ArticleJournal of muscle research and cell motility2006
Physiological consequences of thin filament cooperativity for vertebrate striated muscle contraction: a theoretical study.
Article in Journal of muscle research and cell motility, 2006. 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.
- Dynamics of thin-filament activation in rabbit skeletal muscle fibers examined by time-resolved x-ray diffraction.Biophysical journal · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bindings of both myosin and Ca(2+) to the thin filament of vertebrate striated muscle are known to be strongly cooperative. Here the relation between these two sources of cooperativity and their consequences for physiological properties are assessed by comparing two models, with and without Monod-type myosin-binding cooperativity. In both models a thin filament regulatory unit (RU) is in either 'off' or 'on' state, and the equilibrium between them (K (on)) is [Ca(2+)]-dependent. The calculations predict the following: (1) In both models, myosin binding stabilizes the RU in the 'on' state, causing troponin to trap Ca(2+). This stabilization in turn increases the Ca(2+)-binding cooperativity, ensuring efficient regulation to occur in a narrow [Ca(2+)] range. (2) In the cooperative model, the RU is stabilized with a relatively low myosin affinity for actin (K approximately approximately 1), while the non-cooperative model requires a much higher affinity (K approximately approximately 10) to produce the same effect. (3) The cooperative model reproduces the known effects of [Ca(2+)] on the rate of force development and shortening velocity with a low K, but again the non-cooperative model requires a higher value. (4) Because of the finite value of K (on), the thin filaments can never be fully activated by increasing [Ca(2+)], indicating that contracting muscles are under strong influence of thin-filament cooperativity even at saturating [Ca(2+)]. Interpretation of data on muscle mechanics without considering these cooperative effects could therefore lead to a substantial (10-fold) overestimate of cross-bridge binding properties.
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.