Tweet
Dear Biomch-L Readers,
We are planning to start collection of sarcomer length of
various muscles (as part of an extensive project dealing
with musculo-skeletal modelling).
After completing a litterature search, I could conclude that
there are two available protocols to perform such
measurement: 1- histology; 2- laser refraction.
2 is obviously the most popular in the biomechanical field
(a large majority of paper dealing with sarcomer length
determination in a biomechanical context used it).
But I never found any clear explications about the
advantages of laser compared to histology.
To me 2- is an indirect method, while 1- is direct. Of
course the latter is obtained after serious muscle cutting
(and maybe denaturation), and this is maybe the reason
why laser is used instead.
So, here is my questions:
What are the advantages and drawbacks of both methods
relative to each other?
Are such differences validated and published?
I would appreciate any help on that matter.
Thank you very much in advance for sharing your
experience !
Serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Serge VAN SINT JAN, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Marie Curie Fellow
Department of Anatomy (CP 619)
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Lennik Street 808
1070 Brussels - Belgium
Phone: +32-2-555-6325 (-6376)
Fax: +32-2-555-6378
Email: sintjans@ulb.ac.be
LAB website: http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~anatemb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
We are planning to start collection of sarcomer length of
various muscles (as part of an extensive project dealing
with musculo-skeletal modelling).
After completing a litterature search, I could conclude that
there are two available protocols to perform such
measurement: 1- histology; 2- laser refraction.
2 is obviously the most popular in the biomechanical field
(a large majority of paper dealing with sarcomer length
determination in a biomechanical context used it).
But I never found any clear explications about the
advantages of laser compared to histology.
To me 2- is an indirect method, while 1- is direct. Of
course the latter is obtained after serious muscle cutting
(and maybe denaturation), and this is maybe the reason
why laser is used instead.
So, here is my questions:
What are the advantages and drawbacks of both methods
relative to each other?
Are such differences validated and published?
I would appreciate any help on that matter.
Thank you very much in advance for sharing your
experience !
Serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Serge VAN SINT JAN, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Marie Curie Fellow
Department of Anatomy (CP 619)
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Lennik Street 808
1070 Brussels - Belgium
Phone: +32-2-555-6325 (-6376)
Fax: +32-2-555-6378
Email: sintjans@ulb.ac.be
LAB website: http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~anatemb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---