Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Hodgkin-Huxley and partially coupled inactivation models yield different voltage dependence of block

  • Duke University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

K+ channel blockers have been shown to exhibit complex time- and voltage-dependent effects on cardiac K+ currents. Whereas much attention has been focused on the state dependence of K+ channel block, how a particular channel model can alter the predicted time and voltage dependence of channel block remains unexplored. In this study, using two different model formalisms for the same cardiac transient outward current channel, we compare the effects of a theoretical open-state specific channel blocker on macroscopic currents. Model 1 is a Hodgkin-Huxley-like model, in which inactivation is an intrinsically voltage-dependent process and occurs independently of activation. Model 2 is a 'partially coupled' model, in which inactivation is intrinsically voltage insensitive but requires channel activation before it can proceed. In the absence of drug (blocking agent), the two models reproduce the macroscopic current data. In the presence of blocking agent, the two models can differ substantially, with model 1 displaying much less block than model 2. We also examine simple mathematically convenient modifications to the Hodgkin-Huxley formalism, which reproduce some, but not all, of the use-dependent properties of block. Thus model formalism is important for analysis and simulation of state-specific drug-channel interactions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)H2013-H2022
JournalAmerican Journal of Physiology - Heart and Circulatory Physiology
Volume272
Issue number4 41-4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

Keywords

  • binding
  • potassium channel
  • transient outward current

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Hodgkin-Huxley and partially coupled inactivation models yield different voltage dependence of block'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this