BACKGROUND: Current strategies of engineering bioartificial pacemakers from otherwise silent yet excitable adult atrial and ventricular cardiomyocytes primarily rely on either maximizing the hyperpolarization-activated I(f) or on minimizing its presumptive opponent, the inwardly rectifying potassium current I(K1). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine quantitatively the relative current densities of I(f) and I(K1) necessary to induce automaticity in adult atrial cardiomyocytes. METHODS: Automaticity of adult guinea pig atrial cardiomyocytes was induced by adenovirus (Ad)-mediated overexpression of the gating-engineered HCN1 construct HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta with the S3-S4 linker residues EVY235-7 deleted to favor channel opening. RESULTS: Whereas control atrial cardiomyocytes remained electrically quiescent and had no I(f), 18% of Ad-CMV-GFP-IRES-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta (Ad-CGI-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta)-transduced cells demonstrated automaticity (240 +/- 14 bpm) with gradual phase 4 depolarization (143 +/- 28 mV/s), a depolarized maximal diastolic potential (-45.3 +/- 2.2 mV), and substantial I(f) at -140 mV (I(f,-140 mV) = -9.32 +/- 1.84 pA/pF). In the remaining quiescent Ad-CGI-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta-transduced atrial cardiomyocytes, two distinct immediate phenotypes were observed: (1) 13% had a hyperpolarized resting membrane potential (-56.7 +/- 1.3 mV) with I(f,-140 mV) of -4.85 +/- 0.97 pA/pF; and (2) the remaining 69% displayed a depolarized resting membrane potential (-27.6 +/- 1.3 mV) with I(f,-140 mV) of -23.0 +/- 3.71 pA/pF. Upon electrical stimulation, both quiescent groups elicited a single action potential with incomplete phase 4 depolarization that was never seen in controls. Further electrophysiologic analysis indicates that an intricate balance of I(K1) and I(f) is necessary for induction of atrial automaticity. CONCLUSION: Optimized pacing induction and modulation can be better achieved by engineering the I(f)/I(K1) ratio rather than the individual currents.
BACKGROUND: Current strategies of engineering bioartificial pacemakers from otherwise silent yet excitable adult atrial and ventricular cardiomyocytes primarily rely on either maximizing the hyperpolarization-activated I(f) or on minimizing its presumptive opponent, the inwardly rectifying potassium current I(K1). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine quantitatively the relative current densities of I(f) and I(K1) necessary to induce automaticity in adult atrial cardiomyocytes. METHODS: Automaticity of adult guinea pig atrial cardiomyocytes was induced by adenovirus (Ad)-mediated overexpression of the gating-engineered HCN1 construct HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta with the S3-S4 linker residues EVY235-7 deleted to favor channel opening. RESULTS: Whereas control atrial cardiomyocytes remained electrically quiescent and had no I(f), 18% of Ad-CMV-GFP-IRES-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta (Ad-CGI-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta)-transduced cells demonstrated automaticity (240 +/- 14 bpm) with gradual phase 4 depolarization (143 +/- 28 mV/s), a depolarized maximal diastolic potential (-45.3 +/- 2.2 mV), and substantial I(f) at -140 mV (I(f,-140 mV) = -9.32 +/- 1.84 pA/pF). In the remaining quiescent Ad-CGI-HCN1-DeltaDeltaDelta-transduced atrial cardiomyocytes, two distinct immediate phenotypes were observed: (1) 13% had a hyperpolarized resting membrane potential (-56.7 +/- 1.3 mV) with I(f,-140 mV) of -4.85 +/- 0.97 pA/pF; and (2) the remaining 69% displayed a depolarized resting membrane potential (-27.6 +/- 1.3 mV) with I(f,-140 mV) of -23.0 +/- 3.71 pA/pF. Upon electrical stimulation, both quiescent groups elicited a single action potential with incomplete phase 4 depolarization that was never seen in controls. Further electrophysiologic analysis indicates that an intricate balance of I(K1) and I(f) is necessary for induction of atrial automaticity. CONCLUSION: Optimized pacing induction and modulation can be better achieved by engineering the I(f)/I(K1) ratio rather than the individual currents.
Authors: Martin Müller; Marianne Stockmann; Daniela Malan; Anne Wolheim; Michael Tischendorf; Leonhard Linta; Sarah-Fee Katz; Qiong Lin; Stephan Latz; Cornelia Brunner; Anna M Wobus; Martin Zenke; Maria Wartenberg; Tobias M Boeckers; Götz von Wichert; Bernd K Fleischmann; Stefan Liebau; Alexander Kleger Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.739
Authors: Maggie Zi Ying Chow; Lin Geng; Chi-Wing Kong; Wendy Keung; Jacky Chun-Kit Fung; Kenneth R Boheler; Ronald A Li Journal: Stem Cells Dev Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 3.272
Authors: Hao Zhang; David H Lau; Iryna N Shlapakova; Xin Zhao; Peter Danilo; Richard B Robinson; Ira S Cohen; Dan Qu; Zhiyun Xu; Michael R Rosen Journal: Cell Transplant Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Yau-Chi Chan; Kai Wang; Ka-Wing Au; Ka Wing Au; Chu-Pak Lau; Hung-Fat Tse; Ronald A Li Journal: Pflugers Arch Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.657