Gender-Based Differences in Cardiac Repolarization in Mouse Ventricle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mouse heart has become a widely used model for genetic studies of heart diseases. Thus, understanding gender differences in mouse cardiac repolarization is crucial to the interpretation of such studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there are gender differences in cardiac repolarization in mouse ventricle and to gain insights into the ionic and molecular mechanisms underlying these differences. Action potential durations (APDs) and K(+) currents in male and female ventricular myocytes were compared using a patch-clamp technique. APD(20), APD(50), and APD(90) were found to be significantly longer in females than males. Examination of the different K(+) currents revealed that a significantly lower current density exists in female ventricular myocytes compared with male myocytes for the ultrarapid delayed rectifier K(+) current, I(Kur) (at +30 mV, male, 33.2+/-2.9 pA/pF [n= 22]; female, 20.9+/-1.73 pA/pF [n= 19], P<0.001). Consistent with these findings were the results of the ribonuclease protection assay, Western blots, and confocal analysis that showed a significantly lower expression level of Kv1.5 (coding for I(Kur)) in female compared with male ventricle. The additional K(+) currents present in mouse ventricle exhibited no gender differences. In agreement with these electrophysiological data, no differences in the expression levels for the K(+) channels underlying these currents were detected between both sexes. This study demonstrates that adult mice exhibit gender differences in cardiac repolarization. The expression of Kv1.5 and of its corresponding K(+) current, I(Kur), is significantly lower in female mouse ventricle, and as a result, the APD is lengthened.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".