Is titin a ‘winding filament’? A new twist on muscle contraction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated a role for the elastic protein titin in active muscle, but the mechanisms by which titin plays this role remain to be elucidated. In active muscle, Ca(2+)-binding has been shown to increase titin stiffness, but the observed increase is too small to explain the increased stiffness of parallel elastic elements upon muscle activation. We propose a 'winding filament' mechanism for titin's role in active muscle. First, we hypothesize that Ca(2+)-dependent binding of titin's N2A region to thin filaments increases titin stiffness by preventing low-force straightening of proximal immunoglobulin domains that occurs during passive stretch. This mechanism explains the difference in length dependence of force between skeletal myofibrils and cardiac myocytes. Second, we hypothesize that cross-bridges serve not only as motors that pull thin filaments towards the M-line, but also as rotors that wind titin on the thin filaments, storing elastic potential energy in PEVK during force development and active stretch. Energy stored during force development can be recovered during active shortening. The winding filament hypothesis accounts for force enhancement during stretch and force depression during shortening, and provides testable predictions that will encourage new directions for research on mechanisms of muscle contraction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it