The binding interactions that maintain excitation–contraction coupling junctions in skeletal muscle

Calcium for contraction of skeletal muscles is released via tetrameric ryanodine receptor (RYR1) channels of the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), which are assembled in ordered arrays called couplons at junctions where the SR abuts T tubules or plasmalemma. Voltage-gated Ca2+ (CaV1.1) channels, found in tubules or plasmalemma, form symmetric complexes called CaV tetrads that associate with and activate underlying RYR tetramers during membrane depolarization by conveying a conformational change. Intriguingly, CaV tetrads regularly skip every other RYR tetramer within the array; therefore, the RYRs underlying tetrads (named V), but not the voltage sensor–lacking (C) RYRs, should be activated by depolarization. Here we hypothesize that the checkerboard association is maintained solely by reversible binary interactions between CaVs and RYRs and test this hypothesis using a quantitative model of the energies that govern CaV1.1–RYR1 binding, which are assumed to depend on number and location of bound CaVs. A Monte Carlo simulation generates large statistical samples and distributions of state variables that can be compared with quantitative features in freeze-fracture images of couplons from various sources. This analysis reveals two necessary model features: (1) the energy of a tetramer must have wells at low and high occupation by CaVs, so that CaVs positively cooperate in binding RYR (an allosteric effect), and (2) a large energy penalty results when two CaVs bind simultaneously to adjacent RYR protomers in adjacent tetramers (a steric clash). Under the hypothesis, V and C channels will eventually reverse roles. Role reversal justifies the presence of sensor-lacking C channels, as a structural and functional reserve for control of muscle contraction.

Excitability at the Motoneuron Pool and Motor Cortex Is Specifically Modulated in Lengthening Compared to Isometric Contractions

Neural control of muscle contraction seems to be unique during muscle lengthening. The present study aimed to determine the specific sites of modulatory control for lengthening compared with isometric contractions. We used stimulation of the motor cortex and corticospinal tract to observe changes at the spinal and cortical levels. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary MEPs (CMEPs) were evoked in biceps brachii and brachioradialis during maximal and submaximal lengthening and isometric contractions at the same elbow angle. Sizes of CMEPs and MEPs were lower in lengthening contractions for both muscles (by ∼28 and ∼16%, respectively; P < 0.01), but MEP-to-CMEP ratios increased (by ∼21%; P < 0.05). These results indicate reduced excitability at the spinal level but enhanced motor cortical excitability for lengthening compared with isometric muscle contractions.

Control of muscle contraction

As is well known, the memorable discovery of Galvani (1791) was followed by the development of two new fields of science, electrochemistry and electrophysiology. During the course of this development, the most remarkable feature of the original finding, i.e. ‘contraction of muscle induced by a piece of metal’, gradually came to be ignored. As a consequence, the simple question as to how electrical stimulation might induce muscle contraction was left unanswered until the middle of this century, when several physiologists became aware of the crucial nature of the problem and tried to attack it from various directions. This resulted in a marked progress of physiological and morphological studies which were intentionally or unintentionally concerned with the mechanism of the link between excitation, that is the electrical phenomenon at the surface membrane, and the contractile process.