Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 1990 Feb;57(2):201–208. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(90)82523-6

Cross-bridge cycling theories cannot explain high-speed lengthening behavior in frog muscle.

J D Harry 1, A W Ward 1, N C Heglund 1, D L Morgan 1, T A McMahon 1
PMCID: PMC1280662  PMID: 2317546

Abstract

The Huxley 1957 model of cross-bridge cycling accounts for the shortening force-velocity curve of striated muscle with great precision. For forced lengthening, however, the model diverges from experimental results. This paper examines whether it is possible to bring the model into better agreement with experiments, and if so what must be assumed about the mechanical capabilities of cross-bridges. Of particular interest is how introduction of a maximum allowable cross-bridge strain, as has been suggested by some experiments, affects the predictions of the model. Because some differences in the models are apparent only at high stretch velocities, we acquired new force-velocity data to permit a comparison with experiment. Using whole, isolated frog sartorius muscles at 2 degrees C, we stretched active muscle at speeds up to and exceeding 2 Vmax. Force during stretch was always greater than the peak isometric level, even during the fastest stretches, and was approximately independent of velocity for stretches faster than 0.5 Vmax. Although certain modifications to the model brought it into closer correspondence with the experiments, the accompanying requirements on cross-bridge extensibility were unreasonable. We suggest (both in this paper and the one that follows) that sarcomere inhomogeneities, which have been implicated in such phenomena as "tension creep" and "permanent extra tension," may also play an important role in determining the basic force-velocity characteristics of muscle.

Full text

PDF
201

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Edman K. A., Elzinga G., Noble M. I. Enhancement of mechanical performance by stretch during tetanic contractions of vertebrate skeletal muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1978 Aug;281:139–155. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Eisenberg E., Hill T. L., Chen Y. Cross-bridge model of muscle contraction. Quantitative analysis. Biophys J. 1980 Feb;29(2):195–227. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(80)85126-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Flitney F. W., Hirst D. G. Cross-bridge detachment and sarcomere 'give' during stretch of active frog's muscle. J Physiol. 1978 Mar;276:449–465. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gordon A. M., Huxley A. F., Julian F. J. The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1966 May;184(1):170–192. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp007909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HUXLEY A. F. Muscle structure and theories of contraction. Prog Biophys Biophys Chem. 1957;7:255–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hill T. L., Eisenberg E., Chen Y. D., Podolsky R. J. Some self-consistent two-state sliding filament models of muscle contraction. Biophys J. 1975 Apr;15(4):335–372. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(75)85823-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Huxley A. F., Simmons R. M. Proposed mechanism of force generation in striated muscle. Nature. 1971 Oct 22;233(5321):533–538. doi: 10.1038/233533a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. JEWELL B. R., WILKIE D. R. An analysis of the mechanical components in frog's striated muscle. J Physiol. 1958 Oct 31;143(3):515–540. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1958.sp006075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Joyce G. C., Rack P. M., Westbury D. R. The mechanical properties of cat soleus muscle during controlled lengthening and shortening movements. J Physiol. 1969 Oct;204(2):461–474. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Julian F. J., Morgan D. L. The effect on tension of non-uniform distribution of length changes applied to frog muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1979 Aug;293:379–392. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1979.sp012895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Julian F. J., Sollins K. R., Sollins M. R. A model for the transient and steady-state mechanical behavior of contracting muscle. Biophys J. 1974 Jul;14(7):546–562. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(74)85934-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Julian F. J., Sollins M. R., Moss R. L. Sarcomere length non-uniformity in relation to tetanic responses of stretched skeletal muscle fibres. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1978 Jan 24;200(1138):109–116. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1978.0009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Katz B. The relation between force and speed in muscular contraction. J Physiol. 1939 Jun 14;96(1):45–64. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1939.sp003756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sugi H. Tension changes during and after stretch in frog muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1972 Aug;225(1):237–253. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp009935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES