4.6 Article

An analysis of deformation-dependent electromechanical coupling in the mouse heart

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 590, 期 18, 页码 4553-4569

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.231928

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC (Medical Research Council) [G0800980]
  2. EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) [EP/F043929/1, EP/G007527/2]
  3. Research Council of Norway
  4. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority
  5. Norwegian Health Association
  6. Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, University of Oslo
  7. European Union [FP7-HEALTH-2010.2.4.2-4]
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F043929/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [G0800980] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. EPSRC [EP/F043929/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. MRC [G0800980] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the effects of the coupling between excitation and contraction on whole-organ function, we have developed a novel biophysically based multiscale electromechanical model of the murine heart. Through comparison with a comprehensive in vivo experimental data set, we show good agreement with pressure and volume measurements at both physiological temperatures and physiological pacing frequencies. This whole-organ model was used to investigate the effects of material and haemodynamic properties introduced at the tissue level, as well as emergent function of our novel cell contraction model. Through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis at both the cellular and whole organ level, we demonstrate the sensitivity of the model's results to its parameters and the constraining effect of experimental data. These results demonstrate the fundamental importance of length- and velocity-dependent feedback to the cellular scale for whole-organ function, and we show that a strong velocity dependence of tension is essential for explaining the differences between measured single cell tension and whole-organ pressure transients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据