Residual force enhancement in myofibrils and sarcomeres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residual force enhancement has been observed following active stretch of skeletal muscles and single fibres. However, there has been intense debate whether force enhancement is a sarcomeric property, or is associated with sarcomere length instability and the associated development of non-uniformities. Here, we studied force enhancement for the first time in isolated myofibrils (n=18) that, owing to the strict in series arrangement, allowed for evaluation of this property in individual sarcomeres (n=79). We found consistent force enhancement following stretch in all myofibrils and each sarcomere, and forces in the enhanced state typically exceeded the isometric forces on the plateau of the force-length relationship. Measurements were made on the plateau and the descending limb of the force-length relationship and revealed gross sarcomere length non-uniformities prior to and following active myofibril stretching, but in contrast to previous accounts, revealed that sarcomere lengths were perfectly stable under these experimental conditions. We conclude that force enhancement is a sarcomeric property that does not depend on sarcomere length instability, that force enhancement varies greatly for different sarcomeres within the same myofibril and that sarcomeres with vastly different amounts of actin-myosin overlap produce the same isometric steady-state forces. This last finding was not explained by differences in the amount of contractile proteins within sarcomeres, vastly different passive properties of individual sarcomeres or (half-) sarcomere length instabilities, suggesting that the basic mechanical properties of muscles, such as force enhancement, force depression and creep, which have traditionally been associated with sarcomere instabilities and the corresponding dynamic redistribution of sarcomere lengths, are not caused by such instabilities, but rather seem to be inherent properties of the mechanisms of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".