Couplons in rat atria form distinct subgroups defined by their molecular partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard local control theory, which describes Ca(2+) release during excitation-contraction coupling (ECC), assumes that all ryanodine receptor 2 (RyR2) complexes are equivalent. Findings from our laboratory have called this assumption into question. Specifically, we have shown that the RyR2 complexes in ventricular myocytes are different, depending on their location within the cell. This has led us to hypothesize that similar differences occur within the rat atrial cell. To test this hypothesis, we have triple-labelled enzymatically isolated fixed myocytes to examine the distribution and colocalization of RyR2, calsequestrin (Casq), voltage-gated Ca(2+) channels (Ca(v)1.2), the sodium-calcium exchanger (Ncx) and caveolin-3 (Cav3). A number of different surface RyR2 populations were identified, and one of these groups, in which RyR2, Ca(v)1.2 and Ncx colocalized, might provide the structural basis for 'eager' sites of Ca(2+) release in atria. A small percentage of the dyads containing RyR2 and Ca(v)1.2 were colocalized with Cav3, and therefore could be influenced by the signalling molecules it anchors. The majority of the RyR2 clusters were tightly linked to Ca(v)1.2, and, whereas some were coupled to both Ca 1.2 and Ncx, none were with Ncx alone. This suggests that Ca(v)1.2-mediated Ca(2+) -induced Ca(2+) release is the primary method of ECC. The two molecules studied that were found in the interior of atrial cells, RyR2 and Casq, showed significantly less colocalization and a reduced nearest-neighbour distance in the interior, compared with the surface of the cell. These differences might result in a higher excitability for RyR2 in the interior of the cells, facilitating the spread of excitation from the periphery to the centre. We also present morphometric data for all of the molecules studied, as well as for those colocalizations found to be significant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".