4.5 Article

A mathematical model of the slow force response to stretch in rat ventricular myocytes

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 92, 期 11, 页码 4030-4044

出版社

BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.106.095463

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01-EB005825-01, R01 EB005825] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a model of the rat ventricular myocyte at room temperature to predict the relative effects of different mechanisms on the cause of the slow increase in force in response to a step change in muscle length. We performed simulations in the presence of stretch-dependent increases influx through the Na+-H+ exchanger (NHE) and Cl--HCO3- exchanger (AE), stretch-activated channels (SAC), and the stretch-dependent nitric oxide (NO) induced increased open probability of the ryanodine receptors to estimate the capacity of each mechanism to produce the slow force response (SFR). Inclusion of stretch-dependent NHE & AE, SACs, and stretch-dependent NO effects caused an increase in tension following 15 min of stretch of 0.87%, 32%, and 0%, respectively. Comparing [Ca2+](i) dynamics before and after stretch in the presence of combinations of the three stretch-dependent elements, which produced significant SFR values (>20%), showed that the inclusion of stretch-dependent NO effects produced [Ca2+](i) transients, which were not consistent with experimental results. Further simulations showed that in the presence of SACs and the absence of stretch-dependent NHE & AE inhibition of NHE attenuated the SFR, such that reduced SFR in the presence of NHE blockers does not indicate a stretch dependence of NHE. Rather, a functioning NHE is responsible for a portion of the SFR. Based on our simulations we estimate that in rat cardiac myocytes at room temperature SACs play a significant role in producing the SFR, potentially in the presence of stretch-dependent NHE & AE and that NO effects, if any, must involve more mechanisms than just increasing the open probability of ryanodine receptors.

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

4.5
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