Muscle Function from Organisms to Molecules

Kiisa C Nishikawa, Jenna A. Monroy, Uzma Tahir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Gaps in our understanding of muscle contraction at the molecular level limit the ability to predict in vivo muscle forces in humans and animals during natural movements. Because muscles function as motors, springs, brakes, or struts, it is not surprising that uncertainties remain as to how sarcomeres produce these different behaviors. Current theories fail to explain why a single extra stimulus, added shortly after the onset of a train of stimuli, doubles the rate of force development. When stretch and doublet stimulation are combined in a work loop, muscle force doubles and work increases by 50% per cycle, yet no theory explains why this occurs. Current theories also fail to predict persistent increases in force after stretch and decreases in force after shortening. Early studies suggested that all of the instantaneous elasticity of muscle resides in the cross-bridges. Subsequent cross-bridge models explained the increase in force during active stretch, but required ad hoc assumptions that are now thought to be unreasonable. Recent estimates suggest that cross-bridges account for only ∼12% of the energy stored by muscles during active stretch. The inability of cross-bridges to account for the increase in force that persists after active stretching led to development of the sarcomere inhomogeneity theory. Nearly all predictions of this theory fail, yet the theory persists. In stretch-shortening cycles, muscles with similar activation and contractile properties function as motors or brakes. A change in the phase of activation relative to the phase of length changes can convert a muscle from a motor into a spring or brake. Based on these considerations, it is apparent that the current paradigm of muscle mechanics is incomplete. Recent advances in our understanding of giant muscle proteins, including twitchin and titin, allow us to expand our vision beyond cross-bridges to understand how muscles contribute to the biomechanics and control of movement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)194-206
Number of pages13
JournalIntegrative and Comparative Biology
Volume58
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

muscles
organisms
sarcomeres
shortenings
muscle contraction
muscle protein
phase transition
elasticity (mechanics)
mechanics
uncertainty
prediction
energy
animals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Plant Science

Cite this

Muscle Function from Organisms to Molecules. / Nishikawa, Kiisa C; Monroy, Jenna A.; Tahir, Uzma.

In: Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 58, No. 2, 01.08.2018, p. 194-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nishikawa, Kiisa C ; Monroy, Jenna A. ; Tahir, Uzma. / Muscle Function from Organisms to Molecules. In: Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2018 ; Vol. 58, No. 2. pp. 194-206.
@article{d4762f3bc9e6482ab9340468494820cb,
title = "Muscle Function from Organisms to Molecules",
abstract = "Gaps in our understanding of muscle contraction at the molecular level limit the ability to predict in vivo muscle forces in humans and animals during natural movements. Because muscles function as motors, springs, brakes, or struts, it is not surprising that uncertainties remain as to how sarcomeres produce these different behaviors. Current theories fail to explain why a single extra stimulus, added shortly after the onset of a train of stimuli, doubles the rate of force development. When stretch and doublet stimulation are combined in a work loop, muscle force doubles and work increases by 50{\%} per cycle, yet no theory explains why this occurs. Current theories also fail to predict persistent increases in force after stretch and decreases in force after shortening. Early studies suggested that all of the instantaneous elasticity of muscle resides in the cross-bridges. Subsequent cross-bridge models explained the increase in force during active stretch, but required ad hoc assumptions that are now thought to be unreasonable. Recent estimates suggest that cross-bridges account for only ∼12{\%} of the energy stored by muscles during active stretch. The inability of cross-bridges to account for the increase in force that persists after active stretching led to development of the sarcomere inhomogeneity theory. Nearly all predictions of this theory fail, yet the theory persists. In stretch-shortening cycles, muscles with similar activation and contractile properties function as motors or brakes. A change in the phase of activation relative to the phase of length changes can convert a muscle from a motor into a spring or brake. Based on these considerations, it is apparent that the current paradigm of muscle mechanics is incomplete. Recent advances in our understanding of giant muscle proteins, including twitchin and titin, allow us to expand our vision beyond cross-bridges to understand how muscles contribute to the biomechanics and control of movement.",
author = "Nishikawa, {Kiisa C} and Monroy, {Jenna A.} and Uzma Tahir",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/icb/icy023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "194--206",
journal = "Integrative and Comparative Biology",
issn = "1540-7063",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Muscle Function from Organisms to Molecules

AU - Nishikawa, Kiisa C

AU - Monroy, Jenna A.

AU - Tahir, Uzma

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Gaps in our understanding of muscle contraction at the molecular level limit the ability to predict in vivo muscle forces in humans and animals during natural movements. Because muscles function as motors, springs, brakes, or struts, it is not surprising that uncertainties remain as to how sarcomeres produce these different behaviors. Current theories fail to explain why a single extra stimulus, added shortly after the onset of a train of stimuli, doubles the rate of force development. When stretch and doublet stimulation are combined in a work loop, muscle force doubles and work increases by 50% per cycle, yet no theory explains why this occurs. Current theories also fail to predict persistent increases in force after stretch and decreases in force after shortening. Early studies suggested that all of the instantaneous elasticity of muscle resides in the cross-bridges. Subsequent cross-bridge models explained the increase in force during active stretch, but required ad hoc assumptions that are now thought to be unreasonable. Recent estimates suggest that cross-bridges account for only ∼12% of the energy stored by muscles during active stretch. The inability of cross-bridges to account for the increase in force that persists after active stretching led to development of the sarcomere inhomogeneity theory. Nearly all predictions of this theory fail, yet the theory persists. In stretch-shortening cycles, muscles with similar activation and contractile properties function as motors or brakes. A change in the phase of activation relative to the phase of length changes can convert a muscle from a motor into a spring or brake. Based on these considerations, it is apparent that the current paradigm of muscle mechanics is incomplete. Recent advances in our understanding of giant muscle proteins, including twitchin and titin, allow us to expand our vision beyond cross-bridges to understand how muscles contribute to the biomechanics and control of movement.

AB - Gaps in our understanding of muscle contraction at the molecular level limit the ability to predict in vivo muscle forces in humans and animals during natural movements. Because muscles function as motors, springs, brakes, or struts, it is not surprising that uncertainties remain as to how sarcomeres produce these different behaviors. Current theories fail to explain why a single extra stimulus, added shortly after the onset of a train of stimuli, doubles the rate of force development. When stretch and doublet stimulation are combined in a work loop, muscle force doubles and work increases by 50% per cycle, yet no theory explains why this occurs. Current theories also fail to predict persistent increases in force after stretch and decreases in force after shortening. Early studies suggested that all of the instantaneous elasticity of muscle resides in the cross-bridges. Subsequent cross-bridge models explained the increase in force during active stretch, but required ad hoc assumptions that are now thought to be unreasonable. Recent estimates suggest that cross-bridges account for only ∼12% of the energy stored by muscles during active stretch. The inability of cross-bridges to account for the increase in force that persists after active stretching led to development of the sarcomere inhomogeneity theory. Nearly all predictions of this theory fail, yet the theory persists. In stretch-shortening cycles, muscles with similar activation and contractile properties function as motors or brakes. A change in the phase of activation relative to the phase of length changes can convert a muscle from a motor into a spring or brake. Based on these considerations, it is apparent that the current paradigm of muscle mechanics is incomplete. Recent advances in our understanding of giant muscle proteins, including twitchin and titin, allow us to expand our vision beyond cross-bridges to understand how muscles contribute to the biomechanics and control of movement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055774937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055774937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/icb/icy023

DO - 10.1093/icb/icy023

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 194

EP - 206

JO - Integrative and Comparative Biology

JF - Integrative and Comparative Biology

SN - 1540-7063

IS - 2

ER -