bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/656272; this version posted May 31, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Manuscript SUBMITTED TO eLife 1 A NANOMETER DIffERENCE IN 2 MYOfiLAMENT LATTICE SPACING OF TWO 3 COCKROACH LEG MUSCLES EXPLAINS THEIR 4 DIffERENT FUNCTIONS 1 2 2 1,3,* 5 TRAVIS Carver TUNE , WEIKANG Ma , Thomas C. IRVING , Simon SponberG *For CORRespondence: School OF Physics, GeorGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Atlanta, GA, 30332 USA; BioCAT AND
[email protected] 6 1 2 CSRRI, Department OF Biological Sciences, ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Chicago, IL, 7 60616 USA; School OF Biological Sciences, GeorGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Atlanta, GA, 8 3 30332 USA 9 10 11 AbstrACT 12 Muscle IS HIGHLY ORGANIZED ACROSS scales. Consequently, SMALL CHANGES IN ARRANGEMENT OF 13 MYOfiLAMENTS CAN INflUENCE MACROSCOPIC function. TWO LEG MUSCLES OF A COCKRoach, HAVE IDENTICAL 14 innervation, mass, TWITCH Responses, length-tension curves, AND FORce-velocity Relationships. 15 HoWEver, DURING running, ONE MUSCLE IS dissipative, WHILE THE OTHER PRODUCES SIGNIfiCANT POSITIVE 16 MECHANICAL work. Using TIME RESOLVED x-rAY DIffRACTION IN intact, CONTRACTING muscle, WE 17 SIMULTANEOUSLY MEASURED THE MYOfiLAMENT LATTICE spacing, PACKING STRUCTURe, AND MACROSCOPIC 18 FORCE PRODUCTION OF THESE MUSCLE TO TEST IF NANOSCALE DIffERENCES COULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS conundrum. 19 While THE PACKING PATTERNS ARE THE same, ONE MUSCLE HAS 1 NM SMALLER LATTICE SPACING AT Rest.