MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118684821 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2013.261198

Ionic mechanisms limiting cardiac repolarization reserve in humans compared to dogs

2013· article· en· W2118684821 on OpenAlexafffund
Norbert Jost, László Virág, Philippe Comtois, Balázs Ördög, Viktória Szüts, György Seprényi, Miklós Bitay, Zsófia Kohajda, István Koncz, Norbert Nagy, Tamás Szél, János Magyar, Mária Kovács, László G. Puskás, Csaba Lengyel, Erich Wettwer, Ursula Ravens, Péter P. Nánási, Julius Gy. Papp, András Varró, Stanley Nattel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNemzeti Kutatási és Technológiai HivatalMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaHungarian Scientific Research FundDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMinkRepolarizationhERGVentricleInternal medicineDofetilideEndocrinologyChemistryPatch clampElectrophysiologyPotassium channelCardiologyBiologyQT intervalMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac repolarization, through which heart-cells return to their resting state after having fired, is a delicate process, susceptible to disruption by common drugs and clinical conditions. Animal models, particularly the dog, are often used to study repolarization properties and responses to drugs, with the assumption that such findings are relevant to humans. However, little is known about the applicability of findings in animals to man. Here, we studied the contribution of various ion-currents to cardiac repolarization in canine and human ventricle. Humans showed much greater repolarization-impairing effects of drugs blocking the rapid delayed-rectifier current IKr than dogs, because of lower repolarization-reserve contributions from two other important repolarizing currents (the inward-rectifier IK1 and slow delayed-rectifier IKs). Our findings clarify differences in cardiac repolarization-processes among species, highlighting the importance of caution when extrapolating results from animal models to man. Abstract The species-specific determinants of repolarization are poorly understood. This study compared the contribution of various currents to cardiac repolarization in canine and human ventricle. Conventional microelectrode, whole-cell patch-clamp, molecular biological and mathematical modelling techniques were used. Selective IKr block (50–100 nmol l−1 dofetilide) lengthened AP duration at 90% of repolarization (APD90) >3-fold more in human than dog, suggesting smaller repolarization reserve in humans. Selective IK1 block (10 μmol l−1 BaCl2) and IKs block (1 μmol l−1 HMR-1556) increased APD90 more in canine than human right ventricular papillary muscle. Ion current measurements in isolated cardiomyocytes showed that IK1 and IKs densities were 3- and 4.5-fold larger in dogs than humans, respectively. IKr density and kinetics were similar in human versus dog. ICa and Ito were respectively ∼30% larger and ∼29% smaller in human, and Na+–Ca2+ exchange current was comparable. Cardiac mRNA levels for the main IK1 ion channel subunit Kir2.1 and the IKs accessory subunit minK were significantly lower, but mRNA expression of ERG and KvLQT1 (IKr and IKsα-subunits) were not significantly different, in human versus dog. Immunostaining suggested lower Kir2.1 and minK, and higher KvLQT1 protein expression in human versus canine cardiomyocytes. IK1 and IKs inhibition increased the APD-prolonging effect of IKr block more in dog (by 56% and 49%, respectively) than human (34 and 16%), indicating that both currents contribute to increased repolarization reserve in the dog. A mathematical model incorporating observed human–canine ion current differences confirmed the role of IK1 and IKs in repolarization reserve differences. Thus, humans show greater repolarization-delaying effects of IKr block than dogs, because of lower repolarization reserve contributions from IK1 and IKs, emphasizing species-specific determinants of repolarization and the limitations of animal models for human disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations154
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207