4.5 Article

Cytoplasm Resistivity of Mammalian Atrial Myocardium Determined by Dielectrophoresis and Impedance Methods

Journal

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 103, Issue 11, Pages 2287-2294

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.10.023

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation
  2. Heart and Stroke Trust Endeavour (HASTE) Foundation
  3. EPSRC [EP/I500936/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I500936/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many cardiac arrhythmias are caused by slowed conduction of action potentials, which in turn can be due to an abnormal increase of intracellular myocardial resistance. Intracellular resistivity is a linear sum of that offered by gap junctions between contiguous cells and the cytoplasm of the myocytes themselves. However, the relative contribution of the two components is unclear, especially in atrial myocardium, as there are no precise measurements of cytoplasmic resistivity, R-c. In this study, R-c was measured in atrial tissue using several methods: a dielectrophoresis technique with isolated cells and impedance measurements with both isolated cells and multicellular preparations. All methods yielded similar values for R-c, with a mean of 138 +/- 5 Omega.cm at 23 degrees C, and a Q(10) value of 1.20. This value is about half that of total intracellular resistivity and thus will be a significant determinant of the actual value of action potential conduction velocity. The dielectrophoresis experiments demonstrated the importance of including divalent cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+) in the suspension medium, as their omission reduced cell integrity by lowering membrane resistivity and increasing cytoplasm resistivity. Accurate measurement of R-c is essential to develop quantitative computational models that determine the key factors contributing to the development of cardiac arrhythmias.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available