Rhythmicity and neurovascular integration of synchronous and asynchronous sympathetic action potential subpopulations in human muscle sympathetic nerve activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the time-varying discharge patterns and neurovascular integration of synchronous and asynchronous sympathetic action potential (AP) subpopulations. Muscle sympathetic APs (peroneal microneurography, continuous wavelet transform) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; Finometer) were recorded in 9 healthy adults (3 female; 20-30 years) during baseline rest (5-min). Time-varying discharge patterns of different AP subpopulations were quantified as the mean firing frequency (hertz; Hz) of each AP subpopulation for falling and rising DBPs. Mixed-effects modeling and t -tests quantified differences in AP firing frequencies and neurovascular responses. When all DBPs were considered, the mean firing frequency of medium-sized APs was higher for synchronous APs compared to asynchronous APs (Cluster 3; synchronous: 0.29 ± 0.11 Hz, asynchronous: 0.16 ± 0.06 Hz; p < 0.001). The mean firing frequencies of small- and large-sized APs were not different for synchronous and asynchronous APs (all p > 0.16). For synchronous APs, the mean firing frequency of medium-sized APs was higher for DBP falls compared to rises (Cluster 3; DBP fall: 0.24 ± 0.10 Hz, DBP rise: 0.20 ± 0.10 Hz; p < 0.001). The mean firing frequencies of small- and large-sized synchronous APs were not different for DBP falls and rises (all p > 0.06). For asynchronous APs, no differences were observed in the mean firing frequency of any AP subpopulation for DBP falls and rises (all p > 0.26). Neurovascular integration of sympathetic AP discharge was quantified as the DBP response to synchronous and asynchronous AP discharge for falling and rising DBPs (signal averaging). Transduction gain was quantified as the slope of the linear relationship between the maximal DBP response and the time-to-maximal DBP response. When all DBPs were considered, synchronous APs produced DBP increases (synchronous: 2.20 ± 0.53 mmHg) whereas asynchronous APs attenuated DBP reductions (asynchronous: -1.23 ± 0.62 mmHg), compared to periods with no AP activity (no AP activity: -1.69 ± 0.76 mmHg; all p < 0.011). For synchronous APs that fired during DBP rises, the DBP transduction curve was reset upwards to larger peak responses compared to DBP falls (DBP rise: 3.45 ± 1.58 mmHg, DBP fall: 2.61 ± 1.25 mmHg; p = 0.015). The transduction gain for synchronous APs was not different for DBP rises and falls (DBP rise: 0.48 ± 0.38 mmHg/cardiac cycle, DBP fall: 0.43 ± 0.14 mmHg/cardiac cycle; p = 0.672). For asynchronous APs that fired during DBP falls, there was a larger nadir response compared to DBP rises (DBP fall: -1.79 ± 0.72 mmHg, DBP rise: -1.34 ± 0.88 mmHg; p = 0.011). However, the transduction gain for asynchronous APs was positive for DBP falls and negative for DBP rises (DBP fall: 0.05 ± 0.08 mmHg/cardiac cycle, DBP rise: -0.10 ± 0.05 mmHg/cardiac cycle; p < 0.001). These data suggest that: 1) synchronous but not asynchronous sympathetic APs express time-varying discharge patterns related to blood pressure oscillations, 2) asynchronous AP discharge supports homeostatic blood pressure regulation, and 3) neurovascular integration is affected by both the synchronization and rhythmicity of sympathetic AP discharge. This work was supported by Queen Elizabeth II and Ontario Graduate Scholarships and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). This abstract was presented at the American Physiology Summit 2025 and is only available in HTML format. There is no downloadable file or PDF version. The Physiology editorial board was not involved in the peer review process.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".