Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Carollia perspicillata in flight. The arrow indicates the location of the extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) muscle belly. The head and trunk are covered in fur, and the muscles of the forearm, hand and most of the hindlimb are visible through the skin. The whole image was adjusted in Photoshop (Adobe) to enhance clarity.
- Fig. 2.
Ratio of twitch force to tetanic force (Ptw/P0) as a function of temperature for the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata and the extensor digitorum longus muscle (EDL) of the laboratory mouse. The points plotted are the mean values at each temperature (±s.e.m.); sample sizes for the means are indicated below each point.
- Fig. 3.
log of inverse contraction times (ms−1) as a function of temperature for the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata and the EDL of the laboratory mouse. (A) Time to peak force in a twitch (tP,tw). (B) Time from peak force to 50% relaxation in a twitch (t50%R,tw). (C) Time from peak force to 50% relaxation in a tetanus (t50%R,tet). The points plotted are the mean values at each temperature (±s.e.m.); sample sizes for the means are indicated below each point in A. The solid lines are quadratic regressions fitted using the individual log-transformed values at temperatures of 37°C and below (n=the sum of the sample sizes at each temperature). The numbers above the curves indicate the Q10 values calculated for 5°C intervals. The right axes show the times on an inverted log scale.
- Fig. 4.
Pooled force–velocity data from all preparations. Points indicate experimentally obtained velocity values (lengths s−1, L s−1), and corresponding force values (P) normalized to maximum isometric force (P0). The fitted lines were constructed using the averaged coefficients from fitted curves for each individual preparation (see Table S1). (A) Force–velocity curves for the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata (n=9 preparations per temperature). (B) Force–velocity curves for the EDL of the laboratory mouse (n=4 at 42°C, n=3 at 40°C and n=8 for all other temperatures).
- Fig. 5.
log-transformed shortening velocity as a function of temperature for the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata and the EDL of the laboratory mouse. (A) Shortening velocity at 40% of maximum force (V40, in L s−1). (B) Predicted maximum shortening velocity at zero force (Vmax, in L s−1). The points plotted are the mean values at each temperature (±s.e.m.); sample sizes for the means are indicated below each point in A. The solid lines are quadratic regressions fitted using the individual log-transformed values at temperatures of 37°C and below (n=the sum of the sample sizes at each temperature). The numbers above the curves indicate the Q10 values calculated for 5°C intervals. The right axes show velocity on a log scale.
- Fig. 6.
Power ratio as a function of temperature. Power ratios were calculated from the individual force–velocity curves for each preparation of the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata and the EDL of the laboratory mouse. The points plotted are the mean values at each temperature (±s.e.m.); sample sizes for the means are indicated below each point.
- Fig. 7.
Dependence of shortening velocity on muscle temperature. For each dataset, velocities have been normalized by the maximum velocity recorded in that dataset and are shown on a semi-log plot. Vmax data for mouse and bat muscles are from this study (means±s.e.m.); frog data are from Peplowski and Marsh, 1997; rat data are from Ranatunga, 1984; and lizard data are from Marsh and Bennett, 1985. Dashed line shows Q10=2.
- Fig. 8.
Thermal dependence of shortening velocity for the ECRL of the bat C. perspicillata and the EDL of the laboratory mouse. The mouse data are plotted twice, with the solid blue lines connecting the mean values recorded and the dashed lines connecting the same mean values shifted to the left by 5°C on the temperature axis. The shifted curve illustrates that the shape of the relationship of velocity to temperature for the two muscles is similar, but the data from the bat ECRL are shifted to a lower temperature. This indicates that although for a given temperature interval, the bat ECRL loses a lower percentage of its maximal performance than the mouse EDL, they both undergo approximately the same performance loss relative to their respective maximum experimental temperatures.
Keywords
Article navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
Welcome to JEB’s new Editor Monica Daley
We are pleased to welcome Monica Daley to JEB’s Editorial team. Monica has had a long association with JEB before taking up her new role, overseeing peer review of neuromuscular physiology, terrestrial biomechanics and integrative physiology of locomotion.
In the field with Robyn Hetem
Continuing our fieldwork series, Robyn Hetem reflects on working with species ranging from aardvark to zebra, and the impact COVID-19 has had on fieldwork.
Read & Publish participation continues to grow
“It is particularly encouraging for early career researchers, as it allows them to display their research globally without the need to find costs to cover the open access option.”
Professor Fernando Montealegre-Z (University of Lincoln) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 150 institutions in 15 countries and four library consortia taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.
Nocturnal reef residents have deep-sea-like eyes
Fanny de Busserolles and colleagues from The University of Queensland have discovered that the eyes of nocturnal reef fish have multibank retinas, layers of photoreceptors, similar to the eyes of deep-sea fish that live in dim light conditions.
Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects
In their Review, Konstantin Schmidt and Philipp Engel summarise recent findings about the mechanisms involved in gut colonisation and the provisioning of beneficial effects in gut microbiota–insect symbiosis.