ArticleJournal of molecular and cellular cardiology2018
A protocol to study ex vivo mouse working heart at human-like heart rate.
Article in Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology, 2018. 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.
- Organ-on-a-Chip and Lab-on-a-Chip Technologies in Cardiac Tissue Engineering.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cardiac Development Long Non-Coding RNA (Cells · 2024Article
- Revisiting Cardiac Biology in the Era of Single Cell and Spatial Omics.Circulation research · 2024Review
- Using beat-to-beat heart signals for age-independent biometric verification.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Preclinical multi-target strategies for myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- High efficiency preparation of skinned mouse cardiac muscle strips from cryosections for contractility studies.Experimental physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetically modified mice are widely used as experimental models to study human heart function and diseases. However, the fast rate of normal mouse heart at 400-600bpm limits its capacity of assessing kinetic parameters that are important for the physiology and pathophysiology of human heart that beats at a much slower rate (75-180bpm). To extend the value of mouse models, we established a protocol to study ex vivo mouse working hearts at a human-like heart rate. In the presence of 300μM lidocaine to lower pacemaker and conductive activities and prevent arrhythmia, a stable rate of 120-130bpm at 37°C is achieved for ex vivo mouse working hearts. The negative effects of decreased heart rate on force-frequency dependence and lidocaine as a myocardial depressant on intracellular calcium can be compensated by using a higher but still physiological level of calcium (2.75mM) in the perfusion media. Multiple parameters were studied to compare the function at the human-like heart rate with that of ex vivo mouse working hearts at the standard rate of 480bpm. The results showed that the conditions for slower heart rate in the presence of 300μM lidocaine did not have depressing effect on left ventricular pressure development, systolic and diastolic velocities and stroke volume with maintained positive inotropic and lusitropic responses to β-adrenergic stimulation. Compared with that at 480bpm, the human-like heart rate increased ventricular filling and end diastolic volume with enhanced Frank-Starling responses. Coronary perfusion was increased from longer relaxation time and interval between beats whereas cardiac efficiency was significantly improved. Although the intrinsic differences between mouse and human heart remain, this methodology for ex vivo mouse hearts to work at human-like heart rate extends the value of using genetically modified mouse models to study cardiac function and human heart diseases.
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.