The latch-bridge hypothesis of smooth muscle contraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to striated muscle, both normalized force and shortening velocities are regulated functions of cross-bridge phosphorylation in smooth muscle. Physiologically this is manifested as relatively fast rates of contraction associated with transiently high levels of cross-bridge phosphorylation. In sustained contractions, Ca2+, cross-bridge phosphorylation, and ATP consumption rates fall, a phenomenon termed "latch". This review focuses on the Hai and Murphy (1988a) model that predicted the highly non-linear dependence of force on phosphorylation and a directly proportional dependence of shortening velocity on phosphorylation. This model hypothesized that (i) cross-bridge phosphorylation was obligatory for cross-bridge attachment, but also that (ii) dephosphorylation of an attached cross-bridge reduced its detachment rate. The resulting variety of cross-bridge cycles as predicted by the model could explain the observed dependencies of force and velocity on cross-bridge phosphorylation. New evidence supports modifications for more general applicability. First, myosin light chain phosphatase activity is regulated. Activation of myosin phosphatase is best demonstrated with inhibitory regulatory mechanisms acting via nitric oxide. The second modification of the model incorporates cooperativity in cross-bridge attachment to predict improved data on the dependence of force on phosphorylation. The molecular basis for cooperativity is unknown, but may involve thin filament proteins absent in striated muscle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".