Left-to-Right Atrial Inward Rectifier Potassium Current Gradients in Patients With Paroxysmal Versus Chronic Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that atrial fibrillation (AF) is maintained by high-frequency reentrant sources with a left-to-right-dominant frequency gradient, particularly in patients with paroxysmal AF (pAF). Unequal left-to-right distribution of inward rectifier K(+) currents has been suggested to underlie this dominant frequency gradient, but this hypothesis has never been tested in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS: Currents were measured with whole-cell voltage-clamp in cardiomyocytes from right atrial (RA) and left (LA) atrial appendages of patients in sinus rhythm (SR) and patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. Western blot was used to quantify protein expression of I(K1) (Kir2.1 and Kir2.3) and I(K,ACh) (Kir3.1 and Kir3.4) subunits. Basal current was ≈2-fold larger in chronic AF (cAF) versus SR patients, without RA-LA differences. In pAF, basal current was ≈2-fold larger in LA versus RA, indicating a left-to-right atrial gradient. In both atria, Kir2.1 expression was ≈2-fold greater in cAF but comparable in pAF versus SR. Kir2.3 levels were unchanged in cAF and RA-pAF but showed a 51% decrease in LA-pAF. In SR, carbachol-activated (2 μmol/L) I(K,ACh) was 70% larger in RA versus LA. This right-to-left atrial gradient was decreased in pAF and cAF caused by reduced I(K,ACh) in RA only. Similarly, in SR, Kir3.1 and Kir3.4 proteins were greater in RA versus LA and decreased in RA of pAF and cAF. Kir3.1 and Kir3.4 expression was unchanged in LA of pAF and cAF. CONCLUSION: Our results support the hypothesis that a left-to-right gradient in inward rectifier background current contributes to high-frequency sources in LA that maintain pAF. These findings have potentially important implications for development of atrial-selective therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".