ArticleThe Journal of general physiology1993
Effects of sulfhydryl inhibitors on depolarizations-contraction coupling in frog skeletal muscle fibers.
Article in The Journal of general physiology, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Redox artifacts in electrophysiological recordings.American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2013Article
- Effects of oxidation and cytosolic redox conditions on excitation-contraction coupling in rat skeletal muscle.The Journal of physiology · 2003Article
- Excitation-contraction coupling and fatigue mechanisms in skeletal muscle: studies with mechanically skinned fibres.Journal of muscle research and cell motility · 2002Review
- Effects of reducing agents and oxidants on excitation-contraction coupling in skeletal muscle fibres of rat and toad.The Journal of physiology · 1996Article
- Fluo-3 signals associated with potassium contractures in single amphibian muscle fibres.The Journal of physiology · 1994Article
- Effects of sulfhydryl inhibitors on nonlinear membrane currents in frog skeletal muscle fibers.The Journal of general physiology · 1993Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have studied the effects of the sulfhydryl reagents on contractile responses, using either electrically stimulated single muscle fibers or short muscle fibers that were voltage-clamped with a two-microelectrode voltage-clamp technique that allows the fiber tension in response to membrane depolarization to be recorded. The sulfhydryl inhibitors para-chloromercuribenzoic acid (PCMB) and parahydroximercuriphenyl sulfonic acid (PHMPS), at concentrations from 0.5 to 2 mM, cause loss of the contractile ability; however, before this effect is completed, they change the fiber contractile behavior in a complex way. After relatively short exposure to the compounds, < 20 min, before the fibers lose their contractile capacity, secondary tension responses may appear after electrically elicited twitches or tetani. After losing their ability to contract in response to electrical stimulation, the fibers maintain their capacity to develop caffeine contractures, even after prolonged periods (120 min) of exposure to PHMPS. In fibers under voltage-clamp conditions, contractility is also lost; however, before this happens, long-lasting (i.e., minutes) episodes of spontaneous contractile activity may occur with the membrane polarized at -100 mV. After more prolonged exposure (> 30 min), the responses to membrane depolarization are reduced and eventually disappear. The agent DTT at a concentration of 2 mM appears to protect the fibers from the effects of PCMB and PHMPS. Furthermore, after loss of the contractile responses by the action of PCMB or PHMPS, addition of 2 mM DTT causes recovery of tension development capacity.
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.