to make a hope to solve it in future. Nothing personal! "If it was easy, any idiot could do it. Get off your rear and make it happen." --- It's very good advice. Thanks! However do you consent that conventional way is boring one? hallenmr: thanks for your solidarity. Racoon: "We are not performing Scientific studies the way we should be?? What is the Solution then??" Once again: We should awake it up to make a hope to solve it in future.

Membrane theory and the decline of scientific method V.V. Matveev and D.N. Wheatley. "Fathers" and "sons" of theories in cell physiology: the membrane theory. Cell. Mol. Biol., 51(8): 797-801, 2005. Abstract. The last 50 years in the history of life sciences are remarkable for a new important feature that looks as a great threat for their future. A profound specialization dominating in quickly developing fields of science causes a crisis of the scientific method. The essence of the method is a unity of two elements, the experimental data and the theory that explains them. To us, "fathers" of science, classically, were the creators of new ideas and theories. They were the true experts of their own theories. It is only they who have the right to say: "I am the theory". In other words, they were carriers of theories, of the theoretical knowledge. The fathers provided the necessary logical integrity to their theories, since theories in biology have still to be based on strict mathematical proofs. It is not true for sons. As a result of massive specialization, modern experts operate in very confined close spaces. They formulate particular rules far from the level of theory. The main theories of science are known to them only at the textbook level. Nowadays, nobody can say: "I am the theory". With whom, then is it possible to discuss today on a broader theoretical level? How can a classical theory - for example, the membrane one - be changed or even disproved under these conditions? How can the "sons" with their narrow education catch sight of membrane theory defects? As a result, "global" theories have few critics and control. Due to specialization, we have lost the ability to work at the experimental level of biology within the correct or appropriate theoretical context. The scientific method in its classic form is now being rapidly eroded. A good case can be made for "Membrane Theory", to which we will largely refer throughout this article. Find full text here: http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/fathersandsons.htm The illustration for the article: http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/images/Fathers.and.Sons.jpg

The opposite view on Overton's rule: Al-Awqati Q. One hundred years of membrane permeability: does Overton still rule? Nat Cell Biol. 1999 Dec;1(8):E201-2. Abstract. The Overton Rule states that entry of any molecule into a cell is governed by its lipid solubility. Overton's studies led to the hypothesis that cell membranes are composed of lipid domains, which mediate transport of lipophilic molecules, and protein 'pores', which transport hydrophilic molecules. Recent studies, however, have shown that hydrophobic molecules are also transported by families of transporter proteins. Vladimir Matveev's comment: Today it is known 2-3 millions of organic compounds. 200,000 - 500,000 compounds at least are hydrophobic. Does it mean that a cell has a specific carrier for each hydrophobic organic molecule? Maybe tomorrow some new hydrophobic molecules will be synthesized but a specific carrier already waits it to conduct it through membrane into a cell (?). It is interesting story, isn't that so?

CELL HYDROPHOBICITY: A MISSED ROLE FOR PROTEINS For a long time, and up to the present, the term hydrophobicity was mostly has been associated chiefly with lipids. The well-known Meyer-Overton rule was always a strong argument in favor of the lipid nature of biomembranes and of the membrane theory of anesthesia. Until the 1960s, to be "hydrophobic" was synonymous with being "lipid", and the hydrophobic properties of the cell were explained by the presence of its lipid membranes, first of all, and primarily the plasma membrane. Indeed, based on these concepts, numerous "lipid" theories of anesthesia were put forward. However, in the 1960s, when studying thermodynamic characteristics of the thermodynamics of protein folding and unfolding, Brandts (3) was the first to prove convincingly that during the folding of a protein molecule, hydrophobic areas are formed internally which are inaccessible to water. Initially the thermodynamics of conformational transitions in proteins was the subject of study by a small group of specialists. However, with time, it has become evident that hydrophobic areas within cells are represented not only by lipids, as this was thought for more than 70 years, but also by proteins. The importance of this reappraisal is emphasized by the fact that, after water, protein is the most abundant of all other constituents, comprising up to 65% of the dry mass of cells, and greatly exceeds the total amount of lipid. What I propose here is that the volume of the hydrophobic protein phase can greatly exceed that of the hydrophobic lipid phase. However, I also recognize that the full significance of this observation has not been understood and seemingly not accepted by contemporary cell physiologists in terms of paradigms and working hypotheses. This theme is continued in the article: Vladimir Matveev. Protoreaction of Protoplasm. Cell. Mol. Biol. 51(8): 715-723, 2005. See full text here: http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/protoreaction.htm

PROTOREACTION OF PROTOPLASM INTRODUCTION According to an old Indian parable, well known in Russia, residents of the city of blind people asked several respected citizens to act as experts and to describe to them the nature of an elephant, about which they had heard much. It happened that one of these animals was present near the walls of their city. One expert who examined the elephant's leg by feeling it came to the conclusion that the elephant was a column. Another expert, upon touching carefully the animal's tail, stated that the elephant was a rope. The expert who got the tusk was absolutely sure that the elephant resembled a ploughshare. Clearly, the experts failed to agree and continued to dispute all their lives, since each one felt that their case was based firmly on established facts. Thus, each of them was in the right, but all of them were wrong on the whole. Cell physiology and the scientists dealing with study of this discipline somewhat remind us of the meaning of this parable. To some of them, cell physiology focuses on the plasma membrane, to others the nucleus is the key, yet others prefer seeing the key to the mysteries to be found in signaling pathways. The "touching" of individual cell parts continues in contemporary cell biology. Fortunately, the cell itself gives us examples of its reactions that imply the basis for generalizations, for a broad view of cell physiology. One such example is the universal cellular reaction (UCR) to external actions, which was studied in detail by the physiological school of the outstanding Russian scientist, Dmitrii Nasonov (1895-1957), founder of the Institute of Cytology of the Russian Academy of Sciences... This theme is continued in the article: Vladimir Matveev. Protoreaction of Protoplasm. Cell. Mol. Biol. 51(8): 715-723, 2005. See full text here: http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/protoreaction.htm

Search apoptosis inside the article: Vladimir Matveev. Protoreaction of Protoplasm. Cell. Mol. Biol. 51(8): 715-723, 2005 Abstract. My goal is to describe briefly the universal cellular reaction (UCR) to external actions and agents. This general reaction was the main subject of investigation by the scientific school of the outstanding Russian cytologist, Dmitrii Nasonov (1895-1957). The UCR consists of two phases of complex changes in cellular viscosity and turbidity, in the cell's ability to bind vital dyes, in the resting membrane potential, and in cellular resistance to harmful actions. Works from the Nasonov School have shown that these changes are based on structural-functional transformations of many cell proteins that react uniformly to actions of different physical and chemical nature. In general, these complex changes do not depend on cell type, indicating the universal and ancient nature of the UCR as well as its general biological significance. A new interpretation of the mechanism of the universal reaction is proposed in this paper, and a possible role for contractile proteins in the mechanism of the UCR of muscle cells is presented. In addition, the concept of cell hydrophobicity is introduced. Nasonov's School proposed a concept of physiological standardization that allows comparison of data obtained by different investigators and that will also be described here. See full text here: http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/protoreaction.htm