Cargando…

Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model

Mathematical models of ionic currents are used to study the electrophysiology of the heart, brain, gut, and several other organs. Increasingly, these models are being used predictively in the clinic, for example, to predict the risks and results of genetic mutations, pharmacological treatments, or s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clerx, Michael, Beattie, Kylie A., Gavaghan, David J., Mirams, Gary R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Biophysical Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6990153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31493859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2019.08.001
_version_ 1783492484292149248
author Clerx, Michael
Beattie, Kylie A.
Gavaghan, David J.
Mirams, Gary R.
author_facet Clerx, Michael
Beattie, Kylie A.
Gavaghan, David J.
Mirams, Gary R.
author_sort Clerx, Michael
collection PubMed
description Mathematical models of ionic currents are used to study the electrophysiology of the heart, brain, gut, and several other organs. Increasingly, these models are being used predictively in the clinic, for example, to predict the risks and results of genetic mutations, pharmacological treatments, or surgical procedures. These safety-critical applications depend on accurate characterization of the underlying ionic currents. Four different methods can be found in the literature to fit voltage-sensitive ion channel models to whole-cell current measurements: method 1, fitting model equations directly to time-constant, steady-state, and I-V summary curves; method 2, fitting by comparing simulated versions of these summary curves to their experimental counterparts; method 3, fitting to the current traces themselves from a range of protocols; and method 4, fitting to a single current trace from a short and rapidly fluctuating voltage-clamp protocol. We compare these methods using a set of experiments in which hERG1a current was measured in nine Chinese hamster ovary cells. In each cell, the same sequence of fitting protocols was applied, as well as an independent validation protocol. We show that methods 3 and 4 provide the best predictions on the independent validation set and that short, rapidly fluctuating protocols like that used in method 4 can replace much longer conventional protocols without loss of predictive ability. Although data for method 2 are most readily available from the literature, we find it performs poorly compared to methods 3 and 4 both in accuracy of predictions and computational efficiency. Our results demonstrate how novel experimental and computational approaches can improve the quality of model predictions in safety-critical applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6990153
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Biophysical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69901532020-10-10 Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model Clerx, Michael Beattie, Kylie A. Gavaghan, David J. Mirams, Gary R. Biophys J Articles Mathematical models of ionic currents are used to study the electrophysiology of the heart, brain, gut, and several other organs. Increasingly, these models are being used predictively in the clinic, for example, to predict the risks and results of genetic mutations, pharmacological treatments, or surgical procedures. These safety-critical applications depend on accurate characterization of the underlying ionic currents. Four different methods can be found in the literature to fit voltage-sensitive ion channel models to whole-cell current measurements: method 1, fitting model equations directly to time-constant, steady-state, and I-V summary curves; method 2, fitting by comparing simulated versions of these summary curves to their experimental counterparts; method 3, fitting to the current traces themselves from a range of protocols; and method 4, fitting to a single current trace from a short and rapidly fluctuating voltage-clamp protocol. We compare these methods using a set of experiments in which hERG1a current was measured in nine Chinese hamster ovary cells. In each cell, the same sequence of fitting protocols was applied, as well as an independent validation protocol. We show that methods 3 and 4 provide the best predictions on the independent validation set and that short, rapidly fluctuating protocols like that used in method 4 can replace much longer conventional protocols without loss of predictive ability. Although data for method 2 are most readily available from the literature, we find it performs poorly compared to methods 3 and 4 both in accuracy of predictions and computational efficiency. Our results demonstrate how novel experimental and computational approaches can improve the quality of model predictions in safety-critical applications. The Biophysical Society 2019-12-17 2019-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6990153/ /pubmed/31493859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2019.08.001 Text en © 2019 Biophysical Society. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Articles
Clerx, Michael
Beattie, Kylie A.
Gavaghan, David J.
Mirams, Gary R.
Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title_full Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title_fullStr Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title_full_unstemmed Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title_short Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model
title_sort four ways to fit an ion channel model
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6990153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31493859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2019.08.001
work_keys_str_mv AT clerxmichael fourwaystofitanionchannelmodel
AT beattiekyliea fourwaystofitanionchannelmodel
AT gavaghandavidj fourwaystofitanionchannelmodel
AT miramsgaryr fourwaystofitanionchannelmodel