Atrial tachycardia induces remodelling of muscarinic receptors and their coupled potassium currents in canine left atrial and pulmonary vein cardiomyocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Both parasympathetic tone and atrial tachycardia (AT) remodelling of ion channels play important roles in atrial fibrillation (AF) pathophysiology. Different muscarinic cholinergic receptor (mAChR) subtypes (M2, M3, M4) in atrial cardiomyocytes are coupled to distinct K+-currents (called IKM2, IKM3, IKM4, respectively). Pulmonary veins (PVs) are important in AF and differential cholinergic current responses are a potential underlying mechanism. This study investigated AT-induced remodelling of mAChR subtypes and K+-currents in left-atrial (LA) and PV cardiomyocytes. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Receptor expression was assayed by western blot. IKM2, IKM3 and IKM4 were recorded with whole-cell patch-clamp in LA and PV cardiomyocytes of nonpaced control dogs and dogs after 7 days of AT-pacing (400 bpm). KEY RESULTS: Current densities of IKM2, IKM3 and IKM4 were significantly reduced by AT-pacing in LA and PV cardiomyocytes. PV cardiomyocyte current-voltage relations were similar to LA for all three cholinergic currents, both in control and AT remodelling. Membrane-protein expression levels corresponding to M2, M3 and M4 subtypes were decreased significantly (by about 50%) after AT pacing. Agonist concentration-response relations for all three currents were unaffected by AT pacing. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: AT downregulated all three mAChR-coupled K+-current subtypes, along with corresponding mAChR protein expression. These changes in cholinergic receptor-coupled function may play a role in AF pathophysiology. Cholinergic receptor-coupled K+-currents in PV cardiomyocytes were similar to those in LA under control and AT-pacing conditions, suggesting that differential cholinergic current properties do not explain the role of PVs in AF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".