10.7554/eLife.05472.007 Figure 3. Scaffolds show unidirectional movement along actin networks with directional flux controlled by relative motor number.
(C ) Summary plot depicting influence of relative motor number on directionality (red and blue) and speed (radius).
However, experiments with the isolated HLE signal indicated that total motor number is not the key determinant of the unidirectional mode of RNP movement.
The table is aligned such that Y-axis represents total motor number (x + y ), whereas X-axis represents the difference between the two myosin types (x − y ).
I understand that it discussed in the PNAS paper, but not in the same conditions of relative motor number, and it is striking from Figure 3 that the tracks are sometimes very short depending on the number of motors.
First, as previously reported (Hariadi et al., 2014), scaffold run length linearly increases with motor number (Supplementary file 2), suggesting that multiple motors on the same scaffold are capable of interacting with the actin network.
We have now extensively re-written the second section of the Results to delineate the contributions of scaffold type (quantum dot versus DNA nanostructure), motor number, and actin architecture.
Furthermore, the second section of the Results (paragraph 2) has been rewritten to clearly state the contributions of scaffold type, motor number, and actin architecture on ensemble competition and flux.
I understand that it discussed in the PNAS paper, but not in the same conditions of relative motor number, The run length was not a significant new finding in this manuscript.
The plot is aligned such that the y -axis represents total motor number (myosin V + myosin VI), whereas the x -axis represents the difference between the two myosin types (myosin V − myosin VI).
