MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132810653 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0467

The mechanisms of the residual force enhancement after stretch of skeletal muscle: non-uniformity in half-sarcomeres and stiffness of titin

2012· review· en· W2132810653 on OpenAlexaff
Dilson E. Rassier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTitinSarcomereIsometric exerciseMyofibrilMyosinStiffnessBiophysicsActinMaterials scienceSkeletal muscleChemistryAnatomyMyocyteBiologyComposite materialCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When activated skeletal muscles are stretched, the force increases significantly. After the stretch, the force decreases and reaches a steady-state level that is higher than the force produced at the corresponding length during purely isometric contractions. This phenomenon, referred to as residual force enhancement, has been observed for more than 50 years, but the mechanism remains elusive, generating considerable debate in the literature. This paper reviews studies performed with single muscle fibres, myofibrils and sarcomeres to investigate the mechanisms of the stretch-induced force enhancement. First, the paper summarizes the characteristics of force enhancement and early hypotheses associated with non-uniformity of sarcomere length. Then, it reviews new evidence suggesting that force enhancement can also be associated with sarcomeric structures. Finally, this paper proposes that force enhancement is caused by: (i) half-sarcomere non-uniformities that will affect the levels of passive forces and overlap between myosin and actin filaments, and (ii) a Ca(2+)-induced stiffness of titin molecules. These mechanisms are compatible with most observations in the literature, and can be tested directly with emerging technologies in the near future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207