Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
JEB Classics
HOW MUSCLES FUNCTION – THE WORK LOOP TECHNIQUE
A. N. Ahn
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1051-1052; doi: 10.1242/jeb.062752
A. N. Ahn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Anna Ahn discusses Bob Josephson’s 1985 paper entitled: ‘Mechanical power output from striated muscle during cyclic contraction’.

A copy of the paper can be obtained from http://jeb.biologists.org/content/114/1/493.short

The primary function of muscle is to generate force and produce movement in animals. Before 1985, muscle function had typically been examined under maximally stimulated conditions, while held at a constant length or allowed to shorten at a constant force. Although crucial for understanding fundamental mechanisms and properties of muscle, these contractions at a constant length (isometric) or under a constant load (isotonic) while maximally stimulated are seldom physiologically relevant to an animal.

In 1985, Bob Josephson developed a technique that took a monumental step towards measuring and understanding muscle function during everyday behaviours such as running, flying, swimming, breathing, sound production, eating, or even the beating of a heart. Commonly referred to as the ‘work loop technique’, this method determines mechanical function while simulating in vivo-like conditions. Typically, rhythmic behaviours are phasically controlled in animals, where a pulse or burst of neural activation occurs with each cycle of movement (Fig. 1). In response to activation, muscle then generates force and usually shortens. In a work loop experiment, cyclic length changes and phasic stimulation patterns can be imposed on an isolated muscle while force is measured. A plot of force versus length provides a loop, within which the area equals the mechanical work performed by the muscle. The area under the curve during the shortening phase of a muscular contraction represents the work output from the muscle on its environment. Likewise, the area under the curve during lengthening represents the work input to the muscle from its environment to re-lengthen it. Subtracting the work input during lengthening (Fig. 1C) from the work output during shortening (Fig. 1D) gives the net work per cycle performed by the muscle, or the area inside the ‘work loop’ (Fig. 1E). Generally, a muscle performs positive work, which is represented by a loop that rotates counterclockwise, with force peaking during shortening (Fig. 1). Muscle power can be calculated as the work, or the area inside the work loop, divided by the time needed to complete the loop.

‘Bob J’ himself is the first to insist that he did not develop the work loop technique de novo, but rather added phasic stimulation to advance and popularize Machin and Pringle’s work on the asynchronous flight muscle of an insect (Machin and Pringle, 1959; Machin and Pringle, 1960). Characterized by the ability to contract multiple times in response to a single pulse of stimulation, asynchronous muscle is found only in the insect flight system. By contrast, most muscles are synchronous, i.e. each pulse of stimulation produces a single contraction. Because of this coupling, the mechanical output of synchronous muscle depends strongly on the timing and pattern of stimulation (Josephson, 1985). By examining synchronous muscle, Josephson alluded to the tremendous importance of the nervous system for the mechanical output of muscle. Countless studies have shown that changes in any of the stimulation parameters considerably affect muscle work and power. Even very slight changes to the stimuli such as replacing a single pulse in a burst of three pulses by a doublet can increase muscle power output by over 50% (Stevens, 1996).

In addition to quantifying the work and power of muscle, the direction of a work loop indicates the muscle’s mechanical function. Prior to work loops, muscle power was calculated from maximally stimulated muscle while shortening with a constant load, which always resulted in power production (Josephson, 1993). We now know that muscles have a much wider variety of functions. Although flight and swimming muscles generate mechanical power (Josephson, 1985; Marsh et al., 1992; Rome and Lindstedt, 1997; Biewener et al., 1998; Altringham and Ellerby, 1999), some muscles function to dampen motion, stabilize a system, or absorb energy, such as those in a fish tail or roach leg (Rome and Lindstedt, 1997; Dickinson et al., 2000). To represent these muscles, negative work

loops rotate clockwise as muscle force production peaks during lengthening. Energy absorption by muscle, for example in the quadriceps of people landing from a jump, had never before been quantified.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

The method for measuring work output. (A) A metathoracic first tergocoxal muscle is stimulated while it is subjected to sinusoidal length change. The upper trace monitors muscle length, the middle trace muscle tension, and the lower trace time of stimulation. (B) Muscle force plotted against length. The area of the resulting loop is the work done per cycle (C–E). Reproduced from Josephson (Josephson, 1985).

Alternatively, work loops may not be simple positive or negative loops, but rather shaped like an ‘L’, a line or even a figure-eight. In such cases, these muscles neither produce nor absorb energy over a cycle. For a muscle that generates force without changing length, its tendon can stretch and recoil as represented by an L-shaped work loop, such as in the calf muscles of hopping wallabies, running turkeys and, presumably, walking humans (Griffiths, 1989; Roberts et al., 1997; Fukunaga et al., 2001). These muscles function to generate and transmit forces without producing or absorbing energy. Muscle function and work loop shape can be modulated by slight changes in input parameters such as cycle frequency, muscle length change, mode of locomotion, or even anatomical position within the animal. As we continue to explore non-steady behaviours such as maneuvering and stabilization, more muscles will likely be shown to perform a variety of roles, such as dampers to stabilize, and not necessarily to function as power generators.

Two of the major determinants of work loop shape in muscle include the kinetics of activation and deactivation, or how quickly the muscle generates force and relaxes, respectively. For maximal power production, for example, a muscle would hypothetically generate a counterclockwise box-shaped work loop (Rome and Lindstedt, 1997). To maximize the area inside the loop, the muscle would activate instantly at the beginning of shortening and deactivate instantly at the beginning of lengthening. However, activation and deactivation kinetics vary greatly with strain conditions (Josephson and Stokes, 1989; Josephson, 1999; Caiozzo and Baldwin, 1997; Askew and Marsh, 1998). Further, theoretical instantaneous shortening activation and stretch deactivation conflict with the reality of history-dependent properties such as shortening deactivation and stretch activation (Edman, 1975; Pringle, 1978). These highly variable activation and deactivation kinetics constrain possible shapes of work loops and influence whether muscles function like a motor, a brake, a spring or otherwise.

Since Josephson’s study of insect flight muscle, the work loop technique has been used to study muscles across all animal taxa and many levels of organization. When possible, force and length measurements are made in vivo with tools and techniques such as tendon buckles, strain gauges, optic fibres, sonomicrometry and ultrasonography. However, such in vivo methods are most easily used on larger animals, such as birds and mammals. Alternatively, muscle length and activation patterns can be determined in vivo, then imposed on the muscles in vitro. The work loop technique has even been extended beyond biological tissues to determine the mechanical power output of artificial muscle, providing a basis of comparison to biological muscle (Full and Meijer, 2002).

All muscles can be modulated to produce or absorb energy and everything in between, depending on the input parameters and the muscles’ inherent rates of force generation and relaxation. Unfortunately for experimental biology, Bob Josephson now spends his days cycling across foreign countries rather than building his own computers, writing his own software or publishing yet another potential classic in JEB. But fortunately, we have the work loop technique to quantify the difference between the capacity or potential of a muscle and its realized function under in vivo conditions. Given the body of work produced (pun intended) and inspired since 1985, the work loop technique has clearly paved its own way within muscle physiology and altered how we measure, study and understand muscle function in animals.

  • © 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Altringham, J. D. and
    2. Ellerby, D. J.
    (1999). Fish swimming: patterns in muscle function. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 3397–3403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Askew, G. N. and
    2. Marsh, R. L.
    (1998). Optimal shortening velocity (V/Vmax) of skeletal muscle during cyclical contractions: length–force effects and velocity-dependent activation and deactivation. J. Exp. Biol. 201, 1527–1540.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Biewener, A. A.,
    2. Corning, W. R. and
    3. Tobalske, B. T.
    (1998). In vivo pectoralis muscle force–length behavior during level flight in pigeons (Columba livia). J. Exp. Biol. 201, 3293–3307.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Caiozzo, V. J. and
    2. Baldwin, K.M.
    (1997). Determinants of work produced by skeletal muscle: potential limitations of activation and relaxation. Am. J. Physiol. 273, C1049–C1056.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Dickinson, M. H.,
    2. Farley, C. T.,
    3. Full, R. J.,
    4. Koehl, M. A. R.,
    5. Kram, R. and
    6. Lehman, S.
    (2000). How animals move: an integrative view. Science 288, 100–106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Edman, K. A. P.
    (1975). Mechanical deactivation induced by active shortening in isolated muscle fibres of the frog. J. Physiol. 246, 255–275.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Fukunaga, T.,
    2. Kubo, K.,
    3. Kawakami, Y.,
    4. Fukashiro, S.,
    5. Kanehisa, H. and
    6. Maganaris, C. N.
    (2001). In vivo behavior of human muscle tendon during walking. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 229–233.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Full, R. J. and
    2. Meijer, K.
    (2000). Artificial muscles versus natural actuators from frog to flies. Proc. SPIE 3987, 2–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Griffiths, R. I.
    (1989). The mechanics of the medial gastrocnemius muscle in the freely hopping wallaby (Thylogale billardierii). J. Exp. Biol. 147, 439–456.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Josephson, R. K.
    (1985). Mechanical power output from striated muscle during cyclic contractions. J. Exp. Biol. 114, 493–512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Josephson, R. K.
    (1993). Contraction dynamics and power output of skeletal muscle. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 55, 527–546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Josephson, R. K.
    (1999). Dissecting muscle power output. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 3369–3375.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Josephson, R. K. and
    2. Stokes, D. R.
    (1989). Strain, muscle length and work output in crab muscle. J. Exp. Biol. 5, 45–61.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Machin, K. E. and
    2. Pringle, J. W. S.
    (1959). The physiology of insect fibrillar muscle. II. Mechanical properties of a beetle flight muscle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 151, 204–225.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Machin, K. E. and
    2. Pringle, J. W. S.
    (1960). The physiology of insect fibrillar muscle. III. The effect of sinusoidal changes of length on a beetle flight muscle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 152, 311–330.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Marsh, R. L.,
    2. Olson, J. M. and
    3. Guzik, S. K.
    (1992). Mechanical performance of scallop adductor muscle during swimming. Nature 357, 411–413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Pringle, J. W. S.
    (1978). Stretch activation of muscle: function and mechanism. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 201, 107–130.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Roberts, T. J.,
    2. Marsh, R. L.,
    3. Weyand, P. G. and
    4. Taylor, C. R.
    (1997). Muscular force in running turkeys: the economy of minimizing work. Science 275, 1113–1115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Rome, L. C. and
    2. Lindstedt, S. L.
    (1997). Mechanical and metabolic design of the muscular system in vertebrates. In Handbook of Physiology (ed. Dantzler, W. H.), pp. 1587–1652. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.
  19. ↵
    1. Stevens, E. D.
    (1996). The pattern of stimulation influences the amount of oscillatory work done by frog muscle. J. Physiol. 494, 279–285.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
HOW MUSCLES FUNCTION – THE WORK LOOP TECHNIQUE
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
JEB Classics
HOW MUSCLES FUNCTION – THE WORK LOOP TECHNIQUE
A. N. Ahn
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1051-1052; doi: 10.1242/jeb.062752
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
JEB Classics
HOW MUSCLES FUNCTION – THE WORK LOOP TECHNIQUE
A. N. Ahn
Journal of Experimental Biology 2012 215: 1051-1052; doi: 10.1242/jeb.062752

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Xenopus and the art of oxygen maintenance
  • A JEB CLASSIC ON FISH EXERCISE
  • ANALYSIS OF ACID EXCRETION IN FISH AND ITS APPLICATION TO ACIDIC ENVIRONMENTS
Show more JEB Classics

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Meet the Editors at SICB Virtual 2021

Reserve your place to join some of the journal editors, including Editor-in-Chief Craig Franklin, at our Meet the Editor session on 17 February at 2pm (EST). Don’t forget to view our SICB Subject Collection, featuring relevant JEB papers relating to some of the symposia sessions.


2020 at The Company of Biologists

Despite 2020's challenges, we were able to bring a number of long-term projects and new ventures to fruition. As we enter a new year, join us as we reflect on the triumphs of the last 12 months.


Critical temperature window sends migratory black-headed buntings on their travels

The spring rise in temperature at black-headed bunting overwintering sites is essential for triggering the physical changes that they undergo before embarking on their spring migration – read more.


Developmental and reproductive physiology of small mammals at high altitude

Cayleih Robertson and Kathryn Wilsterman focus on high-altitude populations of the North American deer mouse in their review of the challenges and evolutionary innovations of pregnant and nursing small mammals at high altitude.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

“Being able to publish Open Access articles free of charge means that my article gets maximum exposure and has maximum impact, and that all my peers can read it regardless of the agreements that their universities have with publishers.”

Professor Roi Holzman (Tel Aviv University) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 60 institutions in 12 countries taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992