4.7 Article

Extensive eccentric contractions in intact cardiac trabeculae: revealing compelling differences in contractile behaviour compared to skeletal muscles

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0719

关键词

heart muscle; titin-actin interactions; contractile properties; lengthening contractions; linear muscle behaviour; blebbistatin

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of the International Graduate Research Group on Soft Tissue Robotics-Simulation-Driven Concepts and Design for Control and Automation for Robotic Devices Interacting with Soft Tissues [SI841/15-1, SI841/17-1, GRK 2198/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Force enhancement (FE) is a phenomenon that is present in skeletal muscle. It is characterized by progressive forces upon active stretching-distinguished by a linear rise in force-and enhanced isometric force following stretching (residual FE (RFE)). In skeletal muscle, non-cross-bridge (XB) structures may account for this behaviour. So far, it is unknown whether differences between non-XB structures within the heart and skeletal muscle result in deviating contractile behaviour during and after eccentric contractions. Thus, we investigated the force response of intact cardiac trabeculae during and after isokinetic eccentric muscle contractions (10% of maximum shortening velocity) with extensive magnitudes of stretch (25% of optimum muscle length). The different contributions of XB and non-XB structures to the total muscle force were revealed by using an actomyosin inhibitor. For cardiac trabeculae, we found that the force-length dynamics during long stretch were similar to the total isometric force-length relation. This indicates that no (R)FE is present in cardiac muscle while stretching the muscle from 0.75 to 1.0 optimum muscle length. This finding is in contrast with the results obtained for skeletal muscle, in which (R)FE is present. Our data support the hypothesis that titin stiffness does not increase with activation in cardiac muscle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据