Differential Sodium Current Remodelling Identifies Distinct Cellular Proarrhythmic Mechanisms in Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The cellular mechanisms underlying progression from paroxysmal to persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) are not fully understood, but alterations in (late) sodium current (I Na ) have been proposed. Human studies investigating electrophysiological changes at the paroxysmal stage of AF are sparse, with the majority employing right atrial appendage cardiomyocytes (CMs). We here investigated action potential (AP) characteristics and (late) I Na remodelling in left atrial appendage CMs (LAA-CMs) from patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF and patients in sinus rhythm (SR), as well as the potential contribution of the "neuronal" sodium channel SCN10A /Na V 1.8. Methods Peak I Na , late I Na and AP properties were investigated through patch-clamp analysis on single LAA-CMs, whereas quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to assess SCN5A/SCN10A expression levels in LAA tissue. Results In paroxysmal and persistent AF LAA-CMs, AP duration was shorter than in SR LAA-CMs. Compared with SR, peak I Na and SCN5A expression were significantly decreased in paroxysmal AF, whereas they were restored to SR levels in persistent AF. Conversely, although late I Na was unchanged in paroxysmal AF compared with SR, it was significantly increased in persistent AF. Peak or late Na v 1.8-based I Na was not detected in persistent AF LAA-CMs. Similarly, expression of SCN10A was not observed in LAAs at any stage. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate differences in (late) I Na remodeling in LAA-CMs from patients with paroxysmal vs persistent AF, indicating distinct cellular proarrhythmic mechanisms in different AF forms. These observations are of particular relevance when considering potential pharmacologic approaches targeting (late) I Na 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".