|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 202, Issue 18 2551-2565, Copyright © 1999 by Company of Biologists
JOURNAL ARTICLES |
RK Josephson and DR Stokes
School of Biological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA and Department of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. rkjoseph@uci.edu
Active shortening of respiratory muscle L2B from the crab Carcinus maenas results in contractile deactivation, seen as (1) a decline of force during the course of isovelocity shortening, (2) a reduction in the rate of force redevelopment following shortening, (3) a depression of the level of isometric force reached following shortening, and (4) an accelerated relaxation at the end of stimulation. The degree of deactivation increases with increasing distance of shortening, decreases with increasing shortening velocity, and is approximately linearly related to the work done during shortening. Deactivation lasts many seconds if stimulation is maintained, but is largely although not completely removed if the stimulation is temporarily interrupted so that the force drops towards the resting level. Deactivation for a given distance and velocity of shortening increases with increasing muscle length above the optimum length for force production. Stimulating muscle L2B at suboptimal frequencies gives tetanic contractions that are fully fused but of less than maximal amplitude. The depression of force following shortening, relative to the force during an isometric contraction, is independent of the stimulus frequency used to activate the muscle, indicating that deactivation is not a function of the background level of stimulus-controlled muscle activation upon which it occurs. Deactivation reduces the work required to restretch a muscle after it has shortened, but it also lowers the force and therefore the work done during shortening. The net effect of deactivation on work output over a full shortening/lengthening cycle is unknown.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. F. Hodson-Tole and J. M. Wakeling Motor unit recruitment patterns 1: responses to changes in locomotor velocity and incline J. Exp. Biol., June 15, 2008; 211(12): 1882 - 1892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Herzog and T. Leonard Reply from Walter Herzog (on behalf of the authors) and Tim Leonard J. Physiol., January 15, 2007; 578(2): 617 - 620. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Ahn, K. Meijer, and R. J. Full In situ muscle power differs without varying in vitro mechanical properties in two insect leg muscles innervated by the same motor neuron J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2006; 209(17): 3370 - 3382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Herzog, E. J. Lee, and D. E. Rassier Residual force enhancement in skeletal muscle J. Physiol., August 1, 2006; 574(3): 635 - 642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Ahn and R. J. Full A motor and a brake: two leg extensor muscles acting at the same joint manage energy differently in a running insect J. Exp. Biol., February 1, 2002; 205(3): 379 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Josephson, J. Malamud, and D. Stokes Asynchronous muscle: a primer J. Exp. Biol., January 9, 2000; 203(18): 2713 - 2722. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Josephson Dissecting muscle power output J. Exp. Biol., January 12, 1999; 202(23): 3369 - 3375. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
