A synthesis of research across multiple fields identifies common misconceptions about skeletal muscle fiber types, such as equating myosin isoform with oxidative capacity or cross-sectional area.
Skeletal muscle is a highly complex tissue that is studied by scientists from a wide spectrum of disciplines, including motor control, biomechanics, exercise science, physiology, cell biology, genetics, regenerative medicine, orthopedics, and engineering. Although this diversity in perspectives has led to many important discoveries, historically, there has been limited overlap in discussions across fields. This has led to misconceptions and oversimplifications about muscle biology that can create confusion and potentially slow scientific progress across fields. The purpose of this synthesis paper is to bring together research perspectives across multiple muscle fields to identify common assumptions related to muscle fiber type that are points of concern to clarify. These assumptions include 1) classification by myosin isoform and fiber oxidative capacity is equivalent, 2) fiber cross-sectional area (CSA) is a surrogate marker for myosin isoform or oxidative capacity, and 3) muscle force-generating capacity can be inferred from myosin isoform. We address these three fiber-type traps and provide some context for how these misunderstandings can and do impact experimental design, computational modeling, and interpretations of findings, from the perspective of a range of fields. We stress the dangers of generalizing findings about “muscle fiber types” among muscles or across species or sex, and we note the importance for precise use of common terminology across the muscle fields.
Blemker et al. (Thu,) conducted a review in Skeletal muscle biology. A synthesis of research across multiple fields identifies common misconceptions about skeletal muscle fiber types, such as equating myosin isoform with oxidative capacity or cross-sectional area.