Mechanisms of enhanced force production in lengthening (eccentric) muscle contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to isometric and shortening contractions, many observations made on actively lengthening muscles cannot be readily explained with the sliding filament and cross-bridge theory. Specifically, residual force enhancement, the persistent increase in force following active muscle lengthening, beyond what one would expect based on muscle length, has not been explained satisfactorily. Here, we summarize the experimental evidence on residual force enhancement, critically evaluate proposed mechanisms for the residual force enhancement, and propose a mechanism for residual force enhancement that explains all currently agreed upon experimental observations. The proposed mechanism is based on the engagement of the structural protein titin upon muscle activation and an increase in titin's resistance to active compared with passive stretching. This change in resistance from the passive to the active state is suggested to be based on 1) calcium binding by titin upon activation, 2) binding of titin to actin upon activation, and 3) as a consequence of titin-actin binding--a shift toward stiffer titin segments that are used in active compared with passive muscle elongation. Although there is some experimental evidence for the proposed mechanism, it must be stressed that much of the details proposed here remain unclear and should provide ample research opportunities for scientists in the future. Nevertheless, the proposed mechanism for residual force enhancement explains all basic findings in this area of research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".