| Literature DB >> 33123188 |
Donghua Liao1,2, Jingbo Zhao1,2,3, Hans Gregersen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intestinal sensitivity to mechanical stimuli has been studied intensively in visceral pain studies. The ability to sense different stimuli in the gut and translate these to physiological outcomes relies on the mechanosensory and transductive capacity of intrinsic intestinal nerves. However, the nature of the mechanosensitive channels and principal mechanical stimulus for mechanosensitive receptors are unknown. To be able to characterize intestinal mechanoelectrical transduction, that is, the molecular basis of mechanosensation, comprehensive mathematical models to predict responses of the sensory neurons to controlled mechanical stimuli are needed. This study aims to develop a biophysically based mathematical model of the myenteric neuron with the parameters constrained by learning from existing experimental data. Findings. The conductance-based single-compartment model was selected. The parameters in the model were optimized by using a combination of hand tuning and automated estimation. Using the optimized parameters, the model successfully predicted the electrophysiological features of the myenteric neurons with and without mechanical stimulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33123188 PMCID: PMC7582074 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8834651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Optimizations of the model to experimentally recorded membrane potentials. (a) Comparison between the experimental recordings (dashed line) of the porcine sAHP neuron, under 100 pA, with 70 ms injection of rectangular electrical current pulses and the model response (solid lines) to the same input. The optimized conductances are listed in Table 1: sAHP neuron. (b) Comparison between the experimental recording (dashed line) of the porcine mAHP neuron, to 60 pA, with 140 ms injection of rectangular electrical current pulses and the model response (solid lines) to the same input. The optimized conductances are listed in Table 1: mAHP neuron. (c) Comparison between the experimental recording (dashed line) from a neuron in a tissue strip under 20% longitudinal stretch and with 200PA, 500 ms injection of the current pulse and the model response (solid lines) to the same input. The optimized conductances are listed in Table 1: neuron under stretch. The experimental recordings of the sAHP and mAHP were reproduced from Figure 1(b) (sAHP) and Figure 3C (mAHP) in the study by Cornelissen et al. [21], and the recordings on the mechanical stretch neuron were from Figure 5Ba in the study by Kunze et al. [2].
Estimated maximum conductance of each ionic channel for three Dogiel type II neurons.
| Parameters | sAHP neuron (S/cm2) | mAHP neuron (S/cm2) | Neuron under stretch (S/cm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.7139 | 1.9977 | 9.4565 |
|
| 9.4475 | 8.9442 | 3.668 |
|
| 0.081363 | 0.08214 | 0.13589 |
|
| 0.01333 | 0.00678 | 0.20347 |
|
| 0.015867 | 0.013165 | 0.20074 |
|
| 0.004571 | 0.00416 | 0.048289 |
|
| 0.004025 | 0.00363 | 0.0076874 |
|
| 0.46796 | 0.5097 | 0.054132 |
|
| 0.085052 |
Note. sAHP and mAHP neurons: slow after-hyperpolarization and medium after-hyperpolarization neurons in the myenteric plexus of pig small intestine [21]. Neuron under stretch: myenteric neurons of the guinea pig ileum under longitudinal stretch [2].
Figure 2Model generalization: to test the optimized model, we compared the model responses (solid lines) to a new input current and stretch ratio with the corresponding experimentally recorded membrane potentials of three different neurons (dashed lines). These experimental traces have not been used during the optimization. (a) Comparison between the experimental recordings (dashed line) of the porcine sAHP neuron, to 60 pA, with 120 ms injection of rectangular electrical current pulses and the model prediction (solid lines) to the same input by using the parameters listed in Table 1: sAHP neuron. (b) Comparison between the experimental recordings (dashed line) of the porcine mAHP neuron, to 50 pA, with 200 ms injection of rectangular electrical current pulses and the model prediction (solid lines) to the same input by using the parameters listed in Table 1: mAHP neuron. (c) Comparison between the experimental recordings (dashed line) from a single Dogiel type II neuron in the tissue strip under 40% longitudinal stretch and 100PA with 500 ms injection of the current pulse and the model response (solid lines) to the same input by using the parameters listed in Table 1: neuron under stretch, where Gm = 0.0838 S/cm2 was used for the model generalization. The experimental recordings of sAHP and mAHP were reproduced from Figure 1C (sAHP) and Figure 3B (mAHP) in the study by Cornelissen et al. [21]. The mechanical stretch neurons were from Figure 5Bb in the study by Kunze et al. [2].