Structural limits on force production and shortening of smooth muscle.

This study determined the factors that limit force production and shortening in two smooth muscles having very different relationships between active and passive force as a function of muscle length. The rat anococcygeus muscle develops active force over the range of lengths 0.2-2.0× the optimum length for force production (Lo). Passive tension due to extension of the resting muscle occurs only at lengths exceeding Lo. In contrast, the rabbit taenia coli develops force in the range of lengths 0.4-1.1 Lo, and passive force which is detectable at 0.56 Lo, increases to ~0.45 maximum active force at Lo, and increases sharply with further extension. The anococcygeus muscle can shorten to 0.2 Lo and the taenia coli to 0.4 Lo. Dynamic stiffness and energy usage at short muscle lengths suggest that the limit of shortening in the taenia coli, in contrast to the anococcygeus muscle, is not due to a failure of cross bridge interaction. Phosphorylation of the regulatory myosin light chains in intact muscles decreased to a small extent at short lengths compared to the decrease in force production. The differences in force production and the extent of shortening in the two muscles was maintained even when, following permeabilization, the myosin light chains were irreversibly phosphorylated with ATPγS, indicating that differences in activation played little, if any role. Ultrastructural studies on resting and activated muscles show that the taenia coli, which is rich in connective tissue (unlike the anococcygeus muscle) undergoes marked cellular twisting and contractile filament misalignment at short lengths with compression of the extracellular matrix. As a result, force is not transmitted in the longitudinal axis of the muscle, but is dissipated against an internal load provided by the compressed extracellular matrix. These observations on two very different normal smooth muscles reveal how differences in the relative contribution of active and passive structural elements determine their mechanical behavior, and how this is potentially modified by remodeling that occurs in disease and in response to changes in functional demand.