4.7 Article

A Model of Canine Purkinje Cell Electrophysiology and Ca2+ Cycling

期刊

CIRCULATION RESEARCH
卷 109, 期 1, 页码 71-U261

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.111.246512

关键词

arrhythmia; calcium; electrophysiology; modeling; Purkinje

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [RO1-HL-49054-19, RO1-HL-33343-26]
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-0929633]
  3. Foundation Leducq [08CVD01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purkinje cells (Pcell) are characterized by different electrophysiological properties of Ca2+ cycling processes than ventricular myocytes (V cell) and are frequently involved in ventricular arrhythmias. Yet, the mechanistic basis for their arrhythmic Ca2+ cycling, and their rate dependence; (2) investigate mechanisms underlying Pcell arrhythmogenicity; and compare Pcell and Vcell electrophysiology, Ca2+ cycling, and we developed a new mathematical model of Pcell. The Ca2+ subsystem includes spatial organization and receptors distribution unique to Pcell. Resulsts were (1) in Pcell and Vcell, Na+ accumulation via its augmentation of repolarizing I-NaK, I-NaL contributres additional length (2) steep Pcell restituion is attributable to slow recovery of I-NaL; (3) biphasic Ca2+ transients of Pcell reflect the delay between Ca2+ alternans, unlike heterogeneity of Ca2+ cycling attributable to refractoriness of Ca2+ release from corbular sarcoplasmic reticulum and junctional sarcoplasmic reticulum; (6) greater Pcell vulnerability to delayed afterdepolarizations is attributable to higher sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ content of ionic currents that reduce excitation threshold and promote triggered activity; and (7) early after of I-NaL2 whereas I-CaL plays this role in Vcell. Steeper rate dependence of action potential and Ca2+ transients, central peripheral heterogeneity of Ca2+ cycling, and distinct ion channel profile underlie grater arrhythmic vulnerability of Pcell compared to Vcell. (Circ Res. 2011;109:71-79).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据