4.5 Review Book Chapter

The Sliding Filament Theory Since Andrew Huxley: Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Muscle Research

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOPHYSICS, VOL 50, 2021
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 373-400

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-110320-062613

关键词

skeletal muscle; cardiac muscle; sarcomere; myofilament; myosin

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF-14-1-0396]
  2. Joan and Richard Komen Endowed Chair
  3. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [T32EB1650]
  4. ARCS Foundation
  5. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [P30 AR074990]
  6. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [HL128368, F32 HL152573]
  7. European Union [777204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of muscle physiology, starting from the sliding filament theory in 1954, aims to understand the multiscale processes that govern muscle function. This understanding has significant consequences for various applications, but connecting structural and functional properties across different scales remains a challenge.
Two groundbreaking papers published in 1954 laid out the theory of the mechanism of muscle contraction based on force-generating interactions between myofilaments in the sarcomere that cause filaments to slide past one another during muscle contraction. The succeeding decades of research in muscle physiology have revealed a unifying interest: to understand the multiscale processes-from atom to organ-that govern muscle function. Such an understanding would have profound consequences for a vast array of applications, from developing new biomimetic technologies to treating heart disease. However, connecting structural and functional properties that are relevant at one spatiotemporal scale to those that are relevant at other scales remains a great challenge. Through a lens of multiscale dynamics, we review in this article current and historical research in muscle physiology sparked by the sliding filament theory.

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

4.5
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