spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online August 31, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 3147-3159 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.005207
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Richards, C. T.
Right arrow Articles by Biewener, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Richards, C. T.
Right arrow Articles by Biewener, A. A.

Modulation of in vivo muscle power output during swimming in the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis)

Christopher T. Richards* and Andrew A. Biewener

Harvard University, 100 Old Causeway Road, Bedford, MA 01730, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Electrode implantation and force transducer calibration. (A) Anatomy of the plantaris longus in the X. leavis hindlimb showing implantation of electrodes. Muscle activity and changes in muscle fascicle length were measured by bi-polar EMG electrodes and sonomicrometry crystals, respectively. Plantaris longus force was measured by a strain gauge force transducer (inset) tied to the inner surface of the Achilles tendon (see text for further details). (B) Representative tendon force transducer calibration (frog 5). The foot was removed from the animal and the plantaris muscle was mechanically isolated from proximal tissues (see text) allowing the muscle–tendon unit to be mounted in-line with a calibrated load cell in a simple jig. (C) The data record shows force from the calibrated load cell (broken line) and the voltage output from the force transducer (solid line) for a series of loading cycles. (D) Load cell force is plotted against force transducer output to show the linear response of the force transducer over the cycles shown in C.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Representative patterns of swimming velocity and acceleration for frog 6. (A) Moderate speed swimming. Velocities (top) and accelerations (bottom) for four consecutive stroke cycles showing increasing velocity and acceleration digitized from the video sequence of a single trial. (B) Vigorous swimming. Velocities (top) and accelerations (bottom) for four stroke cycles from a contrasting trial of the same frog showing a rapid escape stroke followed by three high velocity strokes. Numbers above each acceleration peak represent the plantaris muscle mass-specific power output (W kg–1) for each cycle.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. (A) Representative data recordings of plantaris longus force (red), whole-muscle length (blue), and activation (black) from a single burst swimming trial of frog 5. Broken lines on the length and force traces represent resting muscle length (Lrest, measured when the animal was unmoving in the aquarium) and resting force, respectively. Vertical dotted lines (1–5) illustrate kinematic stages defining the stroke cycle. The ankle joint is highlighted in red. A swimming stroke begins with a propulsive phase characterized by rapid joint extension (1–3). The recovery phase that follows (3–5) prepares the limb for the next stroke by returning the leg to its initial configuration. (B) Expanded view of data record in A to show a single stroke cycle. (C) Four in vivo work loops (representing four consecutive swimming strokes) are plotted directly from force–length data shown in the data traces in A. The colored bars above the length trace shown in A match the work loop colors to show how the force–length data were partitioned to calculate work and power. Muscle power (W kg–1 muscle) is shown for each stroke.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 4. (A) Data recordings of plantaris longus force (red), whole-muscle length (blue), and activation (black) from frog 4 to show the maximum differences observed between individual animals (compare with Fig. 3A). (B) Diagram showing the variation in the relative timing of force–length activation events among swimming strokes for frog 5. Note that force develops passively at the end of the previous cycle, as the limb is being protracted and the ankle and knee are flexed.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 5. Box-and-whisker diagram showing the variability of muscle performance parameters within and among individual frogs. For each performance parameter, the coefficient of variation (CV) was found from the data for each frog. The boxes represent 50% of the data range and the whiskers bracket the interquartile range of observed data compared across individuals. Bold horizontal bars represent the median CV found among frogs. High median CV values indicate large variability within individual frogs, whereas broad boxes signify high variability among individuals.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 6. (A,B) Scatter plots showing the variation in plantaris power output as a function of cycle duration (A) and work (B) for all six individuals. (C,D) Plots for power vs cycle duration (C) and power (D) vs cycle work for frog 5, to exemplify trends seen within individuals. Regression lines for each individual frog were plotted using simple least-squares regression to illustrate general trends in the data. Regression lines that are not statistically significant (tested separately by multiple least-squares regression) are not shown. Solid and broken regression lines (where shown) correspond to data represented by solid circles and open circles, respectively. Partial coefficients of determination (r2) were calculated from partial least-squares regression and path analysis to account for variance explained by interaction between independent variables (see text). For clarity, regression lines are omitted from A.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 7. A statistical model explaining the relationships of all measured muscle performance parameters in relation to muscle power output. (A) Path diagram summarizing the results from three separate multiple regression tests. Arrows pointing from each independent variable to a dependent variable represent relationships revealed by one multiple regression test. Colored arrowheads identify the three separate tests. Test 1: cycle power vs cycle work and cycle duration (blue); Test 2: cycle work vs peak stress and strain amplitude (red); Test 3: peak stress vs EMG intensity and EMG duty cycle (green). Black numbers above the arrows are path coefficients and red numbers below the arrows are partial coefficients of determination (r2=path coefficient x partial correlation coefficient) describing the fractional variance explained by each covariate. Values are mean ± s.d. for all frogs that demonstrated a significant correlation (P<=0.05). (B) Reduced path diagram summarizing data from a single frog (frog 5) indicates that four primary performance parameters (cycle duration, EMG intensity, EMG duty cycle and strain amplitude) explain approximately 76% of the variance in plantaris power. Black numbers represent path coefficients and red numbers partial coefficients of determination; these are given for each individual frog in Table 3. Independent variables that did not significantly contribute to the regression model (P>0.05) are not included in the average values shown on the path diagrams.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 8. (A,B) Scatter plots showing the variation in plantaris cycle work as a function of strain amplitude (A) and peak stress (B) for all six individuals. (C,D) Plots for work vs strain amplitude (C) and work vs peak stress (D) for frog 5. Regression lines and partial coefficients of determination (r2) were calculated in the same manner as in Fig. 6.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 9. (A,B) Scatter plots showing variation in peak plantaris stress as a function of EMG duty cycle (A) and EMG intensity (B) for all six individuals. (C,D) Plots for peak stress vs EMG duty cycle (C) and peak stress vs EMG intensity (D) for frog 5. Regression lines and partial coefficients of determination (r2) were calculated in the same manner as in Fig. 6.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 10. Diagram showing the relative timing of peak ankle extension velocity, peak plantaris muscle stress, peak muscle shortening velocity and peak muscle shortening. Black squares and whiskers show mean ± s.d. for frog 5 (N=45 swimming strokes).

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007