4.3 Article

The latch-bridge hypothesis of smooth muscle contraction

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Y05-090

关键词

chemo-mechanical transduction; activation-contraction coupling; cross-bridge; myosin light chain kinase; myosin light chain phosphatase; phosphorylation; cooperativity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL071191-03, R01 HL071191, HL71191] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK56034, R01 DK056034] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to striated muscle, both normalized force and shortening velocities are regulated functions of cross-bridge phosphorylation in smooth muscle. Physiologically this is manifested as relatively fast rates of contraction associated with transiently high levels of cross-bridge phosphorylation. In sustained contractions, Ca2+, cross-bridge phosphorylation, and ATP consumption rates fall, a phenomenon termed latch. This review focuses on the Hai and Murphy (1988a) model that predicted the highly non-linear dependence of force on phosphorylation and a directly proportional dependence of shortening velocity on phosphorylation. This model hypothesized that (i) cross-bridge phosphorylation was obligatory for cross-bridge attachment, but also that (ii) dephosphorylation of an attached cross-bridge reduced its detachment rate. The resulting variety of cross-bridge cycles as predicted by the model could explain the observed dependencies of force and velocity on cross-bridge phosphorylation. New evidence supports modifications for more general applicability. First, myosin light chain phosphatase activity is regulated. Activation of myosin phosphatase is best demonstrated with inhibitory regulatory mechanisms acting via nitric oxide. The second modification of the model incorporates cooperativity in cross-bridge attachment to predict improved data on the dependence of force on phosphorylation. The molecular basis for cooperativity is unknown, but may involve thin filament proteins absent in striated 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

4.3
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