Contractile properties of inner and outer smooth muscle bundles from pig urinary detrusor
- 70 Downloads
Like in the human detrusor, the pig urinary detrusor muscle consists of two layers: compactly arranged smooth muscle bundles on the mucosal side (inner layer) and loosely arranged smooth muscle bundles on the serosal side (outer layer). The contractile properties of muscle bundles of both layers were measured using the stop test followed by an isometric contraction. Total and passive forces were measured in ten muscle bundles from the inner and outer muscle layers. Active force was defined as the difference between total and passive force. The curvature and the unloaded shortening velocity of the force-velocity relation were calculated from the shortening forces measured during the stop test. The rate of force development was calculated from the isometric contraction. Differences in contractile properties between both layers were pairwise tested using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Percentage wise, the outer layer muscle bundles produced the highest active isometric force. The shortening forces were also higher in the outer layer bundles. As a result, both the curvature and the unloaded shortening velocity, derived from the average force-velocity relations fitted to the data sets, were higher in the muscle bundles from this layer. Finally, the outer layer muscle bundles contracted significantly faster than those of the inner layer. Muscle bundles from the outer layer of pig detrusor were found to be faster and stronger (more phasic) than the weaker and slower (more tonic) bundles from the inner layer, suggesting that during bladder contraction the outer layer of the detrusor does more work than the inner layer.
KeywordsSmooth muscle Contractility Urinary bladder Stop test Pig
- 12.van Mastrigt R (1980) Fitting the Hill equation to experimental data. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering. Vol. BME 27(7): 412–416Google Scholar
- 15.Hill AV (1938) The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 126:136–195Google Scholar