Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29043260›Full record

ReviewGlobal cardiology science & practice2016

Muscle contraction: Sliding filament history, sarcomere dynamics and the two Huxleys.

John M Squire

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global cardiology science & practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Muscle Diffraction at the Life Science X-ray Scattering Beamline.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Muscle-fiber specific genetic manipulation ofFrontiers in physiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Which way to grow? Force over time may be the heart'sGlobal cardiology science & practice · 2016
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John M SquireMuscle Contraction Group, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK.
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite having all the evidence needed to come to the right conclusions in the middle of the 1800s, it was not until the 1950s that it was realised by two unrelated Huxleys and their collaborators that striated muscle sarcomeres contain overlapping sets of filaments which do not change much in length and which slide past each other when the muscle sarcomere shortens. It then took quite a while to convince others that this was the case, but now the idea of sliding filaments is fundamental to our understanding of how any muscle works. Here a brief overview of the history of the discovery of sliding filaments and the factors that were missed in the 1800s is followed by an analysis of the more recent experiments which have added to the conviction that all muscles operate on the same guiding principles; two sets of sliding filaments, independent force generators and a mechanism of protein rowing that makes the filaments slide.

Identifiers

PMID29043260
PMCPMC5642817
OpenAlexW2560534581

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.