ArticleJournal of muscle research and cell motility2005
Dynamics of crossbridge-mediated activation in the heart.
Article in Journal of muscle research and cell motility, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene transfer, expression, and sarcomeric incorporation of a headless myosin molecule in cardiac myocytes: evidence for a reserve in myofilament motor function.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Both intracellular calcium and strongly bound crossbridges contribute to thin filament activation in the heart, but the magnitude and the duration of the effects due to crossbridges are not well characterized. In this study, crossbridge attachment was altered in tetanized ferret papillary muscles and changes in the rate constant for the recovery of force (k (TR)) and unloaded shortening velocity (V (U)) were measured to track thin filament activation. k (TR) decreased as the time the muscles spent at low levels of crossbridge attachment (shortening deactivation) increased (0.02 s=17.9+/-2.3 s(-1), 0.32 s=3.3+/-0.4 s(-1); half-time=0.052 s; P<0.05). Furthermore, the deactivation was reversible and k (TR) recovered when muscles were allowed to regenerate force isometrically during the same tetanus. V (U) also decreased when the preceding load was lower (isometric load, V (U)=1.93+/-0.26 muscle lengths/s (ML/s); zero load, V (U)=0.93+/-0.14 ML/s, P<0.05) and as the length of time the muscle spent unloaded increased (>60% decline after 0.3 s). In addition, V (U) recovered when the muscle was allowed to regenerate force isometrically. These results indicate that crossbridge attachment increases thin filament activation as reflected in measurements of V (U) and k (TR). This 'extra' activation by crossbridges appears to be a dynamic process that decays during unloaded shortening and redevelops during isometric contraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.