Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 292: C612, 2007. First published April 5, 2006; doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00122.2006
0363-6143/07 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
292/1/C612    most recent
00122.2006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barclay, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Loiselle, D. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barclay, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Loiselle, D. S.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Can activation account for 80% of skeletal muscle energy use during isometric contraction?

TO THE EDITOR: We are struck by the remarkable results contained in the article by Zhang et al. (5). Put bluntly, if these results are independently verified, then a fundamental reappraisal of over four decades of muscle energetics will be required. This is because Zhang et al. (5) infer from their data that, under conditions of submaximal stimulation (at 30°C), ~80% of the metabolic cost of contraction of isolated, fast-twitch, skeletal muscle [mouse extensor digitorum longus (EDL)] is attributable to Ca2+ pumping by the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), leaving only 20% to cross-bridge cycling. These values are roughly the converse of what is conventionally considered to be the economics of energy expenditure by active striated muscle. We are rather skeptical, for the following reasons.

i) An unreferenced paper by Barclay (1), which employed the same muscle preparation at a comparable temperature (25°C), demonstrated that non-cross-bridge-related heat production (estimated by extrapolating to zero filament overlap the heat produced at various degrees of stretch) was 35% and was unaltered by a fatiguing protocol that reduced force to 55% of its initial value. ii) Baylor and Hollingworth (3) showed that during tetanic stimulation of mouse EDL (67 Hz at 16°C) the amount of Ca2+ released per stimulus pulse was ~0.08 µmol/g (this is an overestimate, because much more Ca2+ was released by the first pulse than later pulses) and was little different at 28°C. So in the 100 pulses used by Zhang et al. (5) in a 2-s tetanus, a total of 8 µmol/g Ca2+ would have been released, which would require 4 µmol/g ATP to be pumped into the SR. In comparison, Zhang et al. (5) measured the activation cost to be over fourfold greater: 15 µmol/g. iii) In another unreferenced study (4), activation heat (once again, estimated by "extrapolation") of mouse EDL at 27°C was 35%. In the presence of a submaximal dose of dantrolene (an inhibitor of the skeletal muscle Ca2+-release channel), tetanic force was reduced to 36% of its "control" value. Nevertheless, activation heat still accounted for only 42% of the total heat liberated. iv) The idea that 20% of isometric energy turnover is due to cross-bridge cycling is incompatible with the known mechanical performance of fast-twitch muscles. If cross bridges account for only 20% of energy use, then the rate of ATP splitting per cross bridge must be one-quarter the value previously assumed. Maintenance of a high isometric force, in any cross-bridge scheme that requires a low rate of turnover, can be achieved only by reducing the rate of cross-bridge detachment. However, a low detachment rate is inconsistent with the rapid force dynamics and the flat force-velocity curve characteristic of EDL muscles (2).

Zhang et al. (5) offer no mechanistic explanation for their result but suggest that it differs from previous data due to an effect of species or temperature or as a result of using submaximal activation. Points i and iii above argue against an effect of either species or temperature, and the dantrolene experiments (point iii) counter the idea that activation costs are higher at submaximal levels of activation.

FOOTNOTES


Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: C. J. Barclay, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Griffith Univ., Gold Coast, PMB50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia (e-mail: c.barclay{at}griffith.edu.au)

REFERENCES

1. Barclay CJ. Mechanical efficiency and fatigue of fast and slow muscles of the mouse. J Physiol 497: 781–794, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Barclay CJ. A weakly coupled version of the Huxley crossbridge model can simulate energetics of amphibian and mammalian skeletal muscle. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 20: 163–176, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

3. Baylor SM, Hollingworth S. Sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium release compared in slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibres of mouse muscle. J Physiol 551: 125–138, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Wendt IR, Barclay JK. Effects of dantrolene on the energetics of fast- and slow-twitch muscles of the mouse. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 238: C56–C61, 1980.[Free Full Text]

5. Zhang SJ, Andersson DC, Sandstrom ME, Westerblad H, Katz A. Cross bridges account for only 20% of total ATP consumption during submaximal isometric contraction in mouse fast-twitch skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 291: C147–C154, 2006. First published February 15, 2006; doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00578.2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


C. J. Barclay
D. S. Loiselle
 School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science
Griffith University
Gold Coast
Queensland
Australia; and Department of Physiology
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
University of Auckland
Auckland
New Zealand




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol.Home page
S.-J. Zhang, D. C. Andersson, M. E. Sandstrom, H. Westerblad, and A. Katz
Reply to Barclay and Loiselle
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, January 1, 2007; 292(1): C613 - C614.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
292/1/C612    most recent
00122.2006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barclay, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Loiselle, D. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barclay, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Loiselle, D. S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2007 by the American Physiological Society.