Impaired Cardiac AMPK (5′‐Adenosine Monophosphate‐Activated Protein Kinase) and Ca <sup>2+</sup> ‐Handling, and Action Potential Duration Heterogeneity in Ibrutinib‐Induced Ventricular Arrhythmia Vulnerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We recently demonstrated that acute administration of ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in chemotherapy for blood malignancies, increases ventricular arrhythmia (VA) vulnerability. A pathway of ibrutinib‐induced vulnerability to VA that can be modulated for cardioprotection remains unclear. Methods and Results The effects of ibrutinib on cardiac electrical activity and Ca 2+ dynamics were investigated in Langendorff‐perfused hearts using optical mapping. We also conducted Western blotting analysis to evaluate the impact of ibrutinib on various regulatory and Ca 2+ ‐handling proteins in rat cardiac tissues. Treatment with ibrutinib (10 mg/kg per day) for 4 weeks was associated with an increased VA inducibility (72.2%±6.3% versus 38.9±7.0% in controls, P <0.002) and shorter action potential durations during pacing at various frequencies ( P <0.05). Ibrutinib also decreased heart rate thresholds for beat–to–beat duration alternans of the cardiac action potential ( P <0.05). Significant changes in myocardial Ca 2+ transients included lower amplitude alternans ratios ( P <0.05), longer times‐to‐peak ( P <0.05), and greater spontaneous intracellular Ca 2+ elevations ( P <0.01). We also found lower abundance and phosphorylation of myocardial AMPK (5′‐adenosine monophosphate‐activated protein kinase), indicating reduced AMPK activity in hearts after ibrutinib treatment. An acute treatment with the AMPK activator 5‐aminoimidazole‐4‐carboxamide‐1‐β‐D‐ribofuranoside ameliorated abnormalities in action potential and Ca 2+ dynamics, and significantly reduced VA inducibility (37.1%±13.4% versus 72.2%±6.3% in the absence of 5‐aminoimidazole‐4‐carboxamide‐1‐β‐D‐ribofuranoside, P <0.05) in hearts from ibrutinib‐treated rats. Conclusions VA vulnerability inflicted by ibrutinib may be mediated in part by an impairment of myocardial AMPK activity. Pharmacological activation of AMPK may be a protective strategy against ibrutinib‐induced cardiotoxicity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".