Skip to main content
PLOS Computational Biology logoLink to PLOS Computational Biology
. 2020 Feb 25;16(2):e1007232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007232

Non-ohmic tissue conduction in cardiac electrophysiology: Upscaling the non-linear voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions

Daniel E Hurtado 1,2,3,*, Javiera Jilberto 1,3, Grigory Panasenko 4,5,6
Editor: Aslak Tveito7
PMCID: PMC7059938  PMID: 32097410

Abstract

Gap junctions are key mediators of intercellular communication in cardiac tissue, and their function is vital to sustaining normal cardiac electrical activity. Conduction through gap junctions strongly depends on the hemichannel arrangement and transjunctional voltage, rendering the intercellular conductance highly non-Ohmic, particularly under steady-state regimes of conduction. Despite this marked non-linear behavior, current tissue-level models of cardiac conduction are rooted in the assumption that gap-junctions conductance is constant (Ohmic), which results in inaccurate predictions of electrical propagation, particularly in the low junctional-coupling regime observed under pathological conditions. In this work, we present a novel non-Ohmic homogenization model (NOHM) of cardiac conduction that is suitable to tissue-scale simulations. Using non-linear homogenization theory, we develop a conductivity model that seamlessly upscales the voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions, without the need of explicitly modeling gap junctions. The NOHM model allows for the simulation of electrical propagation in tissue-level cardiac domains that accurately resemble that of cell-based microscopic models for a wide range of junctional coupling scenarios, recovering key conduction features at a fraction of the computational complexity. A unique feature of the NOHM model is the possibility of upscaling the response of non-symmetric gap-junction conductance distributions, which result in conduction velocities that strongly depend on the direction of propagation, thus allowing to model the normal and retrograde conduction observed in certain regions of the heart. We envision that the NOHM model will enable organ-level simulations that are informed by sub- and inter-cellular mechanisms, delivering an accurate and predictive in-silico tool for understanding the heart function. Codes are available for download at https://github.com/dehurtado/NonOhmicConduction.

Author summary

The heart relies on the propagation of electrical impulses that are mediated gap junctions, whose conduction properties vary depending on the transjunctional voltage. Despite this non-linear feature, current mathematical models assume that cardiac tissue behaves like an Ohmic (linear) material, thus delivering inaccurate results when simulated in a computer. Here we present a novel mathematical multiscale model that explicitly includes the non-Ohmic response of gap junctions in its predictions. Our results show that the proposed model recovers important conduction features modulated by gap junctions at a fraction of the computational complexity. This contribution represents an important step towards constructing computer models of a whole heart that can predict organ-level behavior in reasonable computing times.

Introduction

The conduction of electrical waves in cardiac tissue is key to human life, as the synchronized contraction of the cardiac muscle is controlled by electrical impulses that travel in a coordinated manner throughout the heart chambers. Under pathological conditions cardiac conduction can be severely reduced, potentially leading to reentrant arrhythmias and ultimately death if normal propagation is not restored properly [1]. At a subcellular level, electrical communication in cardiac tissue occurs by means of a rapid flow of ions moving through the cytoplasm of cardiac cells, and a slower intercellular flow mediated by gap junctions embedded in the intercalated discs. Gap junctions are intercellular channels composed by hemichannels of specialized proteins, known as connexins, that control the passage of ions between neighboring cells [2]. The regulation of ionic flow through gap junctions has been established for a variety of connexin types and hexameric arrangements, which under dynamic conditions result in a markedly non-linear relation between the electric conductance and the transjunctional voltage [3], revealing a non-ohmic electrical behavior. Further, it has been shown that ionic flow through cell junctions can take up to 50% of the total conduction time in cultured strands of myocytes with normal coupling levels [4], and that conduction velocity (CV) is largely controlled by the level of gap-junctional communication [1, 5], which highlights the key physiological relevance of gap-junction conductivity and coupling in tissue electrical conduction.

Cardiac modeling and simulation has strongly motivated the development of tissue-level mathematical models of electrophysiology, as they have the ability to connect subcellular mechanisms to whole-organ behavior [6]. To date, the vast majority of continuum models assume a linear conduction model of spatial communication, based on the assumption that electrical current in cardiac tissue follows Ohm’s law, i.e, that current is linearly proportional to gradients in the intra-cellular potential [7, 8]. From a mathematical perspective, the assumption that conduction in cardiac tissue follows Ohm’s law is conveniently represented by a linear diffusion term, where gradients are modulated by a conductivity tensor that is independent of the local electrical activity. The most complete electrophysiology formulation is given by the bidomain model [9] where both the intra-cellular and extra-cellular potential fields are considered. Further, by assuming that the intra- and extra-cellular conductivity tensors have the same anisotropy ratio, the bidomain equations can be conveniently represented by a non-linear reaction-diffusion partial differential equation known as the monodomain (cable) model [10].

Using two-scale asymptotic homogenization techniques, analytic expressions have been obtained for the effective conductivity tensor, which is then used to model the electrical current in an average macroscopic sense [1113]. To this end, periodicity at the microstructural level of cardiac tissue is assumed, and a representative tissue unit is partitioned in regions of high and low conductivity that represent the cytoplasm and intercalated discs with gap junctions, respectively. While this approach allows for the explicit consideration of regions with decreased conductivity, e.g. membranes where flow is mediated by gap junctions, Ohm’s law is still assumed to hold throughout the microstructural domain [14]. As a result, the non-Ohmic behavior of gap junctions and their impact on tissue-level conduction continues to be neglected [15]. In particular, it has been shown that continuum models that consider effective conductivity tensors described above fail to capture the slow conduction of electrical impulses in cases of low gap-junctional coupling [13, 16], limiting their applicability to the simulation of pathological conditions in excitable tissue. Non-linear diffusion models that replace the conduction term in the monodomain equation either by a fractional laplacian [17, 18] or a porous-medium-like diffusive term [8, 19] have been recently proposed. While these formulations have shown to modulate the shape of propagating waves and other restitution properties, they remain largely phenomenological, and have the disadvantage of not being able to upscale microscopic physical information, neither have been assessed for cases of low junctional coupling.

In this work, we present a multiscale continuum model of cardiac tissue conduction that accounts for the nonlinear communication between adjacent cells. We argue that the explicit consideration of the non-ohmic behavior of gap junctions can be seamlessly embedded into continuum tissue-scale models of electrophysiology using an asymptotic homogenization approach, which delivers nonlinear continuum equations for characterizing the electrical conduction in excitable media.

Methods

Multiscale tissue model for non-ohmic conduction

In the following we consider the microscopic problem of non-linear conduction in a strand of cardiac cells with domain Ω = (0, L), see Fig 1. We let ε be the cell length, δε be the length of gap junctions, and assume that δεεL. Further, we let uε,δ be the microscopic transmembrane potential field, and jε,δ be the microscopic current density. The time-independent problem of conduction resulting from current balance reads

-xjε,δ(uε,δ)=0,xΩ, (1)

and we note that in writing (1) it has been assumed that the extra-cellular potential is constant along the cardiac strand. We denote the space occupied by the cytoplasm by Bε,δcyt=k=-((k+δ2)ε,(k+1-δ2)ε), and the space occupied by gap junctions by Bε,δgap=k=-((k-δ2)ε,(k+δ2)ε). Further, we assume that current is governed by Ohm’s law inside the cytoplasm with conductivity σc, but is non-linearly regulated at the gap junctions, which we express by the following microscopic constitutive law

jε,δ(uε,δ)=-σ(x,{uε,δ})uε,δx (2)

where the conductivity is described by the following relation

σ(x,u)={σc,xBε,δcyt,δσg(1+μa(S[u]j,ε)),xBε,δgap, (3)

where δσg is a representative conductivity for the intercalated disc with gap junctions, μ is a positive constant, and a is a smooth bounded function that depends on the transjunctional voltage jump defined as

[u]j,ε=u((k+δ2)ε)-u((k-δ2),ε) (4)

where S is a scaling parameter (Sε−1). From (3) and the relationship between electrical conductance and conductivity for a cylindrical domain we write

δσg(1+μa(S[u]j,ε))=βgjoδεAcellgj(S[u]j,ε), (5)

where gjo is a representative conductance for the intercalated disc with gap junctions, Acell the cross-sectional area of the cell, and the parameter β represents the level of gap-junctional coupling (GJc), with β ∈ [0, 1]. From (5), we set δσg=gjoδεAcell. As a result, we get

μa(S[u]j,ε)=βgj(S[u]j,ε)-1. (6)

Fig 1. Schematic of the multiscale model of cardiac conduction.

Fig 1

Ionic currents are linearly proportional to gradients of transmembrane potential inside the cytoplasm, but are non-linearly mediated by gap junctions located at the intercalated discs.

Using asymptotic analysis (see S1 Appendix for technical details and proofs) we show that the macroscopic (tissue-level) current conservation for the steady-state problem is governed by the homogenized equation

x(σ^(vdx)vx)=0,xΩ, (7)

where v is the macroscopic transmembrane potential, and the effective conductivity modulating conduction at the macroscopic scale takes the form

σ^(y)=σc{1+μa(Sε[N](y))σcσg+(1-δ)(1+μa(Sε[N](y)))} (8)

where

[N](y)=-(1-δ)(σ^(y)σc-1)y, (9)

with [N] = [u]j,ε/ε, and we note that for a given transmembrane potential gradient y, the effective conductivity σ^(y) is implicitly solved from (8) and (9). Further, we show that under reasonable assumptions, the following error estimate for the macroscopic transmembrane potential holds

uε,δ-vL((0,1))=O(ε+δ2). (10)

We now focus on the time-dependent macroscopic model of cardiac electrophysiology for the time interval (0, T). The homogenized electrical flux described in the right-hand side of (7) is then balanced by the transmembrane current, leading to the non-Ohmic cable equation

x(σ^(vdx)vx)=Am{Cmvt+Iion}inΩ×(0,T), (11)

where Iion:R×RMR represents the transmembrane ionic current, Cm is the membrane capacity and Am is the surface-to-volume ratio, and we note that the right-hand side of (11) accounts for the amount of charge that leaves the intra-cellular domain and enters the extra-cellular domain. Further, we will assume that the transmembrane ionic current Iion is governed by v and by gating variables w:Ω×(0,T)RM that modulate the conductance of ion channels, pumps and exchangers, i.e., Iion = Iion(v, w), where the exact functional form of Iion will depend on the choice of ionic model. The evolution of gating variables is determined by kinetic equations of the form

wt=g(v,w), (12)

where the form of g:R×RMRM will also depend on chosen the ionic model. The Eqs (11) and (12) are supplemented with initial and boundary conditions for the transmembrane potential and gating variables to form an initial boundary value problem, which we refer to as the Non-Ohmic Homogenization Model (NOHM). Boundary conditions at the left end prescribed a pulsatile electrical current, while the right end was prescribed with zero current. To study reverse conduction, the boundary conditions where flipped. The numerical solution of the coupled system of the non-Ohmic cable Eq (11) and kinetic Eq (12) was performed using a standard Galerkin finite-element scheme [20] for the spatial discretization and a Forward Euler scheme for the time discretization implemented in FEniCS [21], see S1 Appendix. Codes are available for download at https://github.com/dehurtado/NonOhmicConduction.

For the sake of comparison, we also consider the case of uniform (Ohmic) gap junction conductivity, i.e.,

σ(x,u)={σc,xBε,δcyt,βδσg,xBε,δgap. (13)

Following standard asymptotic-analysis arguments for linear systems [11], one can show that for the case of the piecewise uniform conductivity tensor defined in (13) the effective conductivity tensor takes the form

σ^={1σc+1βσg}-1. (14)

We remark that in this case the macroscopic conductivity is not dependent on the voltage gradient. Further, we note that (14) is also obtained as a particular case of the NOHM when the microscopic conductivity (13) is assumed, see S1 Appendix. We refer to the system of Eqs (11) and (12) that considers the uniform effective conductivity tensor (14) as the Linear Homogenization Model (LHM).

Cellular models of cardiac propagation

To validate the proposed NOHM model we consider the cellular model described in [7, 22], in which a strand of cardiac cells electrically connected by gap junctions are represented using a circuit network, see Fig 2. In the following, we summarize the main aspects of cellular modeling. For the cellular models (CM), a chain of cells is discretized at subcellular level in ndiv = 10 subregions. A generic node i is connected to its neighbor i + 1 through a resistor Ri,i+1. If i and i + 1 belongs to the same cell Ri,i+1 = Rmyo where Rmyo is the myoplasmic resistance. Now, if Ri,i+1 connects nodes from different cells (i.e. a gap junction) its value will be given by Ri,i+1 = Rj(Vj) where Rj(Vj) is the resistance of the gap junction, which depends non-linearly on the transjunctional voltage Vj. For computing the resistance Ri,i+1 we use

Vj=vi+1+(ndiv-1)-vi-(ndiv-1)

where we consider how the experimental relationship Vj versus gj is obtained through the dual voltage clamp method [23].

Fig 2. Circuit representation for the cellular models.

Fig 2

Due to the Kirchhoff’s law, the current balance yields to the following finite-difference equation

σi,i+1vi+1-viΔx2+σi-1,ivi-1-viΔx2=Am{Cmvit+Iion(vi,wi)}, (15)

where Am is the surface to volume ratio and Cm the membrane capacitance. The ionic current Iion depends on the transmembrane potential in the node vi and on the gating variables wi. Local conductivity can be expressed in terms of the resistance as

σi,i+1=ΔxRi,i+1Acell

with Δx = lcell/ndiv. Then

σi,i+1={σcifi,i+1areinthesamecellδσgβgj(Vj)ifi,i+1areindifferentcells (16)

and we call the model given by Eqs (15) and (16) CM voltage-gated. If the gap junctions are assumed to be voltage insensitive, then the conductivity reads

σi,i+1={σcifi,i+1areinthesamecell,βδσgifi,i+1areindifferentcells. (17)

We refer to the model given by Eqs (15) and (17) as the CM clamped, and we note that it serves as a cellular counterpart to the LHM.

Conduction experiments in a cardiac strand

In this work, we model the propagation of electrical impulses in a strand with a length L = 6.4 mm. Cells were assumed to be cylinders with radius rcell = 11 μm, length ε = 100 μm, and intercalated-disc length ratio of δ = 10−4. Based on these dimensions, Acell = 380 μm2. For the gap-junction conductance model, we set S = 2, and assumed gjo = 2.534 μm [24], which results in a representative conductivity of δσg = 6.67 · 10−5 Sm−1. The cytoplasmic conductivity and the membrane capacitance are taken to be σc = 0.667 Sm−1 and Cm = 1 μF/cm2, respectively [24]. For the transmembrane ionic current, we considered the Luo-Rudy I model [25]. The surface to volume ratio is given by Am = 2RCG/rcell, where RCG = 2 is the ratio between capacitive and geometrical areas and [24, 26]. Given the time-dependent behavior of the conductance of GJs [5, 27], in our experiments, we consider two limit cases for the temporal state of gap junctions: the instantaneous conductance case, and the steady-state conductance case. For the instantaneous conductance case, we adopt the model of Vogel and Weingart [28] which for the normalized conductance takes the form

gj,inst(Vj)={Gj-e-VjVH-(1+eVj/VH-)+eVjVH-(1+e-Vj/VH-)Vj<0,Gj+e-VjVH+(1+eVj/VH+)+eVjVH+(1+e-Vj/VH+)Vj>0, (18)

where Vj is the transjunctional voltage, and Gj+,Gj-,VH+,VH- are parameters. For the steady-state case, we assume that the normalized gap-junction conductance follows a Boltzmann distribution [29] that reads

gj,ss(Vj)={1-gj,min+p+e(A+(Vj-Vj0+))+gj,min+Vj<d,1-gj,min-p+e(A-(Vj-Vj0-))+gj,min-Vj>d, (19)

where p,d,gj,min+,gj,min-,A+,A-,Vj0+,Vj0- are parameters that depend on the type of channel.

To assess the performance of the NOHM model under different conductance distributions, we considered three types of gap-junction channels: the homomeric-homotypic channels Cx43-Cx43 and Cx45-Cx45, and the homomeric-heterotypic channel Cx43-Cx45. The normalized conductance distributions for the instantaneous and steady-state cases of these channels are depicted in Fig 3. The parameters for the instantaneous and steady-state conductance models have been reported in the literature [3], and are summarized in Table 1. The parameter A is computed from z as A = z/kT, where kT = 25.7 meV is the product of the Boltzmann constant k with the temperature T. The effect of gap-junctional coupling on conduction is studied by modulating the maximal gap-junction conductance from β = 100% to β = 0.5%. The cardiac strand is excited on one end with an applied transmembrane current using a pacing cycle length of 800 ms and whose amplitudes varied between 10 μA/mm2 to 35 μA/mm2, which elicits a propagating pulse from left to right. Retrograde-conduction effects are studied by propagating pulses from right to left. Pacing rate dependence was studied by constructing CV restitution curves, using the pacing protocol reported by Gizzi and co-workers [30].

Fig 3. Normalized conductance of gap junctions as a function of the transjunctional voltage.

Fig 3

(left) Cx43-Cx43 channel, (center) Cx45-Cx45 channel, and (right) Cx43-Cx45 channel. Data extracted from [3]. The (∘) and (•) data corresponds to instantaneous and steady state conductance, respectively.

Table 1. Parameters for the conductance distribution of gap junctions, taken from [3].

For Vj0, gj,min, z the negative/positive values are presented. The Cx43-Cx45 case considered a modified Boltzmann distribution to improve the fitness to data.

Instantaneous model Steady-state model
Channel Gj VH [mV] Vj0 [mV] gj,min z p d
Cx43-Cx43 1.99/2.01 -175.8/318.4 -60.8/62.9 0.26/0.25 -3.4/2.9 1 0
Cx45-Cx45 1.99/2.02 -112.7/135.0 -38.9/38.5 0.16/0.17 -2.5/2.7 1 0
Cx43-Cx45 1.93/2.0 -130.0/404.0 -15.9/149.3 0.05/0.05 -2.1/0.7 0.73 25

Results

The numerical solution of CM clamped, and CM voltage-gated resulted in dynamical systems with 642 degrees of freedom, using cell subdomains with a length of 10 μm. In contrast, the continuum LHM and the NOHM employed only 65 degrees of freedom, equivalent to a spatial discretization of 100 μm. Fig 4 shows the propagating wavefronts as predicted by the four conduction models studied in this work for the instantaneous conduction and steady-state conduction cases of the Cx43-Cx43 channel. For high GJc, β = 100%, we observe that all four models predicted a very similar wavefront both for the instantaneous and for the steady-state regimes of conductance (Fig 4, top row). When GJc was reduced to low coupling levels, β = 10%, continuum models (LHM and NOHM) resulted in propagating waves that drifted ahead of their CM counterparts (CM clamped and CM voltage-gated) in the case of instantaneous conductance. Interestingly, for the case of steady-state conductance, the NOHM accurately predicted the response of the CM voltage-gated, whereas the LHM drifted ahead of the CM clamped (Fig 4, middle row). Remarkably, for very low GJc, β = 1%, the NOHM still delivered an accurate wavefront when compared to the CM voltage-gated in the steady-state conductance case, whereas considerable drift occurred in the instantaneous conductance case both for the LHM and the NOHM (Fig 4, bottom row).

Fig 4. Impulse conduction features from computational simulations.

Fig 4

The propagating wavefront predicted by the CM clamped, CM voltage-gated, LHM and NOHM are compared for three levels of transjunctional coupling: (top row) high coupling β = 100%, (middle row) low coupling β = 10%, and (bottom row) very low couping β = 1%. In general, the LHM and NOHM drift ahead of their CM counterparts as the GJc is decreased in the case of instantaneous conductance. In contrast, for the case of steady-state conductance the NOHM accurately predicts the CM voltage-gated even for very low coupling levels, whereas the LHM substantially drifts ahead from the CM clamped wavefront.

Fig 5 shows the CV as a function of the GJc, measured in terms of β, for the instantaneous and steady-state conduction cases for homomeric-homotypic channels Cx43-Cx43 and Cx45-Cx45. Under instantaneous conductance (Fig 5, left column) all four models converged to CV values between 64–65 cm/s for the high-coupling case β = 100%. Cellular models delivered, in general, a very similar behavior. As GJc was reduced, both LHM and NOHM overestimated the CV when compared to CM clamped and CM voltage-gated, respectively. For the case of steady-state conductance (Fig 5, right column), the CM clamped consistently delivered higher values of CV than the CM voltage-gated. Further, the LHM continued to overestimate the CV when compared to the CM clamped as GJc was reduced. Remarkably, the NOHM closely followed the behavior of the CM voltage-clamped, even for very low GJc. Cellular models predicted conduction block for β ≤ 0.5% in all cases. Conduction block was captured by the NOHM for the steady-state conductance regime, but not for the instantaneous case. LHM did not predict the conduction block for the range of β analyzed. Retrograde wave propagation experiments for Cx43-Cx43 and Cx45-Cx45 channels (not shown in the figure) resulted in CV curves that did not differ from those obtained in normal wave propagation.

Fig 5. Conduction velocity studies on a cardiac strand and the effect of gap-junction coupling for symmetric conductance distributions: (top row) Cx43-Cx43 channel, (bottom row) Cx45-Cx45 channel, (left column) instantaneous conductance, (right column) steady-state conductance.

Fig 5

Black and red colors are used to indicate voltage-independent and voltage-dependent gap-junction conduction, respectively. Voltage-dependent models delivered lower conduction velocities than voltage-independent models of gap-junction conductance, particularly for the steady-state regime.

Fig 6 shows the dependence of CV on the GJc for the Cx43-Cx45 channel under normal wave propagation (left-to-right direction) and retrograde wave propagation (right-to-left direction). For the instantaneous conductance case (Fig 6, left column), the CM voltage-gated predicted CVs that were slightly higher in retrograde propagation than in normal propagation. Continuum models overestimated the CV when compared to their cellular counterparts. While the LHM predictions were insensitive to the direction of propagation, the NOHM predicted higher CVs for the case of retrograde wave propagation. For the steady-state conductance case (Fig 6, right column), the CM voltage-gated resulted in CVs that were considerably higher in retrograde propagation than in normal propagation, a feature not captured by the CM clamped, which was insensitive to the direction of propagation. The NOHM was able to capture such large differences in CV as well as the conduction block at β = 10%, whereas the LHM only delivered reasonable predictions for the retrograde propagation, but considerably overestimated CVs in the normal propagation case, and did not reach conduction block for any of the β values analyzed.

Fig 6. Conduction velocity studies on a cardiac strand and the effect of gap-junction coupling for the Cx43-Cx45 channel with non-symmetric conductance distribution: (left) instantaneous conductance case, (right) steady-state conductance case.

Fig 6

Black color denotes voltage-independent models, red and blue colors denote voltage-dependent models. Predictions from gap-junction voltage-independent models CM clamped, and LHM were insensitive to the direction of wave propagation, whereas voltage-dependent models resulted in CVs that strongly depended on the direction of wave propagation for the steady-state conductance case.

The dependence of CV on the pacing rate and propagation orientation in voltage-dependent models of conduction was studied by constructing CV restitution curves for the case of channel Cx43-Cx45, see Fig 7. In all cases, the CM voltage-gate under retrograde propagation resulted in higher CVs than in normal propagation. The NOHM captured this orientation dependence and delivered CV curves with a similar shape but with higher values for the cases of low and very low GJc. For the case of steady-state conductance, the NOHM also captured the conduction block predicted by the CM voltage-gate for low and very low GJc. The cycle length in all simulations was reduced until loss of propagation, which occurred in the range of 310-330 ms.

Fig 7. Conduction-velocity restitution curves for the homomeric-heterotypic channel Cx43-Cx45 for high, low and very low GJc: (left) instantaneous conductance case, (right) steady-state conductance case.

Fig 7

CL = cycle length.

The influence of the spatial discretization on the CV is reported in Fig 8. Mesh sizes, interpreted as cell segments in cellular modes, ranging from Δx = 0.01 mm to Δx = 0.2 mm were considered for both the instantaneous and steady-state conduction cases of a Cx43-Cx43 channel under high GJc. In both cases, a strong dependence of the CV on the mesh size was observed for the CM clamped and CM voltage-clamped, with higher CVs for larger mesh sizes. An attenuated yet considerable mesh dependence was also observed for the LHM and NOHM.

Fig 8. The effect of spatial discretization of the conduction velocity: (left) instantaneous conductance, (right) steady-state conductance.

Fig 8

The conduction velocity in cellular models exhibit a stronger dependence on the mesh size than the continuum models of conduction.

Discussion

In this article, we study the gap-junction-mediated electrical conduction in excitable cardiac tissue through a novel non-ohmic multiscale model. A unique feature of the proposed model is that tissue-level spatial conduction is fully informed by sub-cellular communication mechanisms, specifically by cytoplasmic and gap-junctional conductances. While the upscaling of conduction properties in excitable media has been the subject of some studies in the past using a linear homogenization theory approach [11, 12], our work offers a rigorous mathematical framework that delivers an effective non-linear model of conduction able to represent, at the tissue level, the non-Ohmic conduction that takes place at the sub-cellular level. Although our focus has been on understanding gap-mediated communication between cardiac myocytes, the present model of conduction can be extended to study the electrical propagation phenomena in other areas of biology, such as the neurosciences, where electrical synapsis occurring in the brain is highly regulated by neural gap junctions [31].

To validate the predictions and understand the unique features of the NOHM, we considered cellular models with and without voltage dependence at the gap junctions (CM clamped and CM voltage-gated) as well as a linear continuum model of conduction (LHM). The behavior of all four models of conduction was studied in the propagation of waves in a cardiac strand [24] with decreasing levels of GJc, see Fig 4. Features that arise in propagating action potentials under decreasing levels of coupling such as a steeper upstroke and a notch in the upstroke [5] are predicted both by the LHM and NOHM. Remarkably, this prediction is achieved at a fraction of the computational complexity involved in cellular models, as the number of degrees of freedom in continuum models are one order of magnitude smaller. An alternative approach is the use of hybrid multiscale models [32], which adaptively partition the domain to solve macroscopic cable equations in regions with low potential gradients and impose microscopic equations of conduction in regions of high potential gradients. While hybrid models can reduce the computational complexity of simulations, they involve a significant increase in the number of degrees of freedom when compared to standard homogenized models. We believe that the NOHM model offers the advantage of delivering accurate predictions while maintaining the computational cost similar to that of standard macroscopic continuum models. The balance between predictive power and computational cost remains one of the main hurdles in the development of patient-specific whole-heart simulations [33], which highlights the importance of developing accurate yet efficient tissue-level models.

The accuracy of the NOHM and LHM in predicting their cellular counterparts CM clamped and CM voltage-gated was assessed by studying the CV for a wide range of gap-junctional coupling levels for channels with symmetric conductance distributions, see Fig 5. In our work, we considered two limits of the dynamic conductance of gap junctions: the instantaneous and steady-state conductance cases. In the case of instantaneous conductance, the CV predicted by the NOHM was in general higher than the CV predicted by the CM voltage-gated, which was observed to decrease as the GJc was reduced [27]. A similar trend was observed for the LHM when compared with the CM clamped. Further, the NOHM and LHM resulted in similar CV curves. Previous studies have confirmed that the accuracy of LHM in predicting cardiac conduction, as dictated by CM clamped, consistently deteriorates as the GJc is decreased to low levels [13, 16]. Interestingly, for the case of steady-state conduction, substantial differences arise between voltage-dependent (NOHM, CM voltage-gated) and voltage-independent (LHM, CM clamped) models, with the former resulting in considerably lower CVs, see Fig 5 (left column). These results can be explained by noting the shape of the conductance distributions associated to the instantaneous and steady-state cases. In particular, the instantaneous conductance of the Cx43-Cx43 channel displays a flat shape with small variations within the range of transjunctional voltages (Fig 3, left), which resembles an Ohmic electrical response. Thus, in this case, the NOHM is not expected to differ from the LHM, as the conduction in both cases is fairly Ohmic, a behavior observed in our experiments (Fig 5, top left). In contrast, the steady-state conductance distribution for the Cx45-Cx45 channels presents a narrow bell shape (Fig 3, center), which is representative of a marked non-Ohmic electrical behavior. Notably, simulations associated with that conductance distribution are the ones that deliver the most different CV curves when the voltage dependence is included (Fig 5, bottom right). These results confirm the ability of the NOHM to accurately upscale the voltage-dependent behavior of gap junctions, a feature not offered by standard homogenization models of conduction, such as the LHM. Further, we note here that the difference in CV between cellular models CM clamped and CM voltage-gated for low GJc has been previously reported in the literature [5, 27], highlighting the importance of modeling the dynamic conductance of gap junctions for cases of low GJc. Decreased GJc takes particular relevance in the study of cardiac disease, as the reduction of gap-junctional communication has been correlated to a marked decreased of CV [34], and slow conduction is considered one of the main mechanisms of sustained reentrant arrhythmias [1, 35].

A unique feature of the NOHM model is its ability to upscale the particular features of voltage-dependent conduction mediated by homotypic and heterotypic combinations of homomeric connexons. In our simulations for the steady-state regime, action potentials resulting from channels composed by homotypic Cx43-Cx43 resulted in a considerably higher CV when compared to simulations considering homotypic Cx45-Cx45 channels (Fig 5 right column). This result is consistent with observations from dual whole-cell patch clamp experiments, where the lower CV in Cx45-Cx45 channels is explained by the higher sensitivity of conductance to transjunctional voltage [36]. We note, however, that for the instantaneous regime, the CV is more sensitive to the number of operational channels and unitary conductance than to gap junction voltage dependence. Further, here we showed that the asymmetry of conductance distribution found in heterotypic channels results in propagating action potentials whose CV strongly depends on the direction of propagation (Fig 6). The NOHM successfully captured this orientation dependence, as well as it was able to capture the conduction block predicted by the CM voltage-gated for low and very low GJc in the steady-state conduction regime. We also studied the effect of pacing rate for the Cx43-Cx45 channel, where both voltage-sensitive models resulted in similar restitution curves with higher CVs for the case of retrograde propagation (Fig 7). The orientation-dependent conduction, together with connexin coexpression, may partly explain the differences in CV for normal and retrograde conduction that have been observed in the sinoatrial node [37]. It is important to note that voltage-independent models of conduction (CM clamped, LHM) cannot capture this orientation dependence, as well as they fail to predict conduction block, resulting in a considerable overestimation of the CV for the case of normal wave propagation. Future developments should focus on combining the gap-junction conductance distributions, as several connexin types are typically co-expressed in cardiac tissue.

We assessed the effect of spatial discretization for the continuum and cellular conduction models considered in this study. Previous studies have shown that the numerical solution of continuum electrophysiology models depends on the level of spatial discretization [38, 39]. An interesting finding of this work is that the mesh dependence found in continuum models is accentuated for cellular models and that the consideration of voltage sensitivity in the conduction model does not strongly affect the relation between CV and mesh size (Fig 8). Future developments of numerical methods for the NOHM may include the consideration of enhanced spatial interpolation and temporal integration schemes [40, 41] which have shown to attenuate the mesh dependence of continuum model of cardiac propagation, allowing for the efficient simulation of larger domains.

Our current work can be extended in several directions. First, the theoretical framework for the NOHM model should be extended to consider the 3D case of cardiac conduction, including the case of anisotropic conduction typically observed in cardiac tissue. We include a heuristic derivation in Remark 2 of the S1 Appendix that points towards this direction. Another important limitation is the consideration of the transmembrane potential, instead of the intra- and extra-cellular potentials, in modeling intercellular conduction and ionic ionic currents. In particular, (3) assumes that transjunctional voltage is the jump in transmembrane potential rather than the jump in intra-cellular potential. We note that such consideration is valid when the extra-cellular potential is constant, an assumption that can be debated in more general contexts of conduction. Future contributions should revisit this assumption by explicitly modeling the extra-cellular potential, i.e., considering bidomain formulations of the continuum electrophysiology problem [9]. Second, we note that the time dependence of gap-junction gating that dynamically modulates the conduction has not been considered in this work. Such a dynamic effect has shown to strongly modulate the conductance response of gap junctions [28, 29]. To date, the time-dependent gating of gap junctions has been incorporated in a few cellular models of cardiac conduction [5, 27], showing the importance of both voltage- and time-dependent dynamics. We note here that it takes several seconds for a gap-junction channel to reach steady-state conductance. Such a time scale can be much longer than the time window where transjunctional voltage is large during normal conduction, i.e., during action potential upstroke. Thus, during normal conduction, the steady-state regime is not expected to occur. In contrast, under cases of poor intercellular coupling, large transjunctional voltage can occur for longer periods, which potentially drive the gap-junction towards a steady-state conduction regime [27]. In this work, we only considered two limiting regimes of the dynamic conductance which yield very different behavior as the steady-state regime typically displays conductance distributions that are more sensitive to transjunctional voltage than those found for the instantaneous-conductance regime. Thus, an interesting avenue of research is the development of multiscale formulations of cardiac tissue conduction that incorporate time-dependent gating dynamics of gap junctions. Third, intercellular communication mechanisms other than gap junctions should be integrated into this theoretical framework. Sodium channels have been reported to co-localize with gap junctions at the intercalated discs, creating an ephatic coupling effect that has been associated to conduction during gap-junction blockage [35]. Further, the spatial distribution of sodium channels around the cellular membrane and on the intercalated discs has been studied using detailed cell-to-cell computational simulations to conclude that channel spatial distribution strongly affect the cardiac conduction [42]. Since the ephatic effect has been considered in homogenization schemes of cardiac conduction in the past by including a cleft-to-ground resistance in the microscopic model of conduction [13, 32], we foresee that future versions of the NOHM could equally incorporate this effect, potentially in 3D formulations with non-uniform distributions of channels. Finally, the applicability of the NOHM model should be tested in the simulation of conduction in the whole heart during diseased conditions [33].

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Formulation details.

Details and proofs for the asymptotic formulation and the numerical solution for the NOHM model are presented here.

(PDF)

Data Availability

All codes that generated the data included in the paper are freely available at the GitHub repository https://github.com/dehurtado/NonOhmicConduction.

Funding Statement

DEH acknowledges the support from CONICYT thorugh grant FONDECYT Regular 1180832. DEH and JJ received funding from Millennium Science Initiative of the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism of Chile, grant Nucleus for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. GP received funding from Russian Science Foundation Grant #19-11-00033. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Rohr S, Kucera JP, Kleber aG. Slow Conduction in Cardiac Tissue, I: Effects of a Reduction of Excitability Versus a Reduction of Electrical Coupling on Microconduction. Circulation Research. 1998;83(8):781–794. 10.1161/01.res.83.8.781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Severs NJ, Coppen SR, Dupont E, Yeh HI, Ko YS, Matsushita T. Gap junction alterations in human cardiac disease. Cardiovascular Research. 2004;62(2):368–377. 10.1016/j.cardiores.2003.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Desplantez T, Halliday D, Dupont E, Weingart R. Cardiac connexins Cx43 and Cx45: formation of diverse gap junction channels with diverse electrical properties. Pflugers Archiv: European journal of physiology. 2004;448:363–375. 10.1007/s00424-004-1250-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fast VG, Kléber AG. Microscopic Conduction in Cultured Strands of Neonatal Rat Heart Cells Measured With Voltage-Sensitive Dyes. Circulation Research. 1993;73(5):914–925. 10.1161/01.res.73.5.914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Henriquez AP, Vogel R, Muller-Borer BJ, Henriquez CS, Weingart R, Cascio WE. Influence of dynamic gap junction resistance on impulse propagation in ventricular myocardium: A computer simulation study. Biophysical Journal. 2001;81(4):2112–2121. 10.1016/S0006-3495(01)75859-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Noble D. Modeling the heart—From genes to cells to the whole organ. Science. 2002;295(5560):1678–1682. 10.1126/science.1069881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Plonsey R, Barr RC. Mathematical modeling of electrical activity of the heart. Journal of Electrocardiology. 1987;20(3):219–226. 10.1016/s0022-0736(87)80019-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hurtado DE, Castro S, Gizzi A. Computational modeling of non-linear diffusion in cardiac electrophysiology: A novel porous-medium approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2016;300:70–83. 10.1016/j.cma.2015.11.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tung LA. Bidomain model for describing ischemic myocardial D-C potential. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1978.
  • 10. Colli Franzone P, Pavarino LF, Scacchi S. Mathematical Cardiac Electrophysiology. vol. 13; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Neu JC, Krassowska W. Homogenization of syncytial tissues. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 1993;21(2):137–199. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Hand PE, Griffith BE, Peskin CS. Deriving macroscopic myocardial conductivities by homogenization of microscopic models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 2009;71(7):1707–1726. 10.1007/s11538-009-9421-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Hand PE, Peskin CS. Homogenization of an electrophysiological model for a strand of cardiac myocytes with gap-junctional and electric-field coupling. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 2010;72(6):1408–1424. 10.1007/s11538-009-9499-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Pennacchio M, Savare G, Colli Franzone P. Multiscale modeling for the electrical activity of the heart. SIAM J Math Anal. 2006;37(4):1333–1370. 10.1137/040615249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bruce D, Pathmanathan P, Whiteley JP. Modelling the Effect of Gap Junctions on Tissue-Level Cardiac Electrophysiology. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 2014;76(2):431–454. 10.1007/s11538-013-9927-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Costa CM, Silva PAA, Santos RWD. Mind the Gap: A semicontinuum model for discrete electrical propagation in cardiac tissue. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2016;63(4):765–774. 10.1109/TBME.2015.2470256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Bueno-Orovio A, Kay D, Grau V, Rodriguez B, Burrage K, Interface JRS. Fractional diffusion models of cardiac electrical propagation: role of structural heterogeneity in dispersion of repolarization Fractional diffusion models of cardiac electrical propagation: role of structural heterogeneity in dispersion of repolarizati. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2014;11:20140352 10.1098/rsif.2014.0352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Cusimano N, Gerardo-Giorda L. A space-fractional Monodomain model for cardiac electrophysiology combining anisotropy and heterogeneity on realistic geometries. Journal of Computational Physics. 2018;362(February):409–424. 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cherubini C, Filippi S, Gizzi A, Ruiz-Baier R. A note on stress-driven anisotropic diffusion and its role in active deformable media. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2017;430:221–228. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Hurtado DE, Henao D. Gradient flows and variational principles for cardiac electrophysiology: Toward efficient and robust numerical simulations of the electrical activity of the heart. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2014;273:238–254. 10.1016/j.cma.2014.02.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Logg A, Mardal KA, Wells GN, editors. Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method The FEniCS Book. 1st ed Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Diaz PJ, Rudy Y, Plonsey R. Intercalated discs as a cause for discontinuous propagation in cardiac muscle: A theoretical simulation. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 1983;11(3-4):177–189. 10.1007/bf02363285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Wilders R, Jongsma HJ. Limitations of the dual voltage clamp method in assaying conductance and kinetics of gap junction channels. Biophysical Journal. 1992;63(4):942–953. 10.1016/S0006-3495(92)81664-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Kucera JP, Rohr S, Rudy Y. Localization of sodium channels in intercalated disks modulates cardiac conduction. Circulation Research. 2002;91(12):1176–1182. 10.1161/01.res.0000046237.54156.0a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Luo CH, Rudy Y. A Model of the Ventricular Cardiac Action Potential. Circulation Research. 1991;68(6):1501–1526. 10.1161/01.res.68.6.1501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Shaw RM, Rudy Y. Ionic mechanisms of propagation in cardiac tissue: Roles of the sodium and L-type calcium currents during reduced excitability and decreased gap junction coupling. Circulation Research. 1997;81(5):727–741. 10.1161/01.res.81.5.727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Weinberg SH. Ephaptic coupling rescues conduction failure in weakly coupled cardiac tissue with voltage-gated gap junctions. Chaos. 2017;27(093908). 10.1063/1.4999602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Vogel R, Weingart R. Mathematical model of vertebrate gap junctions derived from electrical measurements on homotypic and heterotypic channels. Journal of Physiology. 1998;510(1):177–189. 10.1111/j.1469-7793.1998.177bz.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Harris AL, Spray DC, Bennett MV. Kinetic properties of a voltage-dependent junctional conductance. The Journal of general physiology. 1981;77(January):95–117. 10.1085/jgp.77.1.95 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Gizzi A, Loppini A, Ruiz-Baier R, Ippolito A, Camassa A, Camera AL, et al. Nonlinear diffusion and thermo-electric coupling in a two-variable model of cardiac action potential. Chaos. 2017;27(9). 10.1063/1.4999610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Söhl G, Maxeiner S, Willecke K. Expression and functions of neuronal gap junctions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2005;6(3):191–200. 10.1038/nrn1627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Hand PE, Griffith BE. Adaptive multiscale model for simulating cardiac conduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(33):14603–14608. 10.1073/pnas.1008443107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Prakosa A, Arevalo HJ, Deng D, Boyle PM, Nikolov PP, Ashikaga H, et al. Personalized virtual-heart technology for guiding the ablation of infarct-related ventricular tachycardia. Nature Biomedical Engineering. 2018;2(10):732–740. 10.1038/s41551-018-0282-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Dhillon PS, Gray R, Kojodjojo P, Jabr R, Chowdhury R, Fry CH, et al. Relationship between gap-junctional conductance and conduction velocity in mammalian myocardium. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2013;6(6):1208–1214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Tse G, Yeo JM. Conduction abnormalities and ventricular arrhythmogenesis: The roles of sodium channels and gap junctions. IJC Heart and Vasculature. 2015;9:75–82. 10.1016/j.ijcha.2015.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Desplantez T, Dupont E, Severs NJ, Weingart R. Gap junction channels and cardiac impulse propagation. Journal of Membrane Biology. 2007;218(1-3):13–28. 10.1007/s00232-007-9046-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Verheijck EE, Van Kempen MJA, Veereschild M, Lurvink J, Jongsma HJ, Bouman LN. Electrophysiological features of the mouse sinoatrial node in relation to connexin distribution. Cardiovascular Research. 2001;52(1):40–50. 10.1016/s0008-6363(01)00364-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Krishnamoorthi S, Sarkar M, Klug WS. Numerical quadrature and operator splitting in finite element methods for cardiac electrophysiology. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering. 2013;29:1243–1266. 10.1002/cnm.2573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Pezzuto S, Hake J, Sundnes J. Space-discretization error analysis and stabilization schemes for conduction velocity in cardiac electrophysiology. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering. 2016. 10.1002/cnm.2762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Hurtado DE, Rojas G. Non-conforming finite-element formulation for cardiac electrophysiology: an effective approach to reduce the computation time of heart simulations without compromising accuracy. Computational Mechanics. 2018;61(4):485–497. 10.1007/s00466-017-1473-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Jilberto J, Hurtado DE. Semi-implicit Non-conforming Finite-Element Schemes for Cardiac Electrophysiology: A Framework for Mesh-Coarsening Heart Simulations. Frontiers in Physiology. 2018;9(1513):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Horgmo Jæger K, Edwards AG, Mcculloch A, Tveito A. Properties of cardiac conduction in a cell-based computational model. PLoS Computational Biology. 2019;15(5):e1007042 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007232.r001

Decision Letter 0

Aslak Tveito, Daniel A Beard

1 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Hurtado,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript 'Non-ohmic tissue conduction in cardiac electrophysiology: upscaling the non-linear voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions' for review by PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript has been fully evaluated by the PLOS Computational Biology editorial team and in this case also by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some very substantial concerns about the manuscript as it currently stands. While your manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, we are willing to consider a revised version in which the issues raised by the reviewers have been adequately addressed. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please return the revised version within the next 60 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by email at ploscompbiol@plos.org. Revised manuscripts received beyond 60 days may require evaluation and peer review similar to that applied to newly submitted manuscripts.

In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:

(1) A detailed list of your responses to the review comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. We require a file of this nature before your manuscript is passed back to the editors.

(2) A copy of your manuscript with the changes highlighted (encouraged). We encourage authors, if possible to show clearly where changes have been made to their manuscript e.g. by highlighting text.

(3) A striking still image to accompany your article (optional). If the image is judged to be suitable by the editors, it may be featured on our website and might be chosen as the issue image for that month. These square, high-quality images should be accompanied by a short caption. Please note as well that there should be no copyright restrictions on the use of the image, so that it can be published under the Open-Access license and be subject only to appropriate attribution.

Before you resubmit your manuscript, please consult our Submission Checklist to ensure your manuscript is formatted correctly for PLOS Computational Biology: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/static/checklist.action. Some key points to remember are:

- Figures uploaded separately as TIFF or EPS files (if you wish, your figures may remain in your main manuscript file in addition).

- Supporting Information uploaded as separate files, titled Dataset, Figure, Table, Text, Protocol, Audio, or Video.

- Funding information in the 'Financial Disclosure' box in the online system.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see here

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage, but if you have any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Aslak Tveito

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniel Beard

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

[LINK]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The study by Hurtado et al presents a cardiac tissue model that accounts for nonlinearity of gap junction conductance, specifically deriving and presenting the numerical solution of a homogenized model that incorporates voltage-dependent gap junctions. As noted by the authors, non-ohmic dynamics is an under-appreciated aspect of gap junction behavior that is typically not accounted for in many cardiac tissue models. This study presents a nice potential approach to account for these details without a significant increase in computational complexity.

However, there are several major issues for the authors to address:

Major:

1. The biophysical basis for the non-Ohmic behavior is a consequence of the voltage-dependent gating of the gap junction hemichannels (similar to the voltage-dependent gating of other sarcolemmal ion channels). My most significant concern is that the model formulation appears to neglect a critical aspect of the gating behavior, in particular that the gap junction conductance, in addition to being a function of transjunctional voltage (Vj), is also time-dependent. That is, the gating of the gap junction protein hemichannels has a time-dependence that also depends on Vj. This is demonstrated in a wide range of studies, see for example work from Weingart (including ref 3), Veenstra, Bukauskas, Bennett, and many others.

The time constant for changes in gap junction conductance is generally found to be a decaying function of the Vj magnitude, with values on the order of a few seconds when Vj = 0 mV. As presented, the model formulation here appears to assume that the gating of the gap junctions is instantaneous. This is problematic because, in the model, gap junction conductance changes are thus much faster than the dynamics of sarcolemmal ion channels, whereas physiologically, gap junction conductance changes are much slower.

When cells are well coupled, the absolute value of Vj is generally not much greater than 0 mV for durations on the order of at most 10s of milliseconds, and thus gap junction conductance generally does not approach the reduced steady-state levels shown at the extreme Vj values in Figure 3.

However, when cells are poorly coupled, i.e., low baseline gap junction conductance levels, large Vj values can occur for longer durations, which in turn does result in transient decreases in gap junction conductance. This has been previously demonstrated by Henriquez et al (ref 20 in the manuscript), and more recently by Weinberg (Chaos, 2017). At a minimum, the authors should compare their work with these prior studies, which are two of the few studies that have accounted for non-linear gap junction conductance in a tissue model, with Weinberg also including electrical field coupling.

The lack of accounting for the time-dependence of gap junction conductance changes is a significant limitation that detracts from potential impact of the study. However, perhaps this can be incorporated into the proposed framework by including additional gating variables into the w gating variable vector, following approaches similar to either the Henriquez et al or Weinberg studies noted above, which both include time-dependent gap junction conductance changes.

2. My other significant concern is the lack of description of the cell-chain model from Kucera et al (ref 5) that is considered the “baseline” in this study. The paper by Kucera and colleagues described two variants of their model, so it is not clear which version of the Kucera et al model is used and what are the associated parameters. In particular, in addition to discretizing each cell into membrane patches of 10 um (as the authors note), Kucera et al also describe a “non-cleft” and “cleft” version of the model, in which electric field coupling occurs via extracellular current in the intercellular cleft in the “cleft” version. Additionally, Kucera et al study the significance of redistributing the voltage-gated sodium current from axial to intercalated disk membrane patches and variations in intercellular cleft width. (The authors note this redistribution of sodium channels in the Discussion but not in the description of the baseline model.)

Since the focus of the Kucera et al paper is the “cleft” version, one would assume that this version of the model was used in the current study, but this needs to be clarified. Regardless of which version of the Kucera et al model is used, both versions of the model include a “Rgap” term – a constant gap junction resistance between cells. It is not clear if the non-ohmic conductance is also incorporated into the baseline model, or if Rgap is a constant in the baseline model.

Similarly, the linear homogenized model that is compared (LHM) from Hand and Peskin (ref 12) also incorporates intercellular cleft electric field coupling and sodium channel distributions. However, the authors describe this model as a “standard cable model.” This is a confusing description, because the classical description of the cable model or the monodomain model does not include electric field coupling and assumes uniform distribution of sodium channels. A significantly more detailed description of these models used for comparison is needed.

3. The authors should expand significantly on the reasons why the non-ohmic model and the baseline model agree in some parameter regimes (specifically higher coupling) and disagree in other regimes (weaker coupling). In the regimes where the models disagree, then presumably there are some assumptions of the derivation that fail, such that the homogenization is not valid. These are important limitations that the authors should comment on and discuss, especially since, as the authors note, that slower conduction is often pro-arrhythmic and is thus of significant interest in simulations.

4. What is the baseline gap junction conductance value associated with the simulations in Figure 4? Based on the conduction velocity values, it appears the cells are well coupled, similar to as in Figure 1A.

In this well-coupled case, a conduction velocity of 50 cm/s implies that propagation of a distance of 100 um will take 0.2 ms, which is less than the duration of the cardiac action potential upstroke, so Vj magnitudes are probably on the order of 10-20 mV at most. Even without accounting for the time-dependence of the gap junction conductance as noted in comment 1, based on the curves in Figure 3, steady-state conductance levels are within 20% of the baseline value, so it is surprising that conduction velocity values differ by nearly 50%. Can the authors explain this result by examining the Vj curves and associated changes in gap junction conductance along the cable?

5. The differences in conduction velocity for different directions shown for the heterotypic gap junction, illustrated in Fig 4C, is one of the more interesting results of the paper. However, this point is demonstrated for a single case (i.e., one unknown value of gap junction coupling, see previous comment), and thus it is not clear for what conditions these directional differences are small or large. For example, are there conditions in which propagation fails in one direction but not the other? The authors should show a plot similar to Fig 2A plotting conduction velocity for both directions for different conductance levels.

It would also be interesting to study if there is a pacing rate dependence. For example, are there conditions in which conduction in both directions is similar at slow pacing rates, but differs for faster pacing rates?

6. The derivation of the model shown in the Appendix is fairly difficult to follow. An important contribution would be specifically highlighting how this derivation differs from the homogenization required for such a model in which gap junction conductance is constant.

Minor:

1. The sentence beginning with “Alternatively, …” at line 48 is an incomplete sentence.

2. Line 67, “an” should be “and”

3. In Fig. 4, the conduction velocity for the Cx43-Cx45 gap junction model is given as 32.1 cm/s in panel A and then 32.2 cm/s in panel B. Is this a typo since – as I understand it – these are referring to the same simulation condition?

Reviewer #2: The paper describes the development of a macroscopic tissue model for electrical conduction in cardiac tissue, which incorporates non-linear voltage-dependent conduction through gap junctions. The topic is important and relevant for the research community in computational cardiac electrophysiology, and the paper presents a new modeling approach that could potentially have significant implications. However, I have some concerns related to the model derivation and the discussion of the results, which should be improved before publication. Furthermore, although the manuscript is generally well written, the overall structure and ordering (Results-Discussion-Methods) makes it somewhat hard to read. I assume the structure is dictated by the journal, which raises the question of whether PLOS Computational Biology is the best target for this fairly mathematical and model-oriented manuscript.

Major concerns:

1. The model derivation described in the Methods section is not based on physically meaningful properties. In appendix S1 the homogenization is performed in terms a generic microscopic potential and microscopic current density, which in this context must be interpreted as intracellular properties. However, in eq (3) in the Methods section the intracellular/GJ current density is computed by multiplying the transmembrane potential with the cytoplasm/GJ conductivity. This is only correct if the extracellular potential is constant. If this is assumed it should be mentioned explicitly in the derivation, since it is a significant limitation with potential implications for the model’s range of validity. I would recommend that the model derivation is based explicitly on balance of intra- and extracellular currents, expressed in terms of intra- and extracellular potentials, and that all assumptions leading to the final model are made explicit. It should also be considered if a more generic 2D/3D version of the model could be derived, since the restriction to 1D is a severe limitation.

2. The discussion of the results in relation to existing models is very limited. The GJ conduction models used by the authors seem well justified, and show interesting (although not entirely surprising) effects on conduction velocity. However, there are several alternative formulations of GJ conductance, including a variety of non-Ohmic and voltage-gated formulations. A comprehensive review of all existing models is obviously beyond the scope of the paper, but I would like to see a more thorough discussion of the results in the context of existing literature.

3. The baseline model is very briefly described. Although this model is described in some detail in the cited reference [5], it would be useful to recapitulate the main equations of the model in the present manuscript, or in a supplement. This would make the similarities and differences between the two models more apparent, and highlight relations between the model’s parameters. In particular, it is not clear whether non-Ohmic GJ conduction is used for the baseline model, or if the original Ohmic formulation from [5] is used. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see the effect of discretization parameters both for the baseline model and the homogenized model. Does the conduction velocity of the baseline model change if the number of nodes per cell is increased or reduced? And what about the discretization of the NOM and LHM models?

Minor issues:

- One page 3, lines 16-20, the discussion of existing literature could be more precise. The main topic of reference [5] is the study of sodium channel distribution related to GJs, which is not addressed in the present paper, and not to the GJ conduction itself.

- Page 3, lines 30-34: The formulation suggests that the monodomain model is based on the assumption of isotropic conductivity, which is not the case. Also, the most relevant model to reference in this context would be the bidomain model, since this is considered the most accurate model of cardiac electrophysiology, but is also based on the Ohmic assumptions used for the cable equation.

- Page 4, lines 48-51: The sentence is incomplete.

- Page 4, lines 63-65: I assume the current referred to is a transmembrane current, but it would be useful to make this explicit.

- Page 5, line 68: Is the LHM model the same model that would be obtained from inserting Ohmic GJc in the homogenization applied in this paper? If so, it could be useful to formulate it in this way, to make the model formulation and parameter specification more precise.

- On page 5, lines 74-79, it would improve readability if the change of GJc was explicitly referring to model parameter, stating which parameters are changed in the three models (LHM, NOM, baseline).

- Page 8, lines 142-143: Although capturing the low-conductance behavior is a strong feature of the proposed model, I would not describe the result as “remarkable”. As far as I can tell, all the proposed GJc models tested in the paper effectively shut down conduction as the voltage difference becomes large. Since low GJc will lead to increased cell-to-cell voltage difference, it is quite intuitive that the proposed models give conduction slowing compared with an Ohmic model. This could be commented on in the discussion.

- Page 10, eq (4): Why is the voltage jump divided by the cell length? (And there seems to be a mix of subscripts j and k)

- Page 11, line 211: Why is the ionic current a mapping from (R x R) to R?

- Page 11, line 227: The authors are to be applauded for intending to make all codes available for download. However, the listed github-repository is empty.

Reviewer #3: Review is uploaded

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: No: The methods used to derive much of the figure results are unclear. See Author Comments.

Reviewer #2: None

Reviewer #3: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: report.pdf

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007232.r003

Decision Letter 1

Aslak Tveito, Daniel A Beard

23 Dec 2019

Dear Dr Hurtado,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript, 'Non-ohmic tissue conduction in cardiac electrophysiology: upscaling the non-linear voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions', to PLOS Computational Biology. As with all papers submitted to the journal, yours was fully evaluated by the PLOS Computational Biology editorial team, and in this case, by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some aspects of the manuscript that should be improved.

We would therefore like to ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and we encourage you to respond to particular issues Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.raised.

In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:

(1) A detailed list of your responses to the review comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. We require a file of this nature before your manuscript is passed back to the editors.

(2) A copy of your manuscript with the changes highlighted (encouraged). We encourage authors, if possible to show clearly where changes have been made to their manuscript e.g. by highlighting text.

(3) A striking still image to accompany your article (optional). If the image is judged to be suitable by the editors, it may be featured on our website and might be chosen as the issue image for that month. These square, high-quality images should be accompanied by a short caption. Please note as well that there should be no copyright restrictions on the use of the image, so that it can be published under the Open-Access license and be subject only to appropriate attribution.

Before you resubmit your manuscript, please consult our Submission Checklist to ensure your manuscript is formatted correctly for PLOS Computational Biology: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/static/checklist.action. Some key points to remember are:

- Figures uploaded separately as TIFF or EPS files (if you wish, your figures may remain in your main manuscript file in addition).

- Supporting Information uploaded as separate files, titled 'Dataset', 'Figure', 'Table', 'Text', 'Protocol', 'Audio', or 'Video'.

- Funding information in the 'Financial Disclosure' box in the online system.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by email at ploscompbiol@plos.org.

Two of the three reviewers are now satisfied with your manuscript, and the third ask for clarification of some technical issues that I hope you will be able to address. 

If you have any questions or concerns while you make these revisions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Aslak Tveito

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniel Beard

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

[LINK]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The authors have mostly addressed my concerns. However, there are still a few issues that I would like the authors to address.

1. The inclusion of the instantaneous gap junction gating studies are a nice addition to the manuscript. The authors should more clearly describe the differences between the instantaneous and steady-state conductance levels. The authors simply state “Given the time-dependent behavior of the conductance of GJs …” This explanation is not sufficient for the typical reader of the journal.

Related to this, while the authors have made efforts to more clearly highlight the time dependence of gap junctional gating, there is still no mention of the time scale for this gating process, specifically that the time to reach steady state can be on the order of seconds, which is longer than the cardiac action potential and certainly longer than the action potential upstroke. The manuscript highlights the significant differences between results when assuming instantaneous vs steady-state gap junction conductance levels; however the manuscript needs to also clearly highlight that steady-state values are only likely reached in cases of poor coupling when large magnitude Vj values can persistent for more than milliseconds.

2. It is still not clear to me why the paper from Kucera, Rohr, and Rudy (ref 21) is highlighted as cellular model for comparison. As previously commented, this paper describes two model versions, the “non-cleft” and “cleft” version, with the non-cleft version serving as the control or comparison. The focus of that paper is on the cleft version that considers preferential localization of sodium channels and electric field or ephaptic coupling in the intercellular cleft. At a minimum, the authors should describe the cellular model as the “non-cleft” model from Kucera, Rohr, and Rudy, which is identical to the model illustrated in Fig. 2 in the revised manuscript.

However, this paper is far from the first to investigate discontinuous propagation in cardiac tissue and discretize the cell into multiple compartment, as in the non-cleft model. There are several earlier papers from Plonsey, Henriquez, and Rudy (and likely many others) using similar models. Diaz, Rudy, and Plonsey, Annals of Biomed Eng, 1983; Henriquez and Plonsey, Med & Biol. Eng. & Comput, 1987; and Shaw and Rudy, Circ Res, 1997 are three such examples.

3. The instantaneous gap junction conductance for the Cx43-Cx43 and Cx45-Cx45 pairs shown in Figure 3 do not appear to be symmetric with respect to Vj (although it is somewhat difficult to tell this by eye). Are these relationships asymmetric and if so, why? It is not obvious why the directionality should matter in homotypic channels.

4. Is the shortest CL values in the CV restitution curves in Fig. 7 the shortest CL that elicited propagation in each case, or do all curves run to some value around 300 ms? If the later, simulations should be run for CL values down to the loss of propagation or capture for each case. This will demonstrate if there are differences between loss of propagation between the different cases. The CV restitution curves are typically much steeper for these short CL values, and thus there are likely to be much greater differences between the different cases. This is particular relevant to simulation of tachyarrhymias.

Minor:

1. For the results shown in Figures 4-6 and 8, what is the pacing cycle length used? This should be included in either the text or figure captions.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the concerns I had with the original manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The revision is satisfactory.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: None

Reviewer #3: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joakim Sundnes

Reviewer #3: No

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007232.r005

Decision Letter 2

Aslak Tveito, Daniel A Beard

15 Jan 2020

Dear Dr Hurtado,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Non-ohmic tissue conduction in cardiac electrophysiology: upscaling the non-linear voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process.

One of the goals of PLOS is to make science accessible to educators and the public. PLOS staff issue occasional press releases and make early versions of PLOS Computational Biology articles available to science writers and journalists. PLOS staff also collaborate with Communication and Public Information Offices and would be happy to work with the relevant people at your institution or funding agency. If your institution or funding agency is interested in promoting your findings, please ask them to coordinate their releases with PLOS (contact ploscompbiol@plos.org).

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your paper in PLOS Computational Biology.

Sincerely,

Aslak Tveito

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Daniel Beard

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my concerns. Thank you. Note there is a Figure referencing typo on page 19, line 300.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007232.r006

Acceptance letter

Aslak Tveito, Daniel A Beard

13 Feb 2020

PCOMPBIOL-D-19-01074R2

Non-ohmic tissue conduction in cardiac electrophysiology: upscaling the non-linear voltage-dependent conductance of gap junctions

Dear Dr Hurtado,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Sarah Hammond

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Formulation details.

    Details and proofs for the asymptotic formulation and the numerical solution for the NOHM model are presented here.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: report.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseLetter_R01.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseLetter_R02.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All codes that generated the data included in the paper are freely available at the GitHub repository https://github.com/dehurtado/NonOhmicConduction.


    Articles from PLoS Computational Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES