School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA.
Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Oct 22;24(20):15439. doi: 10.3390/ijms242015439.
Almost every model of muscle contraction in the literature to date is a molecular power stroke model, even though this corpuscular mechanism is opposed by centuries of science, by 85 years of unrefuted evidence that muscle is a thermodynamic system, and by a quarter century of direct observations that the molecular mechanism of muscle contraction is a molecular switch, not a molecular power stroke. An ensemble of molecular switches is a binary mechanical thermodynamic system from which A.V. Hill's muscle force-velocity relationship is directly derived, where Hill's parameter is the internal force against which unloaded muscle shortens, and Hill's parameter is the product of the switch displacement, , and the actin-myosin ATPase rate. Ignoring this model and the centuries of thermodynamics that preceded it, corpuscularians continue to develop molecular power stroke models, adding to their 65-year jumble of "new", "innovative", and "unconventional" molecular mechanisms for Hill's and parameters, none of which resemble the underlying physical chemistry. Remarkably, the corpuscularian community holds the thermodynamicist to account for these discrepancies, which, as outlined here, I have done for 25 years. It is long past time for corpuscularians to be held accountable for their mechanisms, which by all accounts have no foundation in science. The stakes are high. Molecular power stroke models are widely used in research and in clinical decision-making and have, for over half a century, muddied our understanding of the inner workings of one of the most efficient and clean-burning machines on the planet. It is problematic that corpuscularians present these models to stakeholders as science when in fact corpuscularians have been actively defending these models against science for decades. The path forward for scientists is to stop baseless rejections of muscle thermodynamics and to begin testing corpuscular and thermodynamic mechanisms with the goal of disproving one or the other of these hypotheses.
迄今为止,文献中几乎每一种肌肉收缩模型都是分子力stroke 模型,尽管这种粒子机制与几个世纪的科学相悖,与 85 年来未经反驳的证据相悖,这些证据表明肌肉是一个热力学系统,与直接观察到的四分之一世纪的证据相悖,这些证据表明肌肉收缩的分子机制是分子开关,而不是分子力stroke。一组分子开关是一个二进制机械热力学系统,从中可以直接推导出 A.V. Hill 的肌肉力-速度关系,其中 Hill 的参数 是卸载肌肉缩短时的内力,而 Hill 的参数 是开关位移 的产物, 和肌球蛋白 ATP 酶的速率。忽略这个模型和之前几个世纪的热力学,粒子论者继续发展分子力stroke 模型,为 Hill 的 和 参数添加了 65 年来混乱的“新”、“创新”和“非常规”分子机制,这些机制都与基础物理化学不相似。值得注意的是,粒子论者要求热力学学家解释这些差异,正如这里所概述的,我已经解释了 25 年。现在是时候让粒子论者对他们的机制负责了,这些机制在所有方面都没有科学依据。风险很高。分子力stroke 模型在研究和临床决策中被广泛应用,它们已经在半个多世纪以来混淆了我们对这个星球上最有效和最清洁的机器之一内部运作的理解。问题是,粒子论者将这些模型作为科学呈现给利益相关者,而实际上,粒子论者几十年来一直积极反对这些模型,认为它们不符合科学。科学家的前进道路是停止对肌肉热力学的无端拒绝,并开始用这些模型和热力学机制进行测试,目的是证明这些假设中的一个或另一个是错误的。