Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 1988 Dec;54(6):1105–1114. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(88)83046-7

A model of force production that explains the lag between crossbridge attachment and force after electrical stimulation of striated muscle fibers.

M A Bagni 1, G Cecchi 1, M Schoenberg 1
PMCID: PMC1330421  PMID: 3233267

Abstract

Whereas the mechanical behavior of fully activated fibers can be explained by assuming that attached force-producing crossbridges exist in at least two configurations, one exerting more force than the other (Huxley A. F., and R. M. Simmons. 1971. Nature [Lond.]. 233:533-538), and the behavior of relaxed fibers can be explained by assuming a single population of weakly binding rapid-equilibrium crossbridges (Schoenberg, M. 1988. Biophys. J. 54:135-148), it has not been possible to explain the transition between rest and activation in these terms. The difficulty in explaining why, after electrical stimulation of resting intact frog skeletal muscle fibers at 1-5 degrees C, force development lags stiffness development by more than 15 ms has led a number of investigators to postulate additional crossbridge states. However, postulation of an additional crossbridge state will not explain the following three observations: (a) Although the lag between force and stiffness is very different after stimulation, during the redevelopment of force after an extended period of high velocity shortening, and during relaxation of a tetanus, nonetheless, the plots of force versus stiffness in each of these cases are approximately the same. (b) When the lag between stiffness and force during the rising phase of a twitch is changed nearly fourfold by changing temperature, again the plot of force versus stiffness remains essentially unchanged. (c) When a muscle fiber is subjected to a small quick length change, the rate constant for the isometric force recovery is faster when the length change is applied during the rising phase of a tenanus than when it is applied on the plateau. We have been able to explain all the above findings using a model for force production that is similar to the 1971 model of Huxley and Simmons, but which makes the additional assumption that the force-producing transition envisioned by them is a cooperative one, with the back rate constant of the force-producing transition decreasing as more crossbridges attach.

Full text

PDF
1105

Selected References

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

  1. Bremel R. D., Weber A. Cooperation within actin filament in vertebrate skeletal muscle. Nat New Biol. 1972 Jul 26;238(82):97–101. doi: 10.1038/newbio238097a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brenner B., Schoenberg M., Chalovich J. M., Greene L. E., Eisenberg E. Evidence for cross-bridge attachment in relaxed muscle at low ionic strength. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Dec;79(23):7288–7291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.79.23.7288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brenner B., Yu L. C., Greene L. E., Eisenberg E., Schoenberg M. Ca2+-sensitive cross-bridge dissociation in the presence of magnesium pyrophosphate in skinned rabbit psoas fibers. Biophys J. 1986 Dec;50(6):1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(86)83554-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bressler B. H., Clinch N. F. The compliance of contracting skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 1974 Mar;237(3):477–493. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bressler B. H., Dusik L. A., Menard M. R. Tension responses of frog skeletal muscle fibres to rapid shortening and lengthening steps. J Physiol. 1988 Mar;397:631–641. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1988.sp017022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cecchi G., Colomo F., Lombardi V., Piazzesi G. Stiffness of frog muscle fibres during rise of tension and relaxation in fixed-end or length-clamped tetani. Pflugers Arch. 1987 Jun;409(1-2):39–46. doi: 10.1007/BF00584747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cecchi G., Griffiths P. J., Taylor S. Muscular contraction: kinetics of crossbridge attachment studied by high-frequency stiffness measurements. Science. 1982 Jul 2;217(4554):70–72. doi: 10.1126/science.6979780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cecchi G., Griffiths P. J., Taylor S. Stiffness and force in activated frog skeletal muscle fibers. Biophys J. 1986 Feb;49(2):437–451. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(86)83653-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coates J. H., Criddle A. H., Geeves M. A. Pressure-relaxation studies of pyrene-labelled actin and myosin subfragment 1 from rabbit skeletal muscle. Evidence for two states of acto-subfragment 1. Biochem J. 1985 Dec 1;232(2):351–356. doi: 10.1042/bj2320351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenberg E., Hill T. L. Muscle contraction and free energy transduction in biological systems. Science. 1985 Mar 1;227(4690):999–1006. doi: 10.1126/science.3156404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ford L. E., Huxley A. F., Simmons R. M. Tension transients during the rise of tetanic tension in frog muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1986 Mar;372:595–609. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1986.sp016027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Geeves M. A., Goody R. S., Gutfreund H. Kinetics of acto-S1 interaction as a guide to a model for the crossbridge cycle. J Muscle Res Cell Motil. 1984 Aug;5(4):351–361. doi: 10.1007/BF00818255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Geeves M. A., Halsall D. J. Two-step ligand binding and cooperativity. A model to describe the cooperative binding of myosin subfragment 1 to regulated actin. Biophys J. 1987 Aug;52(2):215–220. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(87)83208-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gordon A. M., Ridgway E. B., Yates L. D., Allen T. Muscle cross-bridge attachment: effects on calcium binding and calcium activation. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1988;226:89–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Greene L. E., Chalovich J. M., Eisenberg E. Effect of nucleotide on the binding of N,N'-p-phenylenedimaleimide-modified S-1 to unregulated and regulated actin. Biochemistry. 1986 Feb 11;25(3):704–709. doi: 10.1021/bi00351a030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Greene L. E., Eisenberg E. Cooperative binding of myosin subfragment-1 to the actin-troponin-tropomyosin complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 May;77(5):2616–2620. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.5.2616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Greene L. The effect of nucleotide on the binding of myosin subfragment 1 to regulated actin. J Biol Chem. 1982 Dec 10;257(23):13993–13999. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Güth K., Potter J. D. Effect of rigor and cycling cross-bridges on the structure of troponin C and on the Ca2+ affinity of the Ca2+-specific regulatory sites in skinned rabbit psoas fibers. J Biol Chem. 1987 Oct 5;262(28):13627–13635. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. HUXLEY A. F. Muscle structure and theories of contraction. Prog Biophys Biophys Chem. 1957;7:255–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. HUXLEY A. F., NIEDERGERKE R. Structural changes in muscle during contraction; interference microscopy of living muscle fibres. Nature. 1954 May 22;173(4412):971–973. doi: 10.1038/173971a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. HUXLEY H., HANSON J. Changes in the cross-striations of muscle during contraction and stretch and their structural interpretation. Nature. 1954 May 22;173(4412):973–976. doi: 10.1038/173973a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrington W. F. On the origin of the contractile force in skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Oct;76(10):5066–5070. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.10.5066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Huxley H. E., Kress M. Crossbridge behaviour during muscle contraction. J Muscle Res Cell Motil. 1985 Apr;6(2):153–161. doi: 10.1007/BF00713057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kress M., Huxley H. E., Faruqi A. R., Hendrix J. Structural changes during activation of frog muscle studied by time-resolved X-ray diffraction. J Mol Biol. 1986 Apr 5;188(3):325–342. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(86)90158-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pate E., Cooke R. Energetics of the actomyosin bond in the filament array of muscle fibers. Biophys J. 1988 Apr;53(4):561–573. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(88)83136-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Reuben J. P., Brandt P. W., Berman M., Grundfest H. Regulation of tension in the skinned crayfish muscle fiber. I. Contraction and relaxation in the absence of Ca (pCa is greater than 9). J Gen Physiol. 1971 Apr;57(4):385–407. doi: 10.1085/jgp.57.4.385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schoenberg M., Brenner B., Chalovich J. M., Greene L. E., Eisenberg E. Cross-bridge attachment in relaxed muscle. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1984;170:269–284. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-4703-3_24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schoenberg M. Characterization of the myosin adenosine triphosphate (M.ATP) crossbridge in rabbit and frog skeletal muscle fibers. Biophys J. 1988 Jul;54(1):135–148. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(88)82938-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Schoenberg M., Wells J. B. Stiffness, force, and sarcomere shortening during a twitch in frog semitendinosus muscle bundles. Biophys J. 1984 Feb;45(2):389–397. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(84)84163-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Tamura Y., Hatta I., Matsuda T., Sugi H., Tsuchiya T. Changes in muscle stiffness during contraction recorded using ultrasonic waves. Nature. 1982 Oct 14;299(5884):631–633. doi: 10.1038/299631a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Trybus K. M., Taylor E. W. Kinetic studies of the cooperative binding of subfragment 1 to regulated actin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Dec;77(12):7209–7213. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.12.7209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Trybus K. M., Taylor E. W. Transient kinetics of adenosine 5'-diphosphate and adenosine 5'-(beta, gamma-imidotriphosphate) binding to subfragment 1 and actosubfragment 1. Biochemistry. 1982 Mar 16;21(6):1284–1294. doi: 10.1021/bi00535a028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES