ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025
Validation of the energetics of a Huxley muscle-tendon complex model using experimental data obtained from mouse soleus muscle.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to advance muscle models that unify mechanical behaviour and metabolic energy expenditure. To that end, we compared predictions of force and metabolic energy expenditure of a Huxley-type muscle-tendon complex (MTC) model with previously obtained experimental data. In our published model, we extended the classic Huxley formulation by incorporating force-length dependency, series elasticity and activation dynamics. Metabolic energy expenditure was modelled as the weighted sum of cross-bridge cycling and calcium pumping costs. In the associated experiment, fibre bundles from nine mouse soleus muscles underwent sinusoidal contractions, while oxygen consumption and tendon force were measured. The bundles were stimulated during both shortening and lengthening, and measurements were taken before and after adding blebbistatin, which blocks cross-bridge cycling but leaves calcium handling unaffected. This enabled separate estimation of metabolic energy costs for each process. In the present study, we modelled these previously published data. Parameters governing model mechanical behaviour were calibrated using trials without oxygen measurements. We used these parameters in simulations of the oxygen measurement trials, and metabolic parameters were optimized to best match average metabolic power. We found that simulated and measured forces corresponded well (root-mean-square error, RMSE <10% of maximum force). Metabolic energy predictions showed higher error (mean RMSE 20.3%, s.d. 12.6% of measured value), with large inter-animal variability. In four animals, where repeated measures were consistent and data followed expected trends, predictions of metabolic energy expenditure were accurate (RMSE <15%). In the remaining five, greater variability or inconsistent data patterns led to poorer fits. Despite this, given the within-animal variability in oxygen measurements, the metabolic predictions are promising. Combined with previous findings, these results support the potential of Huxley-type models in predictive simulations of human metabolic energy expenditure.
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.