Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Apr 11;17(4):e0257935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257935

Pacemaking function of two simplified cell models

Maxim Ryzhii 1,*, Elena Ryzhii 2
Editor: Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez3
PMCID: PMC9000119  PMID: 35404982

Abstract

Simplified nonlinear models of biological cells are widely used in computational electrophysiology. The models reproduce qualitatively many of the characteristics of various organs, such as the heart, brain, and intestine. In contrast to complex cellular ion-channel models, the simplified models usually contain a small number of variables and parameters, which facilitates nonlinear analysis and reduces computational load. In this paper, we consider pacemaking variants of the Aliev-Panfilov and Corrado two-variable excitable cell models. We conducted a numerical simulation study of these models and investigated the main nonlinear dynamic features of both isolated cells and 1D coupled pacemaker-excitable systems. Simulations of the 2D sinoatrial node and 3D intestine tissue as application examples of combined pacemaker-excitable systems demonstrated results similar to obtained previously. The uniform formulation for the conventional excitable cell models and proposed pacemaker models allows a convenient and easy implementation for the construction of personalized physiological models, inverse tissue modeling, and development of real-time simulation systems for various organs that contain both pacemaker and excitable cells.

Introduction

Nowadays computer modeling of various organs and tissues is an indispensable part of physiology research. Computational models of different levels of complexity are being utilized, with complex ion-channel multi-variable models on the top of the list. A rigorous review of the cardiac models was presented in [1]. The number of such models and their updates increases yearly following new physiological findings and measurements. Consisting of many differential equations for ion channels and their gate formulations, the models provide a detailed description of cell behavior under various normal and pathological conditions, including, for example, the influence of drugs [2]. The number of variables and parameters in such models can reach several dozens, leading to the necessity to utilize significant computational resources, even despite current progress in and availability of graphical processing units (GPU) and multicore processors [3]. Moreover, these precise ion-channel models, in particular, cardiac ones, usually require small enough time steps and mesh sizes to provide calculation stability in the case of tissue simulation [2, 4], leading to hours and even days of calculation using normal desktop computers. Thus, utilization of the biophysically based ion-channel models in real-time systems, such as equipment test-beds and systems for formal validation of medical devices [5, 6], interactive tools for computer-aided therapy planning [7], and other real-time simulation devices and platforms, is still nearly impossible.

In many cases, simplified phenomenological cell models, such as classical Van der Pol [8] (VDP), FitzHugh-Nagumo [9, 10] (FHN), and Hodgkin-Huxley [11] (HH) can be a good alternative. These models are based on a small number (usually 2—3) of variables, i.e., ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Later additions to this class include modifications of the HH and FHN models, namely Van Capelle-Durrer (VCD) [12], Aliev-Panfilov [13] (AP), Morris-Lecar [14] and its pacemaking variants [15, 16], Fenton-Karma [17], Mitchell-Schaeffer [18] (MS), and its modification by Corrado and Niederer [19] (CN). The latter two models have been used recently to simulate electrophysiology of atria, spiral wave stability, and ventricular tachycardia inducibility in patient-specific models (see review [20] and references therein). Most of the models mentioned above are included in the modeling software packages and repositories, such as openCARP [21] and Physiome Project [1, 22].

Fig 1 demonstrates the timeline of the historical development of the main simple physiological models. Solid shapes correspond to the excitable models, dashed—to the pacemaking models, and the models capable to exhibit both types of behavior are represented by both shape types. Even though most of the models shown in Fig 1 are capable to provide pacemaking operation, their utilization is limited. The VDP and FHN models and their modifications are being predominantly used as simple models of natural pacemakers in physiological simulations of different levels of complexity (see, for example, [2328]). The VDP model of relaxation oscillator was proposed to describe general heartbeat dynamics and by its nature does not have the quiescent excitable form. The two-variable FHN model, as a reduction of the four-variable HH model of the squid giant axon action potential, was developed to model neuronal excitability. It has the properties of producing spike trains (tonic spiking) at sufficiently large stimulating constant current, and the apparent absence of a firing threshold [29], which are undesirable for simulation of other organs, such as the heart.

Fig 1. Timeline of simplified physiological cell models development.

Fig 1

Solid shapes correspond to excitable cell models, dashed shapes—to pacemaking cell models, respectively.

The disadvantage of other simplified models simulating both pacemaker and non-pacemaker action potentials of cardiac cells like VCD, Morris-Lecar, and their modifications is the significant number of parameters that limit the areas of their utilization. On the other hand, computationally lightweight models such as AP, MS, and CN are being successfully used for the solution of the cardiac inverse problem and building patient-specific models [3033]. The MS model, however, is known to have some stability problems [19].

For multi-scale and real-time simulations, models with a modest number of parameters are preferable [28]. Such models have been implemented in many studies of electrophysiology of the heart and cardiac tissue [3438], as well as the intestine [23, 24], stomach [39, 40], uterus [41], and bladder [42]. Recently, the AP model was used in deep learning-based reduced-order modeling [43], allowing to boost the solution of parameterized problems in cardiac electrophysiology, and in preliminary setup for hypothesis testing and verification, and model tuning before implementation of computationally expensive ion-channel models [34].

Another recently proposed type of pacemaker model developed to satisfy real-time requirements is represented by parametric [44] and resonant [45] (8–24 variables) models. They quantitatively reproduce action potential shapes and some cellular behavior but do not include several important physiological properties such as interactions due to electrotonic coupling. Although the models provide a relatively low computational load, the latter may significantly rise with the inclusion of detailed features. The above-mentioned models, however, underline the need for simple computationally efficient models, in particular, having a uniform description for pacemaking and excitable cells. These models are essential for abstracted heart models with real-time simulation capabilities, where a single pacemaker cell represents a group of ion-channel pacemaker model cells [44, 46].

In this work, we consider variants of the AP and CN phenomenological models providing them intrinsic pacemaker properties (hereinafter called pAP and pCN, respectively), and demonstrate their main characteristics for both single pacemaking cells and coupled pacemaker-excitable systems.

As application examples for the proposed pacemaker models, we include simulations of the 2D cardiac sinoatrial node (SAN) model described with the pAP and AP cells, and the 3D intestinal model consisting of the pCN and CN cells.

Methods

Self-oscillations in the Aliev-Panfilov model

The two-variable AP model [13] proposed to describe non-oscillatory cardiac tissue that supports stable propagation of excitation waves is represented by the following set of reaction-diffusion type nonlinear ordinary differential equations:

ut=ct[ku(u-a)(1-u)-vu]+Iext, (1)
vt=ctε[-v-ku(u-a-1)], (2)
ε=ε0+vμ1u+μ2,

where u and v are normalized transmembrane potential and slow recovery variable, respectively. Parameter k controlling the magnitude of transmembrane current, and parameters μ1, μ2, and a are adjusted to reproduce characteristics of cardiac tissue, ε sets the time scale of the recovery process, ct = 1/12.9 is the time scaling coefficient introducing physical time in milliseconds into the system. Iext = ∇ · (Du) is external or coupling current in the case of multi-cell simulations, where ∇ is a spatial gradient operator defined within the model tissue geometry, and D is a tensor of diffusion coefficients (in mm2ms-1) characterizing electrotonic interactions between neighboring cells via gap junctional coupling conductance.

In the conventional AP model, the left branch of the u-nullcline v = k(ua)(1 − u) (dashed lines in Fig 2A.1 and 2A.2) does not enter the region where u is negative. The phase space trajectory (shown after suprathreshold stimulation in Fig 2A.1) is also limited in the region u > 0 by the second u-nullcline u = 0.

Fig 2. Single-cell nonlinear dynamics.

Fig 2

A. AP and pAP models. A.1. Nullclines and phase portrait for the conventional AP model after suprathreshold stimulation. A.2. Nullclines and phase portrait for the pAP model with different bifurcation parameter bAP. Dashed and dotted lines correspond to u- and v-nullclines, respectively. Nullcline u = 0 is not shown. Stable limit cycles for bAP = 0.01, 0.03, and 0.05 are shown with corresponding EPs marked by squares of the same color. A.3. Action potentials, colors correspond to the curves in panel A.2. B. CN and pCN models. B.1. Nullclines and phase portrait for the conventional CN model after suprathreshold stimulation. B.2. Nullclines and phase portrait for the pCN model with different bifurcation parameter bCN. Dashed and dotted lines correspond to u- and h-nullclines, respectively. Nullcline u = 0 is not shown. Stable limit cycles for bCN = 0.12, 0.3, and 0.44 are shown with corresponding EPs marked by squares of the same color. B.3. Action potentials, colors correspond to the curves in panel B.2.

As the excitation threshold a reduces, the nullcline moves up, its left branch moves toward u < 0. When the parameter a becomes negative, the u-nullcline intersects the v-nullcline v = −ku(ua − 1) (dotted lines in Fig 2A.1 and 2A.2), creating equilibrium points (EP) in the region u > 0. The system of Eqs (1) and (2) undergoes Hopf bifurcation (HB), which is a typical mechanism for the onset of oscillations with a stable limit cycle (periodic orbit) in nonlinear dynamical systems [47]. For the sake of convenience, further we introduced a parameter bAP = −a in Eq (1), controlling the intrinsic oscillation frequency when bAP > 0:

ut=ct[ku(u+bAP)(1-u)-vu]+Iext. (3)

The idea to use the parameter bAP for cubic u-nullcline in the FHN-like systems to control the excitability range is straightforward. It has been used, for example, to study the propagation of action potential in combined pacemaking-excitable FHN model tissue [48]. However, in the case of the AP model, which was developed primarily to represent excitable cardiac tissue, the intrinsic pacemaking function in a single cell and coupled systems was not considered yet.

The resulting phase-space geometry of the pAP model is shown in Fig 2A.2. Three stable limit cycles with bAP = 0.01, 0.03, and 0.05 and their EPs (marked by squares) in Fig 2A.2.

Corrado excitable cell model and its pacemaking variant

The two-variable CN modification [19] of the ionic MS model [18] for cardiac excitable cells is represented by the following set of nonlinear differential equations:

ut=hu(u-ugate)(1-u)τin-(1-h)uτout+Iext, (4)
ht={1-hτopenifuugate-hτcloseifu>ugate. (5)

Here h is the gating variable for the inward current (sodium ion channels), ugate > 0 is the excitation threshold potential, τin, τout, τopen, and τclose are the time constants affecting the corresponding characteristic phases of the evolution of transmembrane potential u (shown after suprathreshold stimulation in Fig 2B.1). As in the pAP model, the latter is also limited in the region u > 0 by the second u-nullcline u = 0.

To introduce pacemaking behavior into the CN model, we did the following modifications. First, the piece-wise function (Eq 5) was replaced by the formulation with the sigmoid function [11, 49] of the transmembrane potential (Eqs 79) with the slope factor us (in dimensionless voltage units), similar to the approach used in [50], changing the shape of h-nullcline [51]. Second, we replaced ugate in Eq 4 with a parameter bCN = −ugate, allowing to shift independently left branch of the u-nullcline h = τin/[τout(uugate)(1 − u) + τin]:

ut=hu(u+bCN)(1-u)τin-(1-h)uτout+Iext, (6)
ht=(h-h)τ, (7)
τ=τopenτcloseτopen-h(τclose-τopen) (8)
h=12[1-tanh(u-ugateus)]. (9)

Similar to the pAP model, bCN becomes a parameter suitable for controlling both the CN cell excitability and the pCN intrinsic oscillation frequency (see Fig 5A.1 below).

Replacement of the Heaviside-like step function in Eq 5 for h by the sigmoid voltage dependence in the limit [49] (conventional Boltzmann equation for cell membranes [11])

H(x)=limus0(1+exp(-xus))-1=12limus0[1-tanh(-xus)]

and the increase of the slope factor us reduce the robustness of the CN model and enhance its propensity to spontaneous oscillations by inclination the central branch of the h-nullcline (dotted lines in Fig 2B.1 and 2B.2). This, together with the shift of the left branch of the u-nullcline (dashed lines in Fig 2B.1 and 2B.2) toward u < 0 region with increasing parameter bCN, leads the system of Eqs 6 and 7 to HB, creates EP at the nullclines intersection, and provides the appearance of a stable limit cycle. The parameters us and ugate together with bCN define the position of u and h nullclines intersection, and consequently the shape of phase space trajectory (see Fig 5A.1, 5B.1, and 5C.1 below).

Though the method is similar to the previously proposed pacemaking modification of the MS excitable cell model [50], the considered pCN model (Eqs 69) possesses different nonlinear dynamic properties.

Note the clockwise direction with respect to the second variable in the limit cycles of the pCN model (Fig 2B.1 and 2B.2) in contrast to the pAP model (Fig 2A.1 and 2A.2).

Isolated single pacemaker cells

For single-cell cases (0D), we examined the dynamics of the pAP and pCN model cells changing various bifurcation parameters and constructing bifurcation diagrams [52]. The incremental steps of the parameters were selected individually for each model and varied depending on observed dynamics. When spontaneous oscillation appeared, we determined peak overshoot potential (POP), maximum diastolic potential (MDP), frequency, diastolic interval (DI), and action potential duration (APD) at 90% repolarization for each bifurcation parameter value upon allowing the oscillation activity to stabilize within 20–50 s.

Coupled 1D pacemaker-excitable systems

One of the important characteristics of a pacemaking cell is its synchronization behavior under an applied load of coupled cells with a variable diffusion coefficient [5355]. To investigate this property of the considered pacemaking cells, we set up three variants of the load—n strands (cables) of matching 20 excitable cells coupled to a single pacemaker cell. Because the load in a tissue is not limited to an integer value (n can be non-integer [55]), apart from the normal case (n = 1) we considered higher (n = 2) and lower (n = 0.5) loads.

These load-driving capabilities are essential for real-time simulation systems based on abstracted heart models, where a single pacemaker cell represents a group of ion-channel pacemaker model cells [44, 46].

Minimal and maximal frequencies of complete 1:1 synchronization

In a wide range of fixed values of the coupling coefficient d = Dx2 = 0.02–10.0 ms-1 (D is the diffusion coefficient) we run multiple simulations of the pAP-AP and pCN-CN coupled systems, varying the values of the control parameters bAP and bCN, respectively, calculating the resulting frequency ratio between the pacemaker cell and the 16th excitable cell in a strand (to eliminate possible effects of the boundary conditions on the last excitable cell). Next, we determined the system’s lowest (minimal) and highest (maximal) frequency with complete 1:1 synchronization between the cells.

Relationship between pacemaker cell rates and intercellular coupling

In these simulations, we fixed the intrinsic oscillation frequency of the pacemaker cells (fixing the parameters bAP and bCN) at the values close to the upper-frequency limit of 1:1 pacemaker-excitable system synchronization. Changing the intercellular coupling d we examined the onset of transitions between full 1:1 and incomplete synchronizations [56], and recorded obtained frequencies of the pacemaking cell and the 16th excitable cell in the strand.

2D SAN model

The primary natural cardiac pacemaker, SAN, consists of a small area of specialized cells situated in the right atrium (the right upper chamber of the heart). The SAN dysfunctions may result in dangerous cardiac arrhythmias. The mechanisms and processes involved in the latter are very complicated and may be difficult or nearly impossible to explain without the help of computer modeling.

As application examples for the pAP-AP coupled system, we performed simulations of simplified 2D SAN models illustrating the effect of SAN—atrium coupling on the pacemaking behavior. The SAN model consists of a rectangular area of 10 mm by 10 mm (200 × 200 mesh, Δx = 0.05 mm spatial step size) of atrial tissue represented by AP model cells (Fig 3A). The pacemaker was defined as an elliptically shaped area of pAP cells in the center of the rectangular with half-axes 3 and 1 mm, and long SAN axes 30° off the fiber direction. These dimensions approximately correspond to the canine heart [57].

Fig 3. Schematics of the simulation examples.

Fig 3

A. 2D SAN model with the pAP-AP cells. B. SAN structure with a border of passive tissue and exit pathways. C. 3D intestine model with the pCN-CN cells.

Two different SAN structure types were considered. Type 1, without insulating border and exit pathways (Fig 3A), was similar to that demonstrated in work [56]. The whole tissue was anisotropic with the ratio of diffusion coefficients Dy: Dx = 1:0.208 (1.2: 0.25 conductivity ratio in [56]) along the fiber longitudinal y and transverse x directions, respectively. Two different values of diffusion coefficient Dy = 0.090 and 0.048 mm2ms-1 were used. The parameters used in the simulations are given in Table 2.

The whole model geometry in type 2 was similar to the first but with isotropic tissue (Dy: Dx = 1:1). The pacemaker area was surrounded by borders of passive tissue with four symmetric exit pathways of 1 mm width (Fig 3B), following previous studies [5860]. The diffusion coefficient DA = 0.160 mm2ms-1 was fixed in the atrium, while two different values DS = 0.060 and 0.052 mm2ms-1 were set for the SAN pacemaker region (Fig 3B). The passive tissue was defined as [28]:

ut=-ctSu+·(Du), (10)

where S = 26 is the tissue conductivity. The tissue parameters within the exit pathways were the same as those of the SAN pacemaker.

In this simple SAN structure, we incorporated neither diffusion gradients nor electrical heterogeneity of pacemaker cells, in contrast to the widely adopted approach in the simulations with ion-channel models [53, 59].

3D intestine model

There are two main layers of different cell types in the intestine. The first layer of specialized pacemaker cells, termed interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC), produces slow propagating electrical waves. The ICC cells synchronize to the highest frequency within the layer. This electric activity controls the contractile stress exerted by the second layer of smooth muscle cells (SMC) of the intestinal tissue. Both layers of ICC and SMC are electrically connected via electrotonic coupling.

In the second application example for the proposed pacemaker models, we considered a simple 3D electrophysiological model of the small intestine. As a reference, we considered results from the papers [23, 24, 61], in which the FHN and ion-channel models were used. In contrast to the works, we described ICC and SMC layers with the pCN and CN model cells, respectively, to demonstrate the broad applicability of the pCN model. It has been demonstrated that the excitable MS model is apt to spontaneous excitations at some conditions, with its modification proved to be robust to such pacemaker behavior [19]. Using the pCN model with convenient frequency control in combination with the robust CN model instead of the MS and FHN models may improve the behavior of the pertinent computational tissue models.

Similar to [23, 62], our intestine model geometry is presented by a long two-layer tube, cut along its axle y on one side and stretched to a dual-layer plane (Fig 3C). The blue and red surfaces in Fig 3C represent external SMC and internal ICC layers, respectively. The simulation domain for both layers has dimensions Nx × Ny = 176 × 4800, with uniform spatial mesh size Δx = 0.25 mm, which corresponds to the 1200 mm long tube (one half of that in [23]) with the mean circumference of 44 mm. Such a simple tube geometry corresponds to the anatomy of the small intestine in general and to previously reported values of the intestine of average-size animals like dogs or rabbits [6264].

The following set of ODEs describes electrical dynamics in the intestine layers for transmembrane potentials uI of ICC and uM of SMC:

uIt=ItotI+dIM(uM-uI), (11)
uMt=ItotM+dIM(uI-uM), (12)

where ItotI and ItotM represent the right-hand side of the Eq 6 for ICC and SMC layers, respectively, and last terms in the right-hand side of Eqs 11 and 12 describe the electrotonic coupling between the layers with coupling coefficient dIM = 6 × 10−3 ms-1. Conduction within the layers was considered isotropic with the diffusion coefficients DI = 5 × 10−5 mm2ms-1 and DM = 8 × 10−4 mm2ms-1 for the ICC and SMC, respectively. Each of Eqs 11 and 12 is accompanied by the three corresponding equations for slow variables hI and hM similar to Eqs 79.

Individual isolated ICC oscillate at different intrinsic frequencies, with spatial frequency gradient in the longitudinal direction from the pylorus (first part of the duodenum, left side in Fig 3B) toward the ileum (right side in Fig 3B). To create the frequency gradient in the ICC layer, for Eq 11 we set up an exponential distribution of the parameter bCN along the y axis (and constant along the x axis) [23]:

bCN(i)=0.4+1.3·exp(-iΔx680), (13)

where i is the cell index counting from the duodenum. Eq 13 yields intrinsic oscillation frequency distribution of ICC-SMC coupled pairs from 17.5 to 8 cpm along full-length of 2400 mm small intestine, or 17.5—10.5 cpm for the upper half [64] (see Fig 9B).

To demonstrate the appearance of intestinal dysrhythmias in a similar way as in [23, 62], a temporal conduction block (uI = uM = 0.001, hI = hM = 0.5, one time step long) was induced at t = 5100 s to the rectangular area at both ICC and SMC layers with the width ly = 40 mm, height lx = 22 mm, and origin at x0 = 0 and y0 = 580 mm. Neither the electromechanical [39] nor thermodynamical [23] coupling was included in the model for the sake of simplicity.

Numerical methods

All simulations were performed with MATLAB (R2021b) on a usual desktop computer with AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU. For the acceleration of 3D intestine simulations, NVidia RTX 3090 GPU was used. We employed both the explicit forward Euler (FE) method for the preliminary simulations and the implicit backward Euler (BE) method for final results to solve the ODE systems. In the BE method, the absolute tolerance was set to 1 × 10−7 with the maximum number of iterations in the inner loop 20. The latter was not exceeded in all simulations.

No-flux Neumann boundary conditions were applied in 1D, 2D, and 3D simulations except the periodic boundary conditions along the y axes in the 3D intestine model. Equilibrium points for bifurcation diagrams were calculated with MatCont software [65]. The parameters for the AP and pAP, CN and pCN models used in the simulations are listed in Tables 13, respectively. The initial conditions for the models were chosen to be u(0) = 0.01, v(0) = 0.01 for the AP and pAP, and u(0) = 0.01, h(0) = 0.5 for the CN and pCN models.

Table 1. Parameters for the pAP and AP models used in the 0D (isolated cell) and 1D simulations.

Cell k a ε 0 μ 1 μ 2 b AP Δt (ms)
pAP (0D) 8 0.13 0.002 0.2 0.3 0—0.08 0.01
pAP (1D) 0—0.5 0.1—0.01
AP (1D) -0.13

Table 3. Parameters for the pCN and CN models used in the 0D (isolated cell), 1D, and 3D simulations.

Cell τ in (ms) τ out (ms) τ open(ms) τ close (ms) u s u gate b CN Δt (ms) Δx (ms)
pCN (0D) 0.3 6.0 120 150 0.05—0.55 -0.1—0.35 0.05—0.6 0.01 -
pCN (1D) 0.15 -0.05 0.1—12 0.1—0.01 -
CN (1D) 0.01 0.13 -0.13
pCN (ICC) 16 200 1500 1800 0.20 -0.05 0.62—1.70 2.5 0.25
CN (SMC) 11 0.01 0.10 -0.10

To estimate the simulations’ accuracy, we compared the results for single-cell simulations with the FE method at different time steps Δt with that calculated with the unconditionally stable BE method with a small time step Δt = 0.0001 ms. The relative norms

L2=uBE-uFE2uBE2andL=uBE-uFEuBE (14)

(for a single cycle) and relative frequency error (for 60 s runs), as well as a speedup of calculations, are given in Table 4. For 1D coupled pacemaker-excitable systems, the maximum relative frequency error with Δt = 0.1 ms was also about 0.16%. As seen from Table 4, in most cases of the simulations with the pAP and pCN models, the FE and BE methods with a time step of 0.1–0.01 ms would be enough to obtain reasonable accuracy (see also S1 Fig). The performance of both FE and BE methods implemented in the CHASTE open source software package was also demonstrated in work [66].

Table 4. Comparison of the accuracy of the results obtained with FE and BE methods at different time steps Δt (Eq 14).

Cell FE, Δt = 0.1 ms FE, Δt = 0.01 ms FE, Δt = 0.001 ms
L 2 L Freq. Speedup L 2 L Freq. Speedup L 2 L Freq. Speedup
pAP 0.25% 0.93% 0.17% 707 0.14% 0.38% 0.017% 218 0.01% 0.01% 0.002% 36
pCN 0.53% 2.03% 0.16% 1040 0.13% 0.45% 0.016% 123 0.08% 0.28% 0.002% 14

At the same time, the standard stability criterion

DΔtΔx2=dΔt<12N, (15)

where N is the dimension of the simulation domain, should be taken into account as well [4]. This criteria was fulfilled for both SAN (at the highest D = 0.160 mm2ms−1) and intestine (DI = 8 × 10−5 mm2ms-1) simulations. In the 2D and 3D simulations, we used the same time and space discretizations for both FE and BE methods (Tables 2 and 3), and the obtained results were visually similar for both methods.

Table 2. Parameters for the pAP and AP models used in the 2D SAN simulations.

Cell k a ε 0 μ 1 μ 2 b AP Δt (ms) Δx (mm)
pAP (SAN, type 1) 8 0.13 0.002 0.2 0.5 0.120 0.002 0.05
pAP (SAN, type 2) 12 0.133
AP (Atrium) 8 0.045 0.3 -0.13

Results and discussion

Single-cell pacemaker dynamics

The phase portraits and nullclines of excitable and pacemaking model variants are presented in Fig 2. Three action potential waveforms are demonstrated in Fig 2A.3 and 2B.3. They correspond to the limit cycles with EPs shown by squires of the same color in Fig 2A.2 and 2B.2, calculated with different values of the parameters bAP and bCN, respectively.

The absence of undershoot of the action potential amplitude in the pAP and pCN models (in contrast to the FHN model [9, 10]) makes them specifically suitable for utilization as secondary pacemakers and in the cardiac simulation systems with a limited number of elements, similar to proposed in the works [4446].

Figs 4 and 5 demonstrate the dependence of single-cell dynamic characteristics of the pAP and pCN models on various bifurcation parameters. The trajectories of the EPs are shown by dashed lines in the left columns of Figs 4 and 5.

Fig 4. Dependence of pAP cell characteristics on various parameters.

Fig 4

A. On the bifurcation parameter bAP. B. On the parameter ϵ0. C. On the parameter μ1. D. On the parameter μ2. E. On the external current Iext. Left panels correspond to the bifurcation diagrams, central—to the calculated frequencies, and right panels—to the calculated DI on APD ratios.

Fig 5. Dependence of pCN cell characteristics on various parameters.

Fig 5

A. On the bifurcation parameter bCN. B. On the slope factor us, C. On the parameter ugate. D. On the external current Iext. Left panels correspond to the bifurcation diagrams, central—to the calculated frequencies, and right panels—to the calculated DI on APD ratios.

All the bifurcation parameters affect the intrinsic oscillation frequency (central columns of Figs 4 and 5). For pAP, the highest variation in the frequency was observed with bAP (with almost linear dependency, Fig 4A.2) and Iext (Fig 4E.2). The former allows the most convenient control of the frequency, while the latter indicates the strong sensitivity of the model to the external coupling strength. The variation of POP and MDP is strongest also for bAP and Iext. The increase of the parameter μ2 in the 0.1–0.5 range decreases the frequency, and higher values of μ2 seem to be impractical (Fig 4D.2). For the pCN model, significant variation of POP and MDP was observed for all bifurcation parameters (left columns in Fig 5).

The dependencies of DI/APD ratios on the bifurcation parameters are shown in the right columns of Figs 4 and 5. The ratios supplement the intrinsic frequency characteristics demonstrating DI and APD contributions into the cycle length. With decreasing DI/APD ratio, the steepness of the restitution curve (APD on DI) increases. At some combination of the parameters the ratios are always higher than unity (see, for example, bAP = 0.005 curve in Fig 4C.3). For the pCN model, this takes place only for Iext dependence (Fig 5D.3).

In the pCN model, bCN (Fig 5A.2) and ugate (Fig 5C.2) are the parameters with the highest variation of intrinsic frequency. The parameter bCN, similar to bAP, allows obtaining very low oscillation rates (less than 0.1 Hz). The influence of Iext (Fig 5D.2) on the frequency is relatively weak, thus the pCN model looks less sensitive to the coupling strength (compare with Fig 4E.2, see also Fig 6).

Fig 6. A. 1D pAP-AP coupled system.

Fig 6

A.1. Minimal and maximal 1:1 synchronized frequency dependence on the coupling coefficient d for the pAP cell coupled with n = 2 (red), 1 (green), and 0.5 (blues) strands of 20 AP cells. Inset illustrates a schematic representation of the 1D pAP-AP coupled system. Ellipse symbolizes pacemaker cell and rectangles—excitable cells. A.2. Minimal and maximal values of the parameter bAP vs d corresponding to panel A.1. B. 1D pCN-CN coupled system. B.1. Minimal and maximal 1:1 synchronized frequency dependence on the coupling coefficient d for the pCN cell coupled with n = 2 (red), 1 (green), and 0.5 (blue) strands of 20 CN cells. Inset illustrates a schematic representation of the 1D pCN-CN coupled system. B.2. Minimal and maximal values of the parameter bCN vs d corresponding to panel B.1.

Both models demonstrated notably wide ranges of intrinsic frequencies: 0.007—7.6 Hz for pAP, 0.14—14 Hz for pCN, corresponding to about 0.4—450 and 8.4—840 counts per minute (cpm), respectively. Such a broad frequency span allows the implementation of the models for the simulation of various organs of different animal species at normal and pathological conditions.

For the pCN model, the frequency and, in particular, DI/APD ratios depend also on the time constants τin, τout, τopen, and τclose. The influence of the constants on pCN characteristics is similar to that for the original and modified MS models [18, 19, 50].

Dynamics of 1D coupled pacemaker-excitable system

Depending on the coupling (diffusion coefficient), the pacemaker-excitable system may be either in a fully synchronized (1:1) regime, when all excitable cells in a strand follow the driving frequency or in an asynchronous/chaotic regime when not all of the pacemaker action potentials are able to propagate to the end of the strand [56, 67].

Fig 6A.1 and 6B.1 demonstrate dependencies of minimal and maximal frequencies of complete 1:1 synchronization and corresponding minimal and maximal values of parameters bAP and bCN on the coupling coefficient d = Dx2 for the single pAP and pCN model cells coupled with n = 0.5, 1, 2 strands of 20 AP and CN excitable cells, respectively.

For the pAP-AP coupled system, the complete synchronization was confined in two separate areas created by interlocks of minimal and maximal frequency curves (Fig 6A.1). The areas partially merged in the case of n = 0.5. Similar corresponding separate areas of the parameter bAP are seen in Fig 6A.2. This behavior indicates that at certain values of d, complete 1:1 synchronization in the pAP-AP system with a heavy load can not be obtained, at least with the model parameters used.

The existence of the two separate areas in the coupling dependence characteristics is associated with two possible variants of intersections between branches of the parabolic nullclines of the pAP model (Eqs 2 and 3). The areas of complete synchronization became smaller with an increasing number of strands n.

We also observed a pronounced hysteresis in the case with n = 0.5 (and a very small one with n = 1.0) of the maximal synchronized frequency characteristic at low coupling strength. Such effect seems similar to that demonstrated in the simulations of electrically coupled pacemaker and non-pacemaker cells with the VCD model [68].

In the pCN-CN coupled system, changes in the complete synchronization areas for different n were insignificant, and maximal synchronized frequency monotonically increased (Fig 6B.1). Fig 6B.1 and 6B.2 demonstrate much wider synchronization areas for both frequency and parameter bCN. This may be attributed to the higher energy capacity of the pCN over pAP cell with conventional model parameters. For both models increasing the number of strands and increasing coupling strength required rising values of the corresponding parameter b to maintain complete synchronization (Fig 6A.2 and 6B.2).

Synchronization behavior with fixed intrinsic pacemaker frequency

Fig 7 demonstrates the synchronization behavior of the pAP-AP and pCN-CN 1D systems with increasing coupling at fixed bifurcation parameters (fixed intrinsic pacemaker frequency). In Fig 7A and 7B, one can observe the existence of a certain threshold value of the coupling coefficient d, below which the pacemaker frequency was much higher than that of the coupled strand(s) of excitable cells. The threshold values decreased with increasing coupling load, i.e., with the increasing number of strands n. With the reduction of d from the threshold value, the pacemaker-excitable frequency ratios increased significantly with abrupt jumps, as observed in most simulated cases.

Fig 7. Synchronization in the simplified 1D coupled model systems with fixed parameters b.

Fig 7

Dependence of synchronization in the pAP-AP (A) and pCN-CN (B) systems with a different number of excitable cell strands n on the coupling parameter d. Solid lines correspond to the pacemaker frequency and the dotted lines—to the frequency at the 16th excitable cell in the strand(s). C. Action potentials for the pAP-AP system for the number of strands n = 0.5. The bold red and blue lines mark the action potentials of the pacemaker cell and 16th cell of a strand, respectively. D. The same as in panel C, but for the pCN-CN system.

Above the threshold values of d, complete synchronization occurred with a smooth, gradual drop of the frequency in the pAP-AP system (Fig 7A), while in the pCN-CN system, it reaches a maximum before final fall-off (Fig 7B). Fig 7C and 7D show action potentials of the cells in both coupled systems with the number of strands n = 0.5 for three different values of the coupling coefficient d. One can see the transition from incomplete to complete synchronization with increasing d. Also, for higher loads, the complete synchronization took place at lower d. The pCN-CN coupled system reached the complete synchronization state at much higher values of d than the pAP-AP and higher frequencies.

2D simulation of SAN

Fig 8 shows the calculated spatio-temporal distributions of the transmembrane potential u from the central SAN region to peripheral atrial tissue (along the bold black line in Fig 3A) and activation sequences for different diffusion coefficients D (for the SAN model variant without insulating border, Fig 8A–8C) and for different diffusion coefficients DS in the SAN pacemaker area (for the SAN model variant with insulating border and exit pathways, Fig 8D–8F).

Fig 8. 2D simulation of SAN.

Fig 8

Calculated time sequences of the transmembrane potential u along the bold black line in Fig 3A and activation sequences for SAN structure without (A–C) and with (D–F) walls of passive tissue. A. For diffusion coefficient D = 0.090 mm2ms-1. B. D = 0.048 mm2ms-1. C. Activation sequence corresponding to the case shown in panel A. D. DA = 0.160 mm2ms-1, DS = 0.060 mm2ms-1. E. DA = 0.160 mm2ms-1, DS = 0.052 mm2ms-1. F. Activation sequence corresponding to the case shown in panel D.

With relatively strong coupling (D = 0.090 mm2ms-1) SAN and atrial excitations were synchronized with a slow pacing rate (about 120 cycles per minute, Fig 8A, see also S1 Video). When the coupling became too weak (D = 0.048 mm2ms-1), the atrial tissue failed to respond on every SAN excitation with 2:5 ratio (Fig 8B, S2 Video). The simulation results of this example are close to that demonstrated previously with the similar 2D SAN structure using complex ion-channel cell models with sufficient and weak SAN-atrial coupling [56]. Fig 8C (and S3 Video) shows activation sequence corresponding to D = 0.090 mm2ms-1.

In the other SAN structure variant, the high value of diffusion coefficient DS = 0.060 mm2ms-1 resulted in complete SAN-atria synchronization (Fig 8D, and S4 Video). When DS decreased to 0.052 mm2ms-1, every second action potential propagated from the SAN center to the border failed to depolarize the atria (Fig 8E, and S5 Video). Due to the block zones placed on the SAN ellipse vertexes, the gap appeared in the transmembrane potential propagation path along the bold line in Fig 3A. Fig 8F (and S6 Video) shows activation sequence corresponding to DS = 0.060 mm2ms-1. The effect of the reduced diffusion coefficient on the SAN-atria synchronization looks similar for both variants despite differences in the SAN structures. As seen from Fig 8, in the simulation of the SAN-atria system with pAP-AP coupled cell models, a stable pacing function can be obtained regardless of the presence or absence of block zones of passive tissue around the SAN pacemaker.

3D simulation of intestine

The results of the 3D intestine simulations are presented in Fig 9 (see also the animated version in S7 and S8 Videos). Fig 9A shows spatial distributions of the transmembrane potential uI in the ICC layer at different time moments.

Fig 9. 3D simulation of intestine.

Fig 9

A. Snapshots of spatial distributions of the transmembrane potential uI in the ICC layer at different time moments t. Brighter areas correspond to higher potential. From top to bottom: (1–5) formation of constant frequency plateaus, (6–11) onset and evolution of intestinal dysrhythmia pattern due to temporary conduction block induced at t = 8100 s to both ICC and SMC layers. B. Distributions of the intrinsic frequency (DI = DM = 0, solid black line), entrained frequency of oscillators at t = 8000 s (solid red line), and at the end of the simulation (t = 11600 s, dashed blue line). C–D. uI (red solid lines) and uM (blue dot-dashed lines) action potentials at the distance of 170 mm (C) and 1200 mm (D) at the beginning of the simulation (t ≃ 100 s). E–F. The same as in panels C and D, but at t ≃ 8000 s.

Slow waves of ICC were generated in the leading pacemaker region and traveled distally, i.e., from left to right along the small intestine (Fig 9A). The initial distribution of the intrinsic frequency of each ICC-SMC coupled pair (DI = DM = 0) is shown in Fig 9B. The lengths of the waves gradually decreased in time (t = 180 and 700 s), reaching complete entrainment at about t = 8000 s (S7 Video). During the transient process (t = 1160, 1540, and 6000 s), plateaus with constant frequency were formed (Fig 9B). The plateau boundaries correspond to the phase dislocations, at which some waves were occasionally dropped (y ≃ 240 mm and 940 mm, Fig 9A). The formed plateaus of entrained frequencies are in agreement with the recent experimental findings [69].

The sixth panel from the top (t = 8140 s) in Fig 9A demonstrates the situation right upon the induction of the temporary conduction block (t = 8100 s). The block overlapped a few consequent waves, initiating intestinal dysrhythmia in the form of turbulent perturbations (t = 8180, 8360, and 8700 s) [23, 62]. The perturbation area, which appeared in the middle of the second frequency plateau, traveled distally toward the ileum until reaching the point of the phase dislocation, where it persisted the rest of the simulation (t = 9400 s and 9880 s) in the form of spiral wave or rotor activity [62]. The slow action potential waves in the SMC layer followed the waves in the ICC layer with higher amplitude (Fig 9C–9F). The ICC uI (red solid lines) and SMC uM (blue dot-dashed lines) action potentials at the distance of 170 mm and 1200 mm from the duodenum at the initial moment (t ≃ 100 s) are demonstrated in Fig 9C and 9D, and at t ≃ 8000 s in Fig 9E and 9F, respectively.

The obtained results presented in Fig 9 demonstrate the capability of the phenomenological model based on the pCN-CN system to reproduce physiological processes in the intestine [61, 69].

Limitations and general remarks

Since this paper aimed to demonstrate the applicability of the pAP and pCN phenomenological models for simulations of various physiological systems, we did not precisely adjust the parameters of the SAN and intestine model cells to the existing experimental data. The results in Figs 8 and 9 are presented for illustration purposes and not aimed at a detailed study of these organs. In particular, in the SAN type 2 model (Fig 3B), the tissue of the borders surrounding the pacemaking area is of passive type, blocking the spread of excitation [28]. Such tissue, being not exactly of an electrically insulating type [59, 60], causes electrotonic interactions with the surrounding SAN and atrial tissues. Better selection of the boundary tissue properties can be beneficial for more realistic simulations of the SAN and its exit pathway functions. Moreover, additional tuning of the parameters to clinical data might be necessary for accurate simulations, in particular, to construct patient-specific models. This can be realized by applying, for example, a robust and clinically tractable protocol and fitting algorithm [19] for characterizing cardiac electrophysiology properties by simplest two-variable cell models, such as the pAP-AP and pCN-CN coupled systems.

For the simulations where the differences of resting and/or peak levels are necessary, the MDP and POP values of the considered models can be modified. The addition of a constant to the term u and the replacement of unity in the term (1 − u) allow shifting of the MDP and POP levels, respectively, though the exact resulting values of the latters cannot be determined directly (see S2 Fig for the details). Also, such modification may require an adjustment of the intrinsic frequencies (for example, with the parameters bAP and bCN). The above modifications of the MDP and POP together with modulation of the intrinsic frequency with the parameters b may allow simulation of a kind of tonic bursting [29]—a firing behavior in which a neuron cell fires a certain number of spikes on the top of the plateau and is silent for a certain amount of time. Though, compared to the variety of specific neuronal cell models [29], the pAP and pCN models may not be the best choice for modeling of neuronal systems.

Another well-known disadvantage of the phenomenological models like pAP-AP and pCN-CN is their limited ability to represent action potential morphology under varying physiological conditions, e.g., the effect of variation of concentration of particular ions, which is necessary for simulations of complex cardiac diseases such as ion channelopathies. However, the utilization of the considered pacemaker models can be beneficial for the development of simplified real-time simulation systems (e.g., personalized medicine [30, 31] and inverse cardiac modeling [32]), deep learning [43], as well as for medical device testing platforms [44, 46]. The simplified models can also be used in preliminary simulation setups for hypothesis testing and verification, as well as model design and tuning before implementing complex and computationally expensive ion-channel models [34].

Conclusion

In this work, we considered pacemaking variants of the Aliev-Panfilov and Corrado two-variable excitable cell models. We studied the main features of single-cell nonlinear dynamics of the models, their synchronization behavior in one-dimensional coupled pacemaker-excitable setups, including regions of complete synchronization, and the relationship between pacemaker frequency and overall coupling. Also, we performed simulations of the simplified 2D sinoatrial node and 3D intestine models employing the considered pacemakers. The obtained spatio-temporal dynamics of the transmembrane potentials in the 2D and 3D models are in general agreement with that demonstrated previously for identical schematics with different cell models.

An essential feature of the pacemaker models is that they do not include any additional equations for currents, thus having the same number of variables as the original excitable models, allowing a simple uniform description of the whole pacemaker-excitable system. We believe that the pacemaker variants of the Aliev-Panfilov and Corrado models can be used for computationally efficient electrophysiological modeling of tissues that include primary and subsidiary pacemaking cells, allowing the development of models for whole organs, various species, patient-specific medicine, and real-time testing and validation of medical devices.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Action potentials and phase portraits of the pAP and pCN models.

Comparison of the accuracy of Forward Euler and Backward Euler methods. The MATLAB and CellML codes are available at https://github.com/mryzhii/Simplified-pacemaker-cell-models.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Shifting of the POP and MDP levels in the pAP and pCN models.

(PDF)

S1 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 1).

Corresponds to Fig 8A for diffusion coefficient D = 0.090 mm2ms-1.

(MP4)

S2 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 1).

Corresponds to Fig 8B for diffusion coefficient D = 0.048 mm2ms-1.

(MP4)

S3 Video. Animation of the excitation sequence in the SAN model structure (type 1).

Evolution of transmembrane potential in 3D corresponding to Fig 8A.

(MP4)

S4 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 2).

Corresponds to DA = 0.160 mm2ms−1, DS = 0.060 mm2ms−1.

(MP4)

S5 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 2).

Corresponds to DA = 0.160 mm2ms−1, DS = 0.052 mm2ms−1.

(MP4)

S6 Video. Animation of the excitation sequence in the SAN model structure (type 2).

Evolution of transmembrane potential in 3D corresponding to Fig 8D.

(MP4)

S7 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential uI in the intestine model.

Formation of plateaus with entrained frequencies (t = 1—3600 s).

(MP4)

S8 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential uI in the intestine model.

Onset and evolution of intestinal dysrhythmia pattern due to temporary conduction block (t = 8000—11600 s).

(MP4)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

MR, Grant No. 20K12046, JSPS KAKENHI https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Noble D, Garny A, Noble PJ. How the Hodgkin–Huxley equations inspired the Cardiac Physiome Project. J Physiol. 2012; 590(11): 2613–2628. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.224238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Niederer SA, Lumens J, Trayanova NA. Computational models in cardiology. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019; 16: 100–111. doi: 10.1038/s41569-018-0104-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Niederer S, Mitchell L, Smith N, and Plank G. Simulating human cardiac electrophysiology on clinical time-scales. Front Physiol. 2011; 2: 14. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2011.00014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Clayton RH, Panfilov AV. A guide to modelling cardiac electrical activity in anatomically detailed ventricles. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2008; 96(1-3): 19–43. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2007.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Paoletti N, Patanè A, Kwiatkowska M. Closed-loop quantitative verification of rate-adaptive pacemakers. ACM Trans Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2018; 2(4): 33, 1–31. doi: 10.1145/3152767 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Ai W, Patel ND, Roop PS, Malik A, Trew ML. Cardiac electrical modeling for closed-loop validation of implantable devices. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2020; 67(2): 536–544. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2019.2917212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Kaboudian A, Cherry EM, Fenton FH. Real-time interactive simulations of large-scale systems on personal computers and cell phones: Toward patient-specific heart modeling and other applications. Sci. Adv. 2019; 5(3): eaav6019. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav6019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Van der Pol B, van der Mark J. The heartbeat considered as a relaxation oscillation, and an electrical model of the heart. Philosophical Magazine 1928; 6(38): 763–775. doi: 10.1080/14786441108564652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. FitzHugh R. Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane. Biophys J. 1961; 1(6): 445–466. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3495(61)86902-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Nagumo J, Arimoto S, Yoshizawa S. An active pulse transmission line simulating nerve axon. Proc IRE. 1962; 50(10): 2061–2070. doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1962.288235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol. 1952; 117(4): 500–544. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Van Capelle FJL, Durrer D. Computer simulation of arrhythmias in a network of coupled excitable elements. Circ Res. 1980; 47(3): 454–466. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.47.3.454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Aliev RR, Panfilov AV. A simple two-variable model of cardiac excitation. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 1996; 7(3): 293–301. doi: 10.1016/0960-0779(95)00089-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Morris C, Lecar H. Voltage oscillations in the barnacle giant muscle fiber. Biophys J. 1981; 35(1): 193–213. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(81)84782-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Endresen LP. Chaos in weakly-coupled pacemaker cells. J Theor Biol. 1997; 184(1): 41–50. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1996.0240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. González-Miranda JM. Nonlinear oscillations in a muscle pacemaker cell model. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2017; 43: 330–340. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.07.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Fenton F, Karma A. Vortex dynamics in three-dimensional continuous myocardium with fiber rotation: Filament instability and fibrillation. Chaos. 1998; 8(1): 20–47. doi: 10.1063/1.166311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Mitchell CC, Schaeffer DG. A two-current model for the dynamics of cardiac membrane. Bull Math Biol. 2003; 65: 767–793. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8240(03)00041-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Corrado C, Niederer SA. A two-variable model robust to pacemaker behaviour for the dynamics of the cardiac action potential. Math Biosci. 2016; 281: 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2016.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Corrado C, Avezzù A, Lee AWC, Costa CM, Roney CH, Strocchi M, Bishop M, et al. Using cardiac ionic cell models to interpret clinical data. WIREs Mech Dis. 2021; 13(3): e1508. doi: 10.1002/wsbm.1508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Plank G, Loewe A, Neic A, Augustin C, Huang Y-L, et al. The openCARP simulation environment for cardiac electrophysiology. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021; 208: 106223. Available from: https://opencarp.org. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Yu T, Lloyd CM, Nickerson DP, Cooling MT, Miller AK, Garny A, et al. The Physiome model repository 2. Bioinformatics 2011; 27(5): 743–744. Available from: https://models.physiomeproject.org/cellml [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Gizzi A, Cherubini C, Migliori S, Alloni R, Portuesi R, Filippi S. On the electrical intestine turbulence induced by temperature changes. Phys Biol. 2010; 7(1): 016011. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/7/1/016011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Parsons SP, Huizinga JD. A myogenic motor pattern in mice lacking myenteric interstitial cells of Cajal explained by a second coupled oscillator network. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2020; 318(2): G225–G243. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00311.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Borek B, Shajahan TK, Gabriels J, Hodge A, Glass L, Shrier A. Pacemaker interactions induce reentrant wave dynamics in engineered cardiac culture. Chaos. 2012; 22(3): 033132. doi: 10.1063/1.4747709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Podziemski P, Żebrowski JJ. Liénard-type models for the simulation of the action potential of cardiac nodal cells. Physica D. 2013; 261: 52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2013.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Ryzhii E, Ryzhii M. A heterogeneous coupled oscillator model for simulation of ECG signals. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014; 117(1): 40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Li J, Inada S, Schneider JE, Zhang H, Dobrzynski H, Boyett MR. Three-dimensional computer model of the right atrium including the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes predicts classical nodal behaviours. PLoS ONE. 2014. Nov; 9(11): e112547. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Izhikevich EM. Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting. The MIT Press; 2006. 10.7551/mitpress/2526.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Corrado C, Whitaker J, Chubb H, Williams S, Wright M, Gill J, et al. Personalized models of human atrial electrophysiology derived from endocardial electrograms. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2017. Apr; 64(4): 735–742. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2016.2574619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Dhamala J, Arevalo HJ, Sapp J, Horácek BM, Wu KC, Trayanova NA, et al. Quantifying the uncertainty in model parameters using Gaussian process-based Markov chain Monte Carlo in cardiac electrophysiology. Med Image Anal. 2018; 48: 43–57. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2018.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Ravon G, Coudière Y, Potse M, Dubois R. Impact of the endocardium in a parameter optimization to solve the inverse problem of electrocardiography. Front Physiol. 2019; 9: 1946. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Corrado C, Razeghi O, Roney C, Coveney S, Williams S, Sim I, et al. Quantifying atrial anatomy uncertainty from clinical data and its impact on electro-physiology simulation predictions. Med Image Anal. 2020; 61: 101626. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2019.101626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Teplenin AS, Dierckx H, de Vries AAF, Pijnappels DA, Panfilov AV. Paradoxical onset of arrhythmic waves from depolarized areas in cardiac tissue due to curvature-dependent instability. Phys Rev X. 2018; 8(2): 021077. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Christoph J, Chebbok M, Richter C, Schröder-Schetelig J, Bittihn P, Stein S, et al. Electromechanical vortex filaments during cardiac fibrillation. Nature. 2018; 555: 667–672. doi: 10.1038/nature26001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Li T-C, Pan De-B, Zhou K, Jiang R, Jiang C, Zheng Bo, et al. Jacobian-determinant method of identifying phase singularity during reentry. Phys Rev E. 2018; 98(6): 062405. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.98.062405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lebert J, Jan Christoph J. Synchronization-based reconstruction of electromechanical wave dynamics in elastic excitable media. Chaos. 2019; 29(9): 093117. doi: 10.1063/1.5101041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Belhamadia Y, Grenier J. Modeling and simulation of hypothermia effects on cardiac electrical dynamics. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(5): e0216058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Brandstaeter S, Gizzi A, Fuchs SL, Gebauer AM, Aydin RC, Cyron CJ. Computational model of gastric motility with active-strain electromechanics. J Appl Math Mech (ZAMM). 2018; 98(12): 2177–2197. doi: 10.1002/zamm.201800166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Pullan AJ, Cheng LK, Yassi R, Buist ML. Modelling gastrointestinal bioelectric activity. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2004; 85(2-3): 523–550. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Sheldon RE, Baghdadi M, McCloskey C, Blanks AM, Shmygol A, van den Berg HA. Spatial heterogeneity enhances and modulates excitability in a mathematical model of the myometrium. J R Soc Interface. 2013; 10(86): 20130458. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Seydewitz R, Menzel R, Siebert T, Böl M. Three-dimensional mechano-electrochemical model for smooth muscle contraction of the urinary bladder. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017; 75: 128–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.03.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Fresca S, Manzoni A, Dedé L, Quarteroni A. Deep learning-based reduced order models in cardiac electrophysiology. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(10): e0239416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Ai W, Patel ND, Roop PS, Malik A, Andalam S, Yip E, et al. Parametric computational model of the action potential of pacemaker cells. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018; 65(1): 123–130. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2695537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Sehgal S, Patel ND, Malik A, Roop PS, Trew ML. Resonant model—A new paradigm for modeling an action potential of biological cells. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(5): e0216999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ryzhii M, Ryzhii E. Development of simplified model of atrioventricular node with dual pathway. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). 2018; 2800–2802.
  • 47. Keener J, Sneyd J. Mathematical Physiology I and II. Springer; 2009. 10.1007/978-0-387-75847-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Rabinovitch A, Aviram I, Gulko N, Ovsyshcher E. A model for the propagation of action potentials in non-uniformly excitable media. J Theor Biol. 1999; 196(2): 141–154. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1998.0824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Bracewell R. Heaviside’s unit step function, H(x). The Fourier transform and its applications. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; pp. 61–65, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Djabella K, Landau M, Sorine M. A two-variable model of cardiac action potential with controlled pacemaker activity and ionic current interpretation. In 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. 2007; 5186–5191.
  • 51.Ryzhii M, Ryzhii E. Simulation of ectopic activity onset in border zones between normal and damaged myocardium with minimal ionic models. In 2020 Computing in Cardiology (CinC). 2020; 9344249. 10.22489/CinC.2020.142 [DOI]
  • 52. Kurata Y, Hisatome I, Imanishi S, Shibamoto T. Dynamical description of sinoatrial node pacemaking: improved mathematical model for primary pacemaker cell. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002; 283(5): H2074–H2101. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00900.2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Oren RV, Clancy CE. Determinants of heterogeneity, excitation and conduction in the sinoatrial node: a model study. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010; 6(12): e1001041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Glynn P, Onal B, Hund TJ. Cycle length restitution in sinoatrial node cells: A theory for understanding spontaneous action potential dynamics. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(2): e89049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Li J, Zhang H, Boyett M. Numerical analysis of conduction of the action potential across the Purkinje fibre-ventricular muscle junction. In 2016 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC). 2016; 265–268. 10.22489/CinC.2016.078-419 [DOI]
  • 56. Li P, Lines GT, Maleckar MM, Tveito A. Mathematical models of cardiac pacemaking function. Front Phys. 2013; 1: 20. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2013.00020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Opthof T. The mammalian sinoatrial node. Cardiovasc Drug Ther. 1988; 1: 573–597. doi: 10.1007/BF02125744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Fedorov VV, Glukhov AV, Chang R. Conduction barriers and pathways of the sinoatrial pacemaker complex: their role in normal rhythm and atrial arrhythmias. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2012; 302(9): H1773–H1783. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00892.2011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Kharche SR, Vigmond E, Efimov IR, Dobrzynski H. Computational assessment of the functional role of sinoatrial node exit pathways in the human heart. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(9): e0183727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zyanterekov DA, Syunyaev RA, Kharche SR, Atkinson A, Dobrzynski H, McIntyre CW, et al. Is insulating border necessary for human sinoatrial node spontaneous activity? Abstracts of 2019 CompBioMed Conference (Multiscale Modelling).
  • 61. Du P, Paskaranandavadivel N, O’Grady G. A theoretical study of the initiation, maintenance and termination of gastric slow wave re-entry. Math Med Biol. 2015; 32(4): 405–423. doi: 10.1093/imammb/dqu023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Du P, O’Grady G, Cheng LK. A theoretical analysis of anatomical and functional intestinal slow wave re-entry. J Theor Biol. 2017; 425: 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Kararli TT. Comparison of the gastrointestinal anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of humans and commonly used laboratory animals. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1995; 16(5): 351–380. doi: 10.1002/bdd.2510160502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Angeli TR, O’Grady G, Du P, Paskaranandavadivel N, Pullan AJ, Bissett IP, et al. Circumferential and functional re-entry of in vivo slow-wave activity in the porcine small intestine. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013; 25(5): e304–e314. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Dhooge A, Govaerts W, Kuznetsov YuA, Meijer HGE, Sautois B. New features of the software MatCont for bifurcation analysis of dynamical systems. MCMDS 2008; 14(2): 147–175. doi: 10.1080/13873950701742754 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Bernabeu MO, Bordas R, Pathmanathan P, Pitt-Francis J, Cooper J, Garny A, et al. CHASTE: incorporating a novel multi-scale spatial and temporal algorithm into a large-scale open source library. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009; 367(1895): 1907–1930. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Garny A, Kohl P, Hunter PJ, Boyett MR, Noble D. One-dimensional rabbit sinoatrial node models: benefits and limitations. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003; 14(10 Suppl): S121–S132. doi: 10.1046/j.1540.8167.90301.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Landau M, Lorente P, Henry J, Canu S. Hysteresis phenomena between periodic and stationary solutions in a model of pacemaker and nonpacemaker coupled cardiac cells. J Math Biol. 1987; 25: 491–509. doi: 10.1007/BF00276195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Parsons SP, Huizinga JD. Effects of gap junction inhibition on contraction waves in the murine small intestine in relation to coupled oscillator theory. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2015; 308(4): G287–G297. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00338.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

21 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-29390Pacemaking function of two simplified cell modelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ryzhii,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are several issues that have been pointed out by reviewers and need to be considered point by point.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper extends two simple variants of the Aliev-Panfilov and Corrado models in cardiac electrophysiology.

The authors then run a number of different simulations - either at the ODE level or in some simple tissue models - and report on the dynamical behaviours.

While there is some merit in this paper, there is very little that is new from a modelling perspective, a calibration perspective or in terms of the numerics. Basically, the authors just present a set of simulation results. For these reasons I cannot recommend it be published.

There are a number of other issues.

1. The introduction is poor. The authors are not clear on the issues around the use of different types of electrophysiology models. What are the issues exactly? If models are more complex, is there a calibration issue or a computational complexity issue. We can certainly run complex ion channel models in tissue. Line 17 is very questionable. This would need much more clarity than the rather crude discussion presented here.

2 The conclusions given in the last paragraph about the utility of these models in patient specific settings is not well made. There is no natural link between the simple hyper-parameters and patient specific data. This would need much more justification.

3. The modifications to existing models are very minor (eg the use of a sigmoid function). The models are similar to [43].

4. There is nothing new with respect to numerical approaches.

Reviewer #2: This paper reports on modifications to two existing simplified models of cellular electrophysiology. The authors have modified the Aliev-Panfilov (AP) and Corrado-Niederer (CN) models of excitable cells to yield pacemaker models capable of automaticity. As the authors have noted in their introduction, this approach has been previously applied to, e.g., the FitzHugh-Nagumo and original Hodgkin-Huxley models. The finding that a model of an excitable cell (with stable resting potential) can be converted to a pacemaking one is thus not in itself a new result. However, I agree with the authors that there are important applications for simplified (but well characterized) models of pacemaking cells.

The authors provide characterizations of how key properties, such as the frequency of pacemaking, depend on the parameters of the modified models. This analysis takes advantage of the simplified nature of the models and explains the behaviour in terms of phase portraits using standard methods for analysis of nonlinear systems. The authors then continue to use the modified models, along with the original formulations for excitable cells, to demonstrate the ability to qualitatively reproduce some basic behaviour when pacemaking cells are connected to excitable cells in physiological scenarios in the heart and intestine.

The work is well documented and clearly presented, and the methodology used is generally appropriate and correct. However, the relatively basic results presented here do not in my opinion go very far to demonstrate that the models can be applied for the authors' stated purposes (personalized medicine, medical device testing). While it is encouraging to see that the pacemaking models are able to "drive" excitable tissue in both scenarios tested, this defines a very narrow scope of baseline, normal physiological behaviour only. It is not clear how widely applicable the proposed models are.

In my view, this paper would be strengthened if the authors could explore the ability of the simplified models to reproduce more detailed/subtle properties of pacemaking. For example, can the modified AP model reproduce findings such as the the role of "discrete exit pathways" on micro-reentry and shift of the leading pacemaker site in the SA node, similar to the results presented by Karche et al. (the authors' reference 49, which employs variants of the Fenton-Karma model)? This would help to establish boundaries of applicability for the modified AP model and also contribute some additional understanding of whether or not the results of Karche et al are independent of the specifics of the simplified cellular model. I am less familiar with the literature on pacemaking in the intestine, but would assume that more detailed test cases could be identified in that application area as well.

Reviewer #3: This article develops two pacemaker models based on alterations to existing

phenomenological ionic models. The models are then applied to several example

systems to demonstrate their utility. In general, the authors do not

convincingly demonstrate the superiority of their new models, nor are the

examples physiologically meaningful. The paper also has many instances of

awkward language that need correction. Details are provided below.

The authors overestimate the cases where the simplified models are needed.

Given increases in computational power and numerical techniques, hundreds of

thousands of cells are easily handled on a desktop multicore machine. However,

this requires more detailed knowledge of computational techniques. The reviewer

agrees that there may be cases where a simple model may suffice.

The authors should demonstrate that their models are superior in some ways. For

example, are the waveforms more realistic? What parameters in the models control

behaviour (AP shape, frequency, resting level, etc.) and what are the limits? It is

not clear how cardiac models can be used for all tissue.

What situation are the authors modelling with the cardiac strands? Why is there

only one pacemaker? What do the waveforms look like? Electrotonic coupling is

important and depends on wave morphology.

The authors need to specify the species of the SAN they are trying to model. In

larger mammals, the SAN is isolated except at several discrete coupling points.

The gradients are missing in the example and are vital for function. See Munoz

Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2011. The authors need to show that they can be

incorporated and produce the correct behavior.

For the gastrointestinal example, again, somewhat realistic waveforms need to

be shown. How did the authors adjust the model? ICC slow waves last several

seconds which is much longer than anything shown. Also, there is a decreasing

frequency gradient along the intestine with sections of entrainment. Like the

other examples, this shows that the oscillators can be assembled and will show

activity but does not convincingly demonstrate that the essential elements of

the system under study can be recapitulated.

Reviewer #4: The paper considers variants of the Aliev-Panfilov and Corrado two-variable models to investigate nonlinear dynamic features of both isolated cells and 1D coupled pacemaker-excitable systems. As application examples of combined pacemaker-excitable systems, numerical simulations of 2D sinoatrial node and 3D intestine tissue were presented. Although the paper is well-written, I have major concerns about the numerical methods as described below:

1) Although the paper discusses the models parameters very well, less is said about the numerical methods. It is well known that all the electrocardiology models require accurate and precise numerical methods. In fact, the mesh size can greatly affect the wave velocity and the position of the depolarization and repolarization front. The type of space and time discretizations may affect the spiral and scroll waves dynamics. More discussions about these computational difficulties can be found in, for instance, [1-6]. Therefore, a major concern about the paper is that the numerical methods used for the simulations are not described. In addition, without showing the accuracy of the numerical methods, the results may not be reliable.

2) The accuracy of the method employed is discussed in the Numerical method Section. However, this is done only for single cell simulations. These results should be discussed in at least the 1D case and compare the results with an order-two approximations for both space and time.

3) The manuscript does not discuss the space discretization and the order of the approximation used.

4) As the manuscript considers only an explicit method for the time discretization, the standard stability criterion has to be forced. This may cause computational issues, especially in the 3D case. Would you please comment on the time step used for the 2D and 3D cases? How can one ensure that the results obtained are accurate and the numerical method employed did not affect the main paper's findings?

References:

[1] Efficiency of Semi-Implicit Alternating Direction Implicit Methods for Solving Cardiac Monodomain Model. Computers in Biology and Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104187

[2] High-order finite element methods for cardiac monodomain simulations. Front. Physiol. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00217

[3] Parallel anisotropic mesh adaptivity with dynamic load balancing for cardiac electrophysiology, Journal of Computational Science, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2011.11.002

[4] Adaptive finite element simulation of ventricular fibrillation dynamics, Comput. Visual Sci. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00791-008-0088-y

[5] Simulation of cardiac electrophysiology on next-generation high-performance computers, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0298

[6] A Time-Dependent Adaptive Remeshing for Electrical Waves of the Heart.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. DOI:10.1109/TBME.2007.905415

**********

6. 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

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Apr 11;17(4):e0257935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257935.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Jan 2022

Response to Reviewer 1:

We thank Reviewer 1 for their critical comments which helped us to improve the paper. We have made corrections to the manuscript according to the Reviewer’s comments. The following provides our response to each comment in the order that it appeared in the report.

"1. The introduction is poor. The authors are not clear on the issues around the use of different types of electrophysiology models. What are the issues exactly? If models are more complex, is there a calibration issue or a computational complexity issue. We can certainly run complex ion channel models in tissue. Line 17 is very questionable. This would need much more clarity than the rather crude discussion presented here."

We have changed the text around Line 17-19 and added References 5-7, 20, 24 to support our statements.

"2 The conclusions given in the last paragraph about the utility of these models in patient specific settings is not well made. There is no natural link between the simple hyper‐parameters and patient specific data. This would need much more justification."

To clarify justification for the utility of the considered models in the patient-specific settings, we have changed significantly “General remarks” subsection with the inclusion of corresponding references (19 and 34). Also, “Conclusion” has been modified (Lines 469-471, 474-475).

"3. The modifications to existing models are very minor (eg the use of a sigmoid function). The models are similar to [43]."

We cannot agree with the Reviewer’s statement due to the following points.

- The work [50] (former Ref. 43) refers to the Aliev-Panfilov model: ‘However, this model … does not encompass as many aspects of heart dynamics as do the ionic models (e.g. pacemaker activity).” p.5186, and in Table 1 (p. 5188) the pacemaking variant of the AP is absent.

- Corrado-Niederer model [19] represents a significant modification of the Mitchell-Schaeffer model [18] by changing the form of polynomial in the differential equation for transmembrane potential. This modification drastically changed the dynamics of the Mitchell-Schaeffer model and introduced robustness to unexpected and uncontrolled pacemaker behavior of the latter. The controlled pacemaker function of the Corrado-Niederer model clearly differs from that considered in [50].

- The sigmoid function itself was introduced in the classical Hodgkin-Huxley model (1952). In contrast to [50], where the role of the sigmoid function is unclear, we considered the influence of the function on the pCN model dynamics (Fig 5B).

- In contrast to [50], we considered several nonlinear characteristics (Figs 4 and 5) omitted in [50].

- In contrast to [50], we considered the dynamics of 1D coupled pAP-AP and pCN-CN systems (Figs 6 and 7).

- In contrast to [50], we considered the use of the pAP-AP and pCN-CN systems in the 2D SAN and 3D intestine tissue models (Figs 8 and 9).

"4. There is nothing new with respect to numerical approaches."

We used only standard numerical methods such as explicit Forward Euler (FE) and implicit Backward Euler (BE), as the methods are suitable for the solution of the ODE systems considered. The BE method is relatively simple to implement and is known to be absolutely stable, making it suitable for the solution of stiff differential equations (K. Atkinson, W. Han, D. Stewart, "Numerical solution of ordinary differential equations", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.; John C. Butcher, "Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations", Wiley, 2003). The BE method, for example, was used for the simulations with the original Corrado model [19]. We used the explicit FE method for the preliminary simulations and the BE method for the final results.

Response to Reviewer 2:

We thank Reviewer 2 for their useful and insightful comments, which helped us improve the manuscript. These comments are all implemented in the revised manuscript. The following provides our response to each comment in the order that it appeared in their report.

"The work is well documented and clearly presented, and the methodology used is generally appropriate and correct. However, the relatively basic results presented here do not in my opinion go very far to demonstrate that the models can be applied for the authors' stated purposes (personalized medicine, medical device testing). While it is encouraging to see that the pacemaking models are able to "drive" excitable tissue in both scenarios tested, this defines a very narrow scope of baseline, normal physiological behaviour only. It is not clear how widely applicable the proposed models are.

In my view, this paper would be strengthened if the authors could explore the ability of the simplified models to reproduce more detailed/subtle properties of pacemaking. For example, can the modified AP model reproduce findings such as the the role of "discrete exit pathways" on micro‐reentry and shift of the leading pacemaker site in the SA node, similar to the results presented by Karche et al. (the authors' reference 49, which employs variants of the Fenton‐Karma model)? This would help to establish boundaries of applicability for the modified AP model and also contribute some additional understanding of whether or not the results of Karche et al are independent of the specifics of the simplified cellular model."

Indeed, recent experimental findings demonstrate a more complex structure of the SAN, including insulating borders and exit pathways. To show the capabilities of the pAP model, we have changed the simulation setup and considered two different SAN structure types – with and without (original in the previous version of the manuscript) insulating borders with exit pathways.

For this purpose, in “Methods - 2D SAN model” subsection:

- We have added panel B in Fig 3 (SAN structure with the insulating borders and exit pathways).

- We have rewritten the subsection completely starting from the 3rd paragraph to describe the modified simulation setup.

- We have added new results for SAN structure with the borders and exit pathways in Fig 8 (panels D-F).

- For both types of the SAN structure, activation maps have been added (Fig 8C and Fig 8F).

- The description of the simulation results in “Results – 2D simulation of SAN” subsection has been changed.

- Table 1 has been split into two tables. The new Table 2 presents the parameters for the pAP and AP models used in the modified SAN simulation setups.

- We have added the references to Fedorov et al. 2012 [58], Kharche et al. 2017 [59], Li et al. 2014 [28], and Zyanterekov et al. 2019 [60].

- New supplementary videos have been added (S1 – S6 Videos).

"I am less familiar with the literature on pacemaking in the intestine, but would assume that more detailed test cases could be identified in that application area as well."

To make the intestine model more realistic, we have made the following changes in “Methods - 3D intestine model” and “Results - 3D intestine model” subsections:

- Starting from the 3rd paragraph, the simulation setup description has been rewritten to describe the model changes. The mean circumference has been set to 44 mm, which corresponds to average-size animals like dogs or rabbits, and the simulation domain for both layers has been increased to 176x4800.

- In the former subsection, we have added references on recent experimental and modeling studies - Du et al. 2015 [61], Du et al. 2017 [62], Kararli 1995 [63], Angeli et al. 2013 [64].

- The pCN model parameters and the diffusion coefficients have been adjusted to demonstrate the formation of sections (plateaus) of frequency entrainment.

- The distribution of intrinsic frequencies along the y axis (Equation 13) has been changed.

- The parameters of the induced conduction block have been changed.

- Figure 9 demonstrates now not only updated snapshots of spatial distributions of the transmembrane potential but also the newly obtained distributions of intrinsic and entrained frequencies (Fig 9B), and both ICC and SMC action potentials at different time moments and positions in space (Figs 9C-9F).

- The “Results - 3D simulation of intestine” subsection has been rewritten according to the newly obtained results. References to recent modeling and simulation studies have been added – Du et al. 2017 [62] and Parsons et al. 2015 [69].

- Two new supplementary videos have been added (S7 and S8 Videos).

Response to Reviewer 3:

We thank Reviewer 3 for their useful and critical comments, which helped us improve the manuscript. These comments are all implemented in the revised manuscript. The following provides our response to each comment in the order that it appeared in their report.

"This article develops two pacemaker models based on alterations to existing phenomenological ionic models. The models are then applied to several example systems to demonstrate their utility. In general, the authors do not convincingly demonstrate the superiority of their new models, nor are the examples physiologically meaningful.

The paper also has many instances of awkward language that need correction. Details are provided below. "

We must admit that multiple instances of awkward language were present in the previous version.

The language issues have been corrected.

"The authors overestimate the cases where the simplified models are needed. Given increases in computational power and numerical techniques, hundreds of thousands of cells are easily handled on a desktop multicore machine. However, this requires more detailed knowledge of computational techniques. The reviewer agrees that there may be cases where a simple model may suffice. "

We have modified the end of the first paragraph of “Introduction” and provided additional references [5-7, 20, 24] supporting the need for the simplified phenomenological models (Lines 17-19, 28-30), and a review [20].

"The authors should demonstrate that their models are superior in some ways. For example, are the waveforms more realistic? What parameters in the models control behaviour (AP shape, frequency, resting level, etc.) and what are the limits? It is not clear how cardiac models can be used for all tissue. "

The Aliev-Panfilov model is purely phenomenological, and the Corrado model is a reduced ionic model which can be considered phenomenological as well. As we mentioned in “Introduction” section, the advantages of these (and others like the FitzHugh-Nagumo model) are their simplicity (just two variables), allowing easy bifurcation analysis, the uniform description for both excitable and oscillating equation systems, and low computational cost – essential for real-time and interactive applications. The considered models have a well-defined excitation threshold (in contrast to the FHN model) and convenient intrinsic frequency control in a wide range (Figs 4 and 5). Another use of the models can be preliminary simulation setups for hypothesis testing and verification, as well as model design and tuning before implementing complex and computationally expensive ion-channel models. This approach was used in the paper by Teplenin et al. Phys. Rev. X 8, 021077, 2018 [32]. We have also modified “General remarks” section.

"What situation are the authors modelling with the cardiac strands? Why is there only one pacemaker?"

The strands of tissue (not exactly cardiac) were considered to evaluate and compare the pacemaking properties of both pAP and pCN models with varying coupling between cells (coupling load). As Fig 6 shows, the models demonstrate rather different dynamic behavior.

In this modeling setup (section “Coupled 1D pacemaker-excitable systems”) we evaluated the ability of a single pacemaker cell to drive relatively long strands of the excitable cells. It is essential for comprehensive abstracted heart models with real-time simulation capabilities, where a single pacemaker cell represents a group of ion-channel pacemaker model cells [43]. We have modified the section accordingly (Lines 165-167).

"What do the waveforms look like? Electrotonic coupling is important and depends on wave morphology."

We have added Figs 7C and 7D with temporal evolution of action potential waveforms for both pAP-AP and pCN-CN 1D coupled systems at different coupling coefficients. The corresponding text has been added at the end of “Results – Synchronization behavior…” subsection.

"The authors need to specify the species of the SAN they are trying to model."

We have added the citation to an experimental paper by Opthof, Cardiovasc Drugs and Ther. 1988 [54] and noted the canine heart in the second paragraph of “Methods - 2D SAN model” subsection.

"In larger mammals, the SAN is isolated except at several discrete coupling points. The gradients are missing in the example and are vital for function. See Munoz Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2011. The authors need to show that they can be incorporated and produce the correct behavior."

We agree with the reviewer.

Indeed, recent experimental findings demonstrate a more complex structure of the SAN, including insulating borders and exit pathways. To support the capabilities of the pAP model, we have changed the simulation setup and considered two different SAN structure types – with and without (original in the previous version of the manuscript) insulating borders with exit pathways.

For this purpose, in “Methods - 2D SAN model” subsection:

- We have added panel B in Fig 3 (SAN structure with the insulating borders and exit pathways).

- We have rewritten the subsection completely, starting from the 3rd paragraph to describe the changed simulation setup.

- We have added new results for SAN structure with the borders and exit pathways in Fig 8 (panels D-F).

- For both types of the SAN structure, activation maps have been added (Fig 8C and Fig 8F).

- We have changed the description of the simulation results in “Results – 2D simulation of SAN” subsection.

- We have added the references to Fedorov et al. 2012 [58], Kharche et al. 2017 [59], Li et al. 2014 [28], and Zyanterekov et al. 2019 [60].

- New supplementary videos have been added (S1 – S6 Videos).

"For the gastrointestinal example, again, somewhat realistic waveforms need to be shown. How did the authors adjust the model? ICC slow waves last several seconds which is much longer than anything shown. Also, there is a decreasing frequency gradient along the intestine with sections of entrainment. Like the other examples, this shows that the oscillators can be assembled and will show activity but does not convincingly demonstrate that the essential elements of the system under study can be recapitulated."

To make the intestine model more realistic, we have made the following changes in “Methods - 3D intestine model” subsection:

- Starting from the 3rd paragraph, the simulation setup description has been rewritten to describe the model changes. In particular, the mean circumference has been set to 44 mm, which corresponds to average-size animals like dogs or rabbits.

- In the subsection, we have added references on recent experimental and modeling studies - Du et al. 2015 [61], Du et al. 2017 [62], Kararli 1995 [63], Angeli et al. 2013 [64].

- The pCN model parameters and the diffusion coefficients have been adjusted to demonstrate the formation of sections (plateaus) of frequency entrainment.

- The distribution of intrinsic frequencies along the y axis (Equation 13) has been modified.

- The parameters of the induced conduction block have been modified.

Correspondingly, the “Results - 3D simulation of intestine” subsection has been updated:

- Figure 9 demonstrates now not only updated snapshots of spatial distributions of the transmembrane potential but also the newly obtained distributions of intrinsic and entrained frequencies (Fig 9B) and both ICC and SMC action potentials at different time moments and positions in space (Figs 9C-9F).

- The subsection has been rewritten according to the newly obtained results. References to recent modeling and simulation studies have been added – Du et al. 2017 [62] and Parsons et al. 2015 [69].

- Two new supplementary videos have been added (S7 and S8 Videos).

Response to Reviewer 4:

We thank Reviewer 4 for their useful and insightful comments, which helped us improve the manuscript. These comments are all implemented in the revised manuscript. The following provides our response to each comment in the order that it appeared in their report.

"Although the paper is well‐written, I have major concerns about the numerical methods as described below:

1) Although the paper discusses the models parameters very well, less is said about the numerical methods. It is well known that all the electrocardiology models require accurate and precise numerical methods. In fact, the mesh size can greatly affect the wave velocity and the position of the depolarization and repolarization front. The type of space and time discretizations may affect the spiral and scroll waves dynamics. More discussions about these computational difficulties can be found in, for instance, [1‐6]. Therefore, a major concern about the paper is that the numerical methods used for the simulations are not described. In addition, without showing the accuracy of the numerical methods, the results may not be reliable."

Both explicit Forward Euler (FE) and implicit Backward Euler (BE) methods have order one accuracy. The BE method is relatively simple to implement and is known to be absolutely stable, making it suitable for the solution of stiff differential equations (K. Atkinson, W. Han, D. Stewart, "Numerical solution of ordinary differential equations", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.; John C. Butcher, "Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations", Wiley, 2003). So, we used the explicit FE method for the preliminary simulations and the BE method for the final results.

In the 1D simulations, we used a coupling coefficient d = D/Δx2, not dependent on spatial step size. Time steps for 1D pAP-AP and pCN-CN coupled systems are presented in Tables 1 and 3.

“Numerical methods” subsection has been modified. We have split Table 1 into two tables. New Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate, along with other parameters, time and space steps for the 2D SAN and 3D intestine models.

"2) The accuracy of the method employed is discussed in the Numerical method Section. However, this is done only for single cell simulations. These results should be discussed in at least the 1D case and compare the results with an order‐two approximations for both space and time.

3) The manuscript does not discuss the space discretization and the order of the approximation used."

We agree with the Reviewer that implementing other more precise and complex methods may be beneficial for such simulations in the case of a research study of the electrophysiology of the SAN and intestine. The main aim of our paper is the consideration of the pacemaking functions of the AP and CN models and examples of their application (to demonstrate the ability of the considered models describing pacemaking tissue behavior in the SAN and intestine). Thus, we limited ourselves to implementing FE and implicit BE methods only. Even the explicit FE method with proper time step is considered accurate enough for computationally efficient models (namely, modified Aliev-Panfilov model), see, for example, “Computationally efficient model of myocardial electromechanics for multiscale simulations” by F. Syomin et al. PLOS One, (2021) (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255027). Implementation of both FE and BE methods Cardiac CHASTE software was demonstrated in the works “CHASTE: incorporating a novel multi-scale spatial and temporal algorithm into a large-scale open source library” by M.O. Bernabeu, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009) (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0309 ) and “Cellular cardiac electrophysiology modeling with Chaste and CellML”, by J. Cooper, Front. Physiol. (2015) (https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00511 ).

A comparison of the accuracy of FE results relative to that obtained with BE method for 0D simulations is presented in Table 4. For 1D coupled pacemaker-excitable systems, the maximum relative frequency error with dt = 0.1 ms was also about 0.16%. We have also added Supplement S1 Fig with the comparison of the accuracy of FE and BE methods used in the simulations. Pertinent MATLAB and CellML codes have been placed at GitHub public repository: https://github.com/mryzhii/Simplified-pacemaker-cell-models .

"4) As the manuscript considers only an explicit method for the time discretization, the standard stability criterion has to be forced. This may cause computational issues, especially in the 3D case. Would you please comment on the time step used for the 2D and 3D cases? How can one ensure that the results obtained are accurate and the numerical method employed did not affect the main paper's findings?"

We used both the explicit Forward Euler method for the preliminary simulations and the implicit Backward Euler method for final results. For the 2D and 3D simulations, the results obtained with both methods are visually the same, and further reduction of time and space steps did not lead to any visual difference. In the BE method, the absolute tolerance (for each cell in 1D, 2D, and 3D cases) was set to 10^(-7) with the maximum number of iterations in the inner loop 20. The latter was not exceeded in all simulations (Lines 263-267).

For the intestine simulations, the time and spatial steps were smaller than that used in a similar study of gastric electro-mechanical activity (dt=2.5 ms and dx=0.25 mm vs. dt=100 ms, dx=0.5 mm in Brandstaeter et al. 2018 [39]), considering a fivefold increase in the frequency in our case (Table 3).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letter.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

16 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-29390R1Pacemaking function of two simplified cell modelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ryzhii,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Specifically: Please, include the limitations of this type of model in the discussion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: In this version of the paper, the authors have tried to make the examples more

realistic and have, for the most part succeeded. However, their type 2 SAN

simulations look odd. That put a passive barrier around their SAN instead of an

insulating one. As such, electrotonic interactions occur across the barrier

which affects propagation in the vicinity. This should not occur.

The authors should list the limitations of their model. While such a model can

be useful at times, it is also important to say when it cannot. For example,

how limited is the morphology? Can it support a bursting mode on top of the

plateau? Since voltage is normalized, it appears that resting level differences

cannot be incorporated.

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed all my concerns with the first version of their manuscript. After the approval of the editor, I think the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication in the PLOS One Journal.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Apr 11;17(4):e0257935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257935.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Mar 2022

Response to Reviewer 3:

We thank Reviewer 3 for the comments, which helped us improve the manuscript. These comments are implemented in the revised manuscript. The following provides our response to the comments.

We have renamed the Section “General remarks” to “Limitations and general remarks”, added the text below (lines 444-474), and added Supplement S2 Fig describing methods for shifting of the resting (MDP) and amplitude/peak (POP) levels.

“…The results in Figs 8 and 9 are presented for illustration purposes and not aimed at a detailed study of these organs. In particular, in the SAN type 2 model (Fig 3B), the tissue of the borders surrounding the pacemaking area is of passive type, blocking the spread of excitation [28]. Such tissue, being not exactly of an electrically insulating type [59, 60], causes electrotonic interactions with the surrounding SAN and atrial tissues. Better selection of the boundary tissue properties can be beneficial for more realistic simulations of the SAN and its exit pathway functions. Moreover, additional tuning of the parameters to clinical data might be necessary for accurate simulations, in particular, to construct patient-specific models. This can be realized by applying, for example, a robust and clinically tractable protocol and fitting algorithm [19] for characterizing cardiac electrophysiology properties by simplest two-variable cell models, such as the pAP-AP and pCN-CN coupled systems.

For the simulations where the differences of resting and/or peak levels are necessary, the MDP and POP values of the considered models can be modified. The addition of a constant to the term u and the replacement of unity in the term (1 −u) allow shifting of the MDP and POP levels, respectively, though the exact resulting values of the latters cannot be determined directly (see Supplement S2 Fig for the details). Also, such modification may require an adjustment of the intrinsic frequencies (for example, with the parameters bAP and bCN). The above modifications of the MDP and POP together with modulation of the intrinsic frequency with the parameters b may allow simulation of a kind of tonic bursting [29] - a firing behavior in which a neuron cell fires a certain number of spikes on the top of the plateau and is silent for a certain amount of time. Though, compared to the variety of specific neuronal cell models [29], the pAP and pCN models may not be the best choice for modeling of neuronal systems.

Another well-known disadvantage of the phenomenological models like pAP-AP and pCN-CN is their limited ability to represent action potential morphology under varying physiological conditions, e.g., the effect of variation of concentration of particular ions, which is necessary for simulations of complex cardiac diseases such as ion channelopathies. However, …”

Response to Reviewer 4:

We thank Reviewer 4 for useful and insightful comments, which helped us improve the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letterR2.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

30 Mar 2022

Pacemaking function of two simplified cell models

PONE-D-21-29390R2

Dear Dr. Ryzhii,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. 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 #3: No

Acceptance letter

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

1 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-29390R2

Pacemaking function of two simplified cell models

Dear Dr. Ryzhii:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Action potentials and phase portraits of the pAP and pCN models.

    Comparison of the accuracy of Forward Euler and Backward Euler methods. The MATLAB and CellML codes are available at https://github.com/mryzhii/Simplified-pacemaker-cell-models.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Shifting of the POP and MDP levels in the pAP and pCN models.

    (PDF)

    S1 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 1).

    Corresponds to Fig 8A for diffusion coefficient D = 0.090 mm2ms-1.

    (MP4)

    S2 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 1).

    Corresponds to Fig 8B for diffusion coefficient D = 0.048 mm2ms-1.

    (MP4)

    S3 Video. Animation of the excitation sequence in the SAN model structure (type 1).

    Evolution of transmembrane potential in 3D corresponding to Fig 8A.

    (MP4)

    S4 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 2).

    Corresponds to DA = 0.160 mm2ms−1, DS = 0.060 mm2ms−1.

    (MP4)

    S5 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential u in the SAN model structure (type 2).

    Corresponds to DA = 0.160 mm2ms−1, DS = 0.052 mm2ms−1.

    (MP4)

    S6 Video. Animation of the excitation sequence in the SAN model structure (type 2).

    Evolution of transmembrane potential in 3D corresponding to Fig 8D.

    (MP4)

    S7 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential uI in the intestine model.

    Formation of plateaus with entrained frequencies (t = 1—3600 s).

    (MP4)

    S8 Video. Animation of the transmembrane potential uI in the intestine model.

    Onset and evolution of intestinal dysrhythmia pattern due to temporary conduction block (t = 8000—11600 s).

    (MP4)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letter.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_letterR2.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES