No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARYSkeletal muscles are diverse in their contractile properties, with many of these differences being directly related to the assemblages of myofibrillar isoforms characteristic of different fibers. Crustacean muscles are similar to other muscles in this respect, although the majority of information about differences in muscle organization comes from vertebrate species. In the present study, we examined the correlation between myofibrillar protein isoforms and the patterns of myofibrillar gene expression in fast, slow-phasic(S1) and slow-tonic (S2) fibers of the American lobster Homarus americanus. SDS-PAGE and western blotting were used to identify isoform assemblages of myosin heavy chain (MHC), P75, troponin T(TnT) and troponin I (TnI). RT-PCR was used to monitor expression of fast and slow (S1) MHC, P75 and actin in different fiber types, and the MHC and actin levels were quantified by real-time PCR. Fast and slow fibers from the claw closers predominantly expressed fast and S1 MHC,respectively, but also lower levels of the alternate MHC. By contrast, fast fibers from the deep abdominal muscle expressed fast MHC exclusively. In addition, slow muscles expressed significantly higher levels of actin than fast fibers. A distal bundle of fibers in the cutter claw closer muscle was found to be composed of a mixture of S1 and S2 fibers,many of which possessed a mixture of S1 and S2 MHC isoforms. This pattern supports the idea that S1 and S2fibers represent extremes in a continuum of slow muscle phenotype. Overall,these patterns demonstrate that crustacean skeletal muscles cannot be strictly categorized into discrete fiber types, but a muscle's properties probably represent a point on a continuum of fiber types. This trend may result from differences in innervation pattern, as each muscle is controlled by a unique combination of phasic, tonic or both phasic and tonic motor nerves. In this respect, future studies examining how muscle phenotype correlates with innervation pattern may help account for variation in crustacean fiber types.

No abstract