2010
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00222.2010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Force enhancement following stretch in a single sarcomere

Abstract: It has been accepted for half a century that, for a given level of activation, the steady-state isometric force of a muscle sarcomere depends exclusively on the amount of overlap between the contractile filaments actin and myosin, or equivalently sarcomere length (Gordon AM et al., J Physiol 184: 170 -192, 1966). Moreover, according to the generally accepted paradigm of muscle contraction, the cross-bridge theory (Huxley AF, Prog Biophys Biophys Chem 7: 255-318, 1957), this steady-state isometric sarcomere fo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
105
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
8
105
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The level of force enhancement, when observed, was 10.46 Ϯ 0.78%, smaller than that observed in larger preparations and similar conditions of stretch. Although our results are difficult to compare with larger preparations, another study that investigated force enhancement in sarcomeres from the rabbit psoas muscle showed contrastingly different results (28). Leonard et al (28) observed that the force produced after stretching the preparation from 2.4 to 3.4 m was 285% higher than that produced during isometric contractions at 3.4 m. We do not have an explanation for the large discrepancy between the studies, which is even more significant if we consider that several sarcomeres that we tested did not show a residual force enhancement.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The level of force enhancement, when observed, was 10.46 Ϯ 0.78%, smaller than that observed in larger preparations and similar conditions of stretch. Although our results are difficult to compare with larger preparations, another study that investigated force enhancement in sarcomeres from the rabbit psoas muscle showed contrastingly different results (28). Leonard et al (28) observed that the force produced after stretching the preparation from 2.4 to 3.4 m was 285% higher than that produced during isometric contractions at 3.4 m. We do not have an explanation for the large discrepancy between the studies, which is even more significant if we consider that several sarcomeres that we tested did not show a residual force enhancement.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…Furthermore, in several preparations, half-sarcomere nonuniformities were not observed and still showed a residual force enhancement after stretch, suggesting that it contains the participation of a sarcomeric structure. In recent years, it has been suggested that titin, responsible for most of the passive forces in muscle fibers and myofibrils, could be responsible for the residual force enhancement (23,28,29,33). Conceptually, there are three mechanisms by which titin could be independently tuned by Ca 2ϩ .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This process would not occur at 32 mol/liter of Ca 2ϩ where all actin sites are already available. The above analysis assumes that passive elasticity is unaffected by [Ca 2ϩ ], which may be an oversimplification (22).…”
Section: Effect Of Sarcomere Length and Activation Level On Isometricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mechanisms of RFE are believed to be a combination of both active and passive properties of muscle force generating and transmitting structures (Herzog and Leonard, 2002). Force enhancement is evident in various preparations (Joumaa et al, 2008;Julian and Morgan, 1979;Leonard et al, 2010;Rassier et al, 2003;Rassier and Pavlov, 2012;Telley et al, 2006) and also in studies on humans (Lee and Herzog, 2002;Pinniger and Cresswell, 2007;Tilp et al, 2009). Whereas stretch leads to RFE, repeated unaccustomed lengthening contractions result in muscle damage, by decreasing force generation through mechanical disruption of sarcomeres (Hough, 1900) and impairing excitation contraction (E-C) coupling (Allen, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%