Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 May 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Mol Biol. 2013 Jan 25;425(9):1565–1581. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2013.01.028

Figure 6. Muscle fiber stiffness parameters, E∞ and E0, in rat cardiac muscle fibers reconstituted with RcTnT, RcT1-RfsT2, RfsT1-RcT2 or RfsTnT.

Figure 6

We estimated E∞ and E0 by fitting the RD model to small changes in force elicited by the fiber in response to small changes in muscle length 25. Data for RfsTnT reconstituted fibers from our previous study 8 are used for comparisons in this study. (a) A plot of model-predicted distortion component of the stiffness as a function of frequency. The magnitude of the distortion stiffness at infinite frequency is termed E∞ (as illustrated by the arrow in panel a). (b) Comparison of E∞ in fibers reconstituted with RcTnT, RcT1-RfsT2, Rfs1-RcT2, or RfsTnT. (c) A plot of model-predicted recruitment component of the stiffness as a function of frequency. The magnitude of the recruitment stiffness at zero frequency is termed E0 (as illustrated by the arrow in panel c). (d) Comparison of E0 in fibers reconstituted with RcTnT, RcT1-RfsT2, Rfs1-RcT2, or RfsTnT. Statistical differences between fiber groups were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with the data from RcTnT reconstituted fibers as controls. Number of determinations was ≥10 for each group. Asterisks represents a statistically significant result compared to RcTnT reconstituted fibers (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001). Data are reported as mean ± SE.