Shaken and stirred: muscle structure and metabolism

Muscles are ideal models with which to examine the relationship between structure and metabolism because they are some of the most highly structured cells, and are capable of the largest and most rapid metabolic transitions as well as the highest metabolic rates known. Studies of metabolism have traditionally been conducted within what can considered as the kinetic paradigm provided by 'solution biochemistry'; i.e. the rates of enzymatic reactions are studied in terms of their regulation by mass-action and allosteric effectors and, most recently, metabolic control analysis of pathways. This approach has served biology well and continues to be useful. Here, we consider the diffusion of small and large molecules in muscles and energy metabolism in the context of intracellular space. We find that in attempting to explain certain phenomena, a purely kinetic paradigm appears insufficient. Instead, phenomena such as the 'shuttling' of high-energy phosphate donors and acceptors and the binding of metabolic enzymes to intracellular structures or to each other are better understood when metabolic rates and their regulation are considered in the context of intracellular compartments, distances, gradients and diffusion. As in all of biology, however, complexity dominates, and to such a degree that one pathway may consist of several reactions that each behave according to different rules. 'Soluble' creatine kinase operates at or near equilibrium, while mitochondrial and myofibrillar creatine kinases directly channel substrate to (or from) the adenine nucleotide translocase and actomyosin-ATPase, their operation being thus displaced from equilibrium. Hexose 6-phosphate metabolism appears to obey the rules of solution biochemistry, e.g. phosphoglucoisomerase behaves as Haldane would have predicted in 1930. In contrast, given low steady-state substrate and product concentrations and high flux rates, a number of glycolytic reactions further downstream must be catalyzed by enzymes localized in close proximity to each other. Metabolites may be channeled within these complexes. When observed, mechanistic differences between species in the same steps or processes should not be surprising, considering how animals vary so much in structures, mechanical properties, mitochondrial contents and metabolic rates. This analysis suggests that declarations of the triumph of one mechanism or paradigm over all others, as well as calls for the abandonment of solution biochemistry, are unwarranted. Rather, metabolic biochemistry would seem better served by reconciling the old and the new.