ArticlePloS one2016
Changes in Intracellular Na+ following Enhancement of Late Na+ Current in Virtual Human Ventricular Myocytes.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Istaroxime in Acute Heart Failure and Early Cardiogenic Shock: A Calcium-Cycling Approach to Inotropic Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Deterministic and Stochastic Cellular Mechanisms Contributing to Carbon Monoxide Induced Ventricular Arrhythmias.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Changes in cellular CaThe Journal of physiology · 2020Article
- Blood mRNA expression of REV3L and TYMS as potential predictive biomarkers from platinum-based chemotherapy plus pemetrexed in non-small cell lung cancer patients.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2020Observational
- Myocyte [NaFrontiers in physiology · 2018Article
- Na/K pump inactivation, subsarcolemmal Na measurements, and cytoplasmic ion turnover kinetics contradict restricted Na spaces in murine cardiac myocytes.The Journal of general physiology · 2017Article
- No fuzzy space for intracellular NaThe Journal of general physiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The slowly inactivating or late Na+ current, INa-L, can contribute to the initiation of both atrial and ventricular rhythm disturbances in the human heart. However, the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie these pro-arrhythmic influences are not fully understood. At present, the major working hypothesis is that the Na+ influx corresponding to INa-L significantly increases intracellular Na+, [Na+]i; and the resulting reduction in the electrochemical driving force for Na+ reduces and (may reverse) Na+/Ca2+ exchange. These changes increase intracellular Ca2+, [Ca2+]i; which may further enhance INa-L due to calmodulin-dependent phosphorylation of the Na+ channels. This paper is based on mathematical simulations using the O'Hara et al (2011) model of baseline or healthy human ventricular action potential waveforms(s) and its [Ca2+]i homeostasis mechanisms. Somewhat surprisingly, our results reveal only very small changes (≤ 1.5 mM) in [Na+]i even when INa-L is increased 5-fold and steady-state stimulation rate is approximately 2 times the normal human heart rate (i.e. 2 Hz). Previous work done using well-established models of the rabbit and human ventricular action potential in heart failure settings also reported little or no change in [Na+]i when INa-L was increased. Based on our simulations, the major short-term effect of markedly augmenting INa-L is a significant prolongation of the action potential and an associated increase in the likelihood of reactivation of the L-type Ca2+ current, ICa-L. Furthermore, this action potential prolongation does not contribute to [Na+]i increase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.