Key result
A critical review suggests that muscle tension development and movement are driven by restructuring of actin and myosin hydration shells rather than major conformational changes.
This review challenges the traditional swinging crossbridge theory of muscle contraction, proposing instead that water hydration shell restructuring drives tension development.
Challenges crossbridge model of contraction; leaves open hydration shell restructuring as driver pending direct tests.
A critical analysis is presented of the experimental findings that led to the sliding filament model and to its offspring--the swinging (by rotating or tilting) crossbridge theory of muscle contraction (SCBT). Several principles that have been taken for granted implicitly and explicitly by the creators of these dogmas are discussed. The failure of numerous efforts to verify predictions of the SCBT, particularly the idea that the myosin molecules undergo a major conformational change, is critically reviewed. Analysis of various experimental data suggests that water may play an active role in muscular contraction. Examination of both the experiments that do not fulfill the expectations of the SCBT and the measurements of water liberation during the "contractile" process suggests a new outlook according to which tension development and movement are not due to major conformational changes but rather to restructuring of the hydration shells of actin and myosin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avraham Oplatka (1997) conducted a review in Muscle contraction. A critical review suggests that muscle tension development and movement are driven by restructuring of actin and myosin hydration shells rather than major conformational changes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: