Model-Dependent Effects of the Gap Junction Conduction–Enhancing Antiarrhythmic Peptide Rotigaptide (ZP123) on Experimental Atrial Fibrillation in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal intercellular communication caused by connexin dysfunction may be involved in atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study assessed the effect of the gap junctional conduction-enhancing peptide rotigaptide on AF maintenance in substrates that result from congestive heart failure induced by 2-week ventricular tachypacing (240 bpm), atrial tachypacing (ATP; 400 bpm for 3 to 6 weeks), and isolated atrial myocardial ischemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electrophysiological study and epicardial mapping were performed before and after rotigaptide administration in dogs with ATP and congestive heart failure, as well as in similarly instrumented sham dogs that were not tachypaced. For atrial myocardial ischemia, dogs administered rotigaptide before myocardial ischemia were compared with no-drug myocardial ischemia controls. ATP significantly shortened the atrial effective refractory period (P=0.003) and increased AF duration (P=0.008), with AF lasting >3 hours in all 6-week ATP animals. Rotigaptide increased conduction velocity in ATP dogs slightly but significantly (P=0.04) and did not affect the effective refractory period, AF duration, or atrial vulnerability. In dogs with congestive heart failure, rotigaptide also slightly increased conduction velocity (P=0.046) but failed to prevent AF promotion. Rotigaptide had no statistically significant effects in sham dogs. Myocardial ischemia alone increased AF duration and impaired conduction (based on conduction velocity across the ischemic border and indices of conduction heterogeneity). Rotigaptide prevented myocardial ischemia-induced conduction slowing and AF duration increases. CONCLUSIONS: Rotigaptide improves conduction in various AF models but suppresses AF only for the acute ischemia substrate. These results define the atrial antiarrhythmic profile of a mechanistically novel antiarrhythmic drug and suggest that gap junction dysfunction may be more important in ischemic AF than in ATP remodeling or congestive heart failure substrates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".