Sarcomere mechanics in striated muscles: from molecules to sarcomeres to cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle contraction is commonly associated with the cross-bridge and sliding filament theories, which have received strong support from experiments conducted over the years in different laboratories. However, there are studies that cannot be readily explained by the theories, showing 1) a plateau of the force-length relation extended beyond optimal filament overlap, and forces produced at long sarcomere lengths that are higher than those predicted by the sliding filament theory; 2) passive forces at long sarcomere lengths that can be modulated by activation and Ca 2+ , which changes the force-length relation; and 3) an unexplained high force produced during and after stretch of activated muscle fibers. Some of these studies even propose “new theories of contraction.” While some of these observations deserve evaluation, many of these studies present data that lack a rigorous control and experiments that cannot be repeated in other laboratories. This article reviews these issues, looking into studies that have used intact and permeabilized fibers, myofibrils, isolated sarcomeres, and half-sarcomeres. A common mechanism associated with sarcomere and half-sarcomere length nonuniformities and a Ca 2+ -induced increase in the stiffness of titin is proposed to explain observations that derive from these studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".