机械一致的肌肉模型表明,肌肉的最大发力能力受最佳肌束长度和肌肉形状的影响

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS
Bart Bolsterlee , Rob Lloyd , Lynne E. Bilston , Robert D Herbert
{"title":"机械一致的肌肉模型表明,肌肉的最大发力能力受最佳肌束长度和肌肉形状的影响","authors":"Bart Bolsterlee ,&nbsp;Rob Lloyd ,&nbsp;Lynne E. Bilston ,&nbsp;Robert D Herbert","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Muscle forces are difficult to measure in vivo, so the force-generating capacity of muscles is commonly inferred from muscle architecture. It is often assumed, implicitly or explicity, that a muscle’s maximum force-generating capacity is proportional to physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), and that a muscle’s operating range is proportional to mean optimal fascicle length. Here, we examined the effect of muscle architecture (PCSA and fascicle length) on muscle function (maximal isometric force and operating range) using a three-dimensional finite element model which accounts in a mechanically consistent way for muscle deformation and other complexities of muscle contraction. By varying architectural properties independently, it was shown that muscle force-generating capacity does not scale by the same factor as PCSA, and that operating range does not scale by the same factor as optimal fascicle length. For instance, 3-fold independent variation of mean optimal fascicle length caused the maximum isometric force-generating capacity of the muscle to vary from 83% to 105% of the force predicted by PCSA alone. Non-uniformities in fascicle length that develop as the muscle deforms during contraction reduce muscle force and operating range. Thus, a three-dimensional finite element model that satisfies fundamental physical constraints predicts that the maximum force-generating capacity of skeletal muscle depends on factors other than PCSA, and that operating range depends on factors other than optimal fascicle length. These findings have implications for how the force-generating properties of animal muscles are scaled to human muscles, and for how the functional capacity of muscles is predicted from muscle architecture.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 112584"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A mechanically consistent muscle model shows that the maximum force-generating capacity of muscles is influenced by optimal fascicle length and muscle shape\",\"authors\":\"Bart Bolsterlee ,&nbsp;Rob Lloyd ,&nbsp;Lynne E. Bilston ,&nbsp;Robert D Herbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Muscle forces are difficult to measure in vivo, so the force-generating capacity of muscles is commonly inferred from muscle architecture. It is often assumed, implicitly or explicity, that a muscle’s maximum force-generating capacity is proportional to physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), and that a muscle’s operating range is proportional to mean optimal fascicle length. Here, we examined the effect of muscle architecture (PCSA and fascicle length) on muscle function (maximal isometric force and operating range) using a three-dimensional finite element model which accounts in a mechanically consistent way for muscle deformation and other complexities of muscle contraction. By varying architectural properties independently, it was shown that muscle force-generating capacity does not scale by the same factor as PCSA, and that operating range does not scale by the same factor as optimal fascicle length. For instance, 3-fold independent variation of mean optimal fascicle length caused the maximum isometric force-generating capacity of the muscle to vary from 83% to 105% of the force predicted by PCSA alone. Non-uniformities in fascicle length that develop as the muscle deforms during contraction reduce muscle force and operating range. Thus, a three-dimensional finite element model that satisfies fundamental physical constraints predicts that the maximum force-generating capacity of skeletal muscle depends on factors other than PCSA, and that operating range depends on factors other than optimal fascicle length. These findings have implications for how the force-generating properties of animal muscles are scaled to human muscles, and for how the functional capacity of muscles is predicted from muscle architecture.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112584\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025000958\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025000958","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肌肉力量很难在体内测量,因此肌肉的发力能力通常是从肌肉结构中推断出来的。人们通常认为,肌肉的最大发力能力与生理横截面积(PCSA)成正比,肌肉的活动范围与平均最佳肌束长度成正比。在这里,我们使用三维有限元模型研究了肌肉结构(PCSA和肌束长度)对肌肉功能(最大等距力和操作范围)的影响,该模型以机械一致的方式解释了肌肉变形和其他肌肉收缩的复杂性。通过独立地改变结构特性,表明肌肉发力能力与PCSA不同,操作范围与最佳肌束长度不同。例如,平均最佳肌束长度的3倍独立变化导致肌肉的最大等距发力能力从单独PCSA预测的力的83%变化到105%。肌束长度的不均匀性是由于肌肉在收缩过程中变形而形成的,这会降低肌肉的力量和活动范围。因此,一个满足基本物理约束的三维有限元模型预测,骨骼肌的最大发力能力取决于PCSA以外的因素,其操作范围取决于最佳肌束长度以外的因素。这些发现对于如何将动物肌肉的发力特性与人类肌肉相比较,以及如何从肌肉结构中预测肌肉的功能能力具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A mechanically consistent muscle model shows that the maximum force-generating capacity of muscles is influenced by optimal fascicle length and muscle shape
Muscle forces are difficult to measure in vivo, so the force-generating capacity of muscles is commonly inferred from muscle architecture. It is often assumed, implicitly or explicity, that a muscle’s maximum force-generating capacity is proportional to physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), and that a muscle’s operating range is proportional to mean optimal fascicle length. Here, we examined the effect of muscle architecture (PCSA and fascicle length) on muscle function (maximal isometric force and operating range) using a three-dimensional finite element model which accounts in a mechanically consistent way for muscle deformation and other complexities of muscle contraction. By varying architectural properties independently, it was shown that muscle force-generating capacity does not scale by the same factor as PCSA, and that operating range does not scale by the same factor as optimal fascicle length. For instance, 3-fold independent variation of mean optimal fascicle length caused the maximum isometric force-generating capacity of the muscle to vary from 83% to 105% of the force predicted by PCSA alone. Non-uniformities in fascicle length that develop as the muscle deforms during contraction reduce muscle force and operating range. Thus, a three-dimensional finite element model that satisfies fundamental physical constraints predicts that the maximum force-generating capacity of skeletal muscle depends on factors other than PCSA, and that operating range depends on factors other than optimal fascicle length. These findings have implications for how the force-generating properties of animal muscles are scaled to human muscles, and for how the functional capacity of muscles is predicted from muscle architecture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信