Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle contraction and force regulation in skeletal muscle have been thought to occur exclusively through the relative sliding of and the interaction between the contractile filaments actin and myosin. While this two-filament sarcomere model has worked well in explaining the properties of isometrically and concentrically contracting muscle, it has failed miserably in explaining experimental observations in eccentric contractions. Here, I suggest, and provide evidence, that a third filament, titin, is involved in force regulation of sarcomeres by adjusting its stiffness in an activation-dependent (calcium) and active force-dependent manner. Upon muscle activation, titin binds calcium at specific sites, thereby increasing its stiffness, and cross-bridge attachment to actin is thought to free up binding sites for titin on actin, thereby reducing titin's free-spring length, thus increasing its stiffness and force upon stretch of active muscle. This role of titin as a third force regulating myofilament in sarcomeres, although not fully proven, would account for many of the unexplained properties of eccentric muscle contraction, while simultaneously not affecting the properties predicted by the two-filament cross-bridge model in isometric and concentric muscle function. Here, I identify the problems of the two-filament sarcomere model and demonstrate the advantages of the three-filament model by providing evidence of titin's contribution to active force in eccentric muscle function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".