4.6 Article

Intracellular Ca2+ and pacemaking within the rabbit sinoatrial node:: heterogeneity of role and control

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 556, 期 2, 页码 481-494

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.057372

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have proposed that release of calcium from the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) modulates the spontaneous activity of the sinoatrial node (SAN). Previously we have shown that several calcium regulatory proteins are expressed at a lower level in the centre of the SAN compared with the periphery. Such differences may produce heterogeneity of intracellular calcium handling and pacemaker activity across the SAN. Selective isolations showed that the centre of the SAN is composed of smaller cells than the periphery. Measurements of cytosolic calcium in spontaneously beating cells showed that diastolic calcium, systolic calcium, the calcium transient amplitude and spontaneous rate were greater in larger (likely to be peripheral) cells compared with smaller (likely to be central) SAN cells. The SR calcium content was greater in larger cells, although SR recruitment was more efficient in smaller cells. The sodium-calcium exchanger and sarcolemmal calcium ATPase had a lower activity and the exchanger was responsible for a larger proportion of sarcolemmal calcium extrusion in smaller cells compared with larger cells. Ryanodine had a greater effect on the spontaneous calcium transient in larger cells compared with smaller cells, and slowed pacemaker activity in larger cells but not smaller cells, thus abolishing the difference in cycle length. This study shows heterogeneity of intracellular calcium regulation within the SAN and this contributes to differences in pacemaker activity between cells from across the SAN. The smallest central cells of the leading pacemaker region of the SAN do not require SR calcium for spontaneous activity nor does disruption of the SR alter pacemaking in these primary pacemaker cells.

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