Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36902460›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Effects of Hydrostatic-Pressure on Muscle Contraction: A Look Back on Some Experimental Findings.

K W Ranatunga, M A Geeves

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Special Issue "Skeletal Muscle Adaptations to Oxidative Stress".International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    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

2 authors.

K W RanatungaSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TD, UK.
M A GeevesDepartment of Biosciences, University of Kent, Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9364-8898

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Findings from experiments that used hydrostatic pressure changes to analyse the process of skeletal muscle contraction are re-examined. The force in resting muscle is insensitive to an increase in hydrostatic pressure from 0.1 MPa (atmospheric) to 10 MPa, as also found for force in rubber-like elastic filaments. The force in rigour muscle rises with increased pressure, as shown experimentally for normal elastic fibres (e.g., glass, collagen, keratin, etc.). In submaximal active contractions, high pressure leads to tension potentiation. The force in maximally activated muscle decreases with increased pressure: the extent of this force decrease in maximal active muscle is sensitive to the concentration of products of ATP hydrolysis (Pi-inorganic phosphate and ADP-adenosine diphosphate) in the medium. When the increased hydrostatic pressure is rapidly decreased, the force recovered to the atmospheric level in all cases. Thus, the resting muscle force remained the same: the force in the rigour muscle decreased in one phase and that in active muscle increased in two phases. The rate of rise of active force on rapid pressure release increased with the concentration of Pi in the medium, indicating that it is coupled to the Pi release step in the ATPase-driven crossbridge cycle in muscle. Pressure experiments on intact muscle illustrate possible underlying mechanisms of tension potentiation and causes of muscle fatigue.

Indexed as

Muscle ContractionMusclesAdenosine TriphosphatasesAdenosine TriphosphateHydrostatic PressureIsometric ContractionMuscle FatigueAdenosine TriphosphatasesAdenosine Triphosphateactin–myosin crossbridge cyclecrossbridge forcemuscle forcepressure sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID36902460
PMCPMC10003533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read29
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.