MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614062063

TITIN HYSTERESIS AND ELASTIICTY IN ACTIVELY STRETCHED MUSCLE MYOFIBRILS

2015· article· en· W2614062063 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Craig Martis, Kaleena Johnston, Azim Jinha, T.R. Leonard, Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcomereMyofibrilTitinBiophysicsObscurinActinMyofilamentChemistryAnatomyMaterials scienceMyosinMyocyteBiologyBiochemistryCell biology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Titin is a protein that spans the length of a half sarcomere in skeletal muscle myofibrils. It behaves like a molecular spring within the myofibril, playing a role in stabilizing sarcomeres and regulating passive force [1, 2]. Isolated titin has been shown to be essentially elastic if immunoglobulin (Ig) domain unfolding/refolding is prevented [3]. In its native, sarcomeric environment, it has been suggested that stretching and holding a myofibril at very long lengths produces a time-dependent unfolding of all Ig domains, thus, allowing titin’s elastic behavior to be exhibited [4]. Experiments on active myofibrils showed a decrease in force and a persistent hysteresis throughout a stretch-shortening (SS) protocol, suggesting a time-dependent unfolding of Ig domains [5]. Holding active myofibrils at long lengths prior to stretch-shortening cycles should allow most (all) of the Ig domains to unfold thus reducing (eliminating) force loss and hysteresis. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that holding myofibrils at long lengths prior to small stretch-shortening cycles would result in essentially elastic properties of myofibrils, compared to the highly visco-elastic properties for conditions without holding. METHODS Rabbit psoas muscle myofibrils (n = 5) with clear striation patterns were tested. Single myofibrils were attached at one end to a glass needle (to control length) and at the other end to a nanolever (to quantify force). Myofibrils were activated at an average sarcomere length of 2.7 µm, and then stretched to a length of 5.2 µm/sarcomere, where they were held for 2 minutes to allow for Ig domain unfolding to occur. The myofibril then underwent a SS protocol with amplitude of ± 0.25 µm (10 cycles) before being shortened to its original length. Myofibril length, diameter, and force were quantified. Diameter was used to calculate cross-sectional area, which accommodated the calculation of myofibril stress from force. Hystereses were calculated as the difference in area under the loading and unloading curves for each SS cycle of the force-length plots. RESULTS Peak stress throughout the 10 cycles remained approximately constant, averaging 102 % relative to the first cycle (Fig 1a). Hysteresis did not follow a specific trend throughout the 10 SS cycles (Fig 1b). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The “constant” peak forces are indicative of elastic recoil of myofibrils during the SS cycles. However, the persistent and random hystereses are indicative of viscous properties. If Ig domains were still unfolding during the SS cycles, peak stresses should also decrease. Since this is not observed, we suggest that all Ig domains are unfolded in this experiment, and that the viscous behaviour producing the hystereses must come from a source other than titin. At this point, any proposition as to the origin of the remnant hystereses is highly speculative but might be associated with titin binding-unbinding to another structural (titin) or contractile (actin) protein that is forming and breaking continuously during the SS cycles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207