Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24888691›Full record

ReviewPflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology2015

Mechanotransduction in the muscle spindle.

Guy S Bewick, Robert W Banks

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Why is the muscle spindle so complicated?Experimental physiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Biophysical model of muscle spindle encoding.Experimental physiology · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guy S BewickSchool of Medical Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK, g.s.bewick@abdn.ac.uk.
Robert W Banks

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The focus of this review is on the principal sensory ending of the mammalian muscle spindle, known as the primary ending. The process of mechanosensory transduction in the primary ending is examined under five headings: (i) action potential responses to defined mechanical stimuli-representing the ending's input-output properties; (ii) the receptor potential-including the currents giving rise to it; (iii) sensory-terminal deformation-measurable changes in the shape of the primary-ending terminals correlated with intrafusal sarcomere length, and what may cause them; (iv) putative stretch-sensitive channels-pharmacological and immunocytochemical clues to their identity; and (v) synaptic-like vesicles-the physiology and pharmacology of an intrinsic glutamatergic system in the primary and other mechanosensory endings, with some thoughts on the possible role of the system. Thus, the review highlights spindle stretch-evoked output is the product of multi-ionic receptor currents plus complex and sophisticated regulatory gain controls, both positive and negative in nature, as befits its status as the most complex sensory organ after the special senses.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAfferent PathwaysAnimalsHumansMechanotransduction, CellularModels, BiologicalMuscle ContractionMuscle SpindlesReflex, StretchStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID24888691
PMCPMC4281366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.