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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |