The mechanisms of the residual force enhancement after stretch of skeletal muscle: non-uniformity in half-sarcomeres and stiffness of titin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".