QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online March 16, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1183-1193 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.000109

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Wassenbergh, S. Articles by Aerts, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van Wassenbergh, S. Articles by Aerts, P.

Scaling of contractile properties of catfish feeding muscles

Sam Van Wassenbergh^1,*, Anthony Herrel¹, Rob S. James² and Peter Aerts^1,3

¹ Department of Biology, Universiteit Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium
² Department of Biomolecular and Sport Sciences, Coventry University, James Starley Building, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK
³ Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Lateral view of the head of a juvenile Clarias gariepinus of 125.5 mm standard length [after Adriaens et al. (Adriaens et al., 2001)]. Indicated are the three muscles used in this study. Scale bar, 5 mm.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Example of a work loop (A) generated during 8 Hz sinusoidal length changes (strain of 10%) for the musculus protractor hyoidei (m-pr-h) of an 80.1 mm cranial length C. gariepinus, with (B) the corresponding instantaneous relative speed, (C) force per muscle cross-sectional area and (D) muscle-mass-specific power output. In A, raw data points are shown as well as the work loop curve after Butterworth filtering. The force produced by only the actively contracting components of the muscle was calculated by subtracting the force measured without stimulation (passive work loop) from the force with stimulation (active work loop).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Log–log plots of latency (open circles), time to peak force during twitch stimulation (full circles; A–C) and time to half peak force during tetanus stimulation (D–F) versus cranial length. The muscle names are indicated above the graphs. See Table 1 for linear regression statistics. Abbreviations: m-a-m, musculus adductor mandibulae A2A3'; m-hyp, hypaxials; m-pr-h, protractor hyoidei.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A–C) Log–log plots of peak force per muscle cross-sectional area during twitch (open circles) and tetanus stimulation (full circles) versus cranial length. The muscle names are indicated above the graphs. Data on m-pr-h force of the smallest two individuals are excluded from the regression analysis. See Table 1 for regression statistics. Abbreviations: m-a-m, musculus adductor mandibulae A2A3'; m-hyp, hypaxials; m-pr-h, protractor hyoidei.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. (A–C) Log–log plots of cycle frequency for maximal muscle power output versus cranial length. Observations of in vivo cycle frequency for three individuals inferred from high-speed X-ray videos are also shown (black circles). The scaling relationship predicted by inverse dynamic suction modelling (speed scales with L–0.533) (Van Wassenbergh et al., 2005a) is also illustrated (black line). Note the apparent breakpoint in the scaling relationship for the m-hyp (A) in which only fish greater than 60 mm show a significantly negative slope in this scaling relationship. Since no data on in vivo m-hyp strain during feeding are available, the intercept of the scaling regression predicted by modelling could not be determined in A. Table 1 gives additional regression statistics. Abbreviations: m-a-m, musculus adductor mandibulae A2A3'; m-hyp, hypaxials; m-pr-h, protractor hyoidei.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (A–C) Log–log plots of maximal muscle-mass-specific power versus cranial length. The muscle names are indicated above the graphs. Data on m-pr-h force of the smallest two individuals are excluded from the regression. See Table 1 for regression statistics. Abbreviations: m-a-m, musculus adductor mandibulae A2A3'; m-hyp, hypaxials; m-pr-h, protractor hyoidei.