Back

Further evidence against a force-velocity trade-off in muscle driven dynamic lever systems

Osgood, A. K. C.; Sutton, G.; Cox, S. M.

2020-10-15 zoology
10.1101/2020.10.14.339390 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Here we argue that quasi-static analyses are insufficient to predict the speed of an organism from its skeletal mechanics alone (i.e. lever arm mechanics). Using a musculoskeletal numerical model we specifically demonstrate that 1) a single lever morphology can produce a range of output velocities, and 2) a single output velocity can be produced by a drastically different set of lever morphologies. These two sets of simulations quantitatively demonstrate that it is incorrect to assume a one-to-one relationship between lever arm morphology and organism maximum velocity. We then use a statistical analysis to quantify what parameters are determining output velocity, and find that muscle physiology, geometry, and limb mass are all extremely important. Lastly we argue that the functional output of a simple lever is dependent on the dynamic interaction of two opposing factors: those decreasing velocity at low mechanical advantage (low torque and muscle work) and those decreasing velocity at high mechanical advantage (muscle force-velocity effects). These dynamic effects are not accounted for in static analyses and are inconsistent with a force-velocity tradeoff in lever systems. Therefore, we advocate for a dynamic, integrative approach that takes these factors into account when analyzing changes in skeletal levers.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.2%
3
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.5%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 9%
6.9%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.3%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
Evolutionary Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
10
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
12
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
14
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
15
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
17
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
18
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Biological Cybernetics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.6%
24
Physical Review Research
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Cytoskeleton
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
26
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.5%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.5%
28
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%