1: \documentclass{rspublic}
2:
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: % Some definitions required by harvard.sty and absent in rspublic class
5: \makeatletter
6: \newcounter {paragraph}[subsubsection]
7: \renewcommand\theparagraph {\thesubsubsection.\@arabic\c@paragraph}
8: \newcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
9: {3.25ex \@plus1ex \@minus.2ex}%
10: {-1em}%
11: {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
12:
13: \let\bibdata=\@gobble
14: \let\bibstyle=\@gobble
15: \def\bibliography#1{%
16: \if@filesw
17: \immediate\write\@auxout{\string\bibdata{#1}}%
18: \fi
19: \@input@{\jobname.bbl}}
20: \def\bibliographystyle#1{%
21: \ifx\@begindocumenthook\@undefined\else
22: \expandafter\AtBeginDocument
23: \fi
24: {\if@filesw
25: \immediate\write\@auxout{\string\bibstyle{#1}}%
26: \fi}}
27: \def\nocite#1{\@bsphack
28: \@for\@citeb:=#1\do{%
29: \edef\@citeb{\expandafter\@firstofone\@citeb}%
30: \if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{\@citeb}}\fi
31: \@ifundefined{b@\@citeb}{\G@refundefinedtrue
32: \@latex@warning{Citation `\@citeb' undefined}}{}}%
33: \@esphack}
34: \expandafter\let\csname b@*\endcsname\@empty
35: \def\@cite#1#2{[{#1\if@tempswa , #2\fi}]}
36: \makeatother
37: % end of std defs
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39:
40: \usepackage{color}
41: \usepackage{epic}
42: \usepackage{graphics}
43: \usepackage[agsm]{harvard}
44: \usepackage{psfrag}
45:
46: \addtolength{\topmargin}{1cm}
47: \allowdisplaybreaks
48:
49: % Keystroke saving macros
50: % Common notations
51: \renewcommand{\d}{\mathrm{d}} % ordinary differential
52: \newcommand{\df}[2]{{\partial #1}/{\partial #2}} % partial derivative
53: \newcommand{\ddf}[2]{{\partial^2 #1}/{\partial #2^2}} % second partial derivative
54: \newcommand{\Df}[2]{{\d #1}/{\d #2}} % ordinary derivative
55: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})} % equation reference
56: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{fig.~\ref{#1}} % figure reference inside sentence
57: \newcommand{\Fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}} % figure reference beginning of sentence
58: \newcommand{\Heav}{\theta} % Heaviside function
59: \newcommand{\myfigure}[3]{ % floating figure
60: \begin{figure}[t]
61: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{#1}}
62: \caption[]{\small #2}
63: \label{#3}
64: \end{figure}
65: }
66:
67:
68: % Specific
69: \newcommand{\cm}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}}} % centimeter
70: \newcommand{\mS}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{mS}}} % milliSiemen (==mmho)
71: \newcommand{\mV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{mV}}} % millivolt
72: \newcommand{\mm}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{mm}}}
73: \newcommand{\ms}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ms}}} % millisecond
74: \newcommand{\uA}{\ensuremath{\mu\mathrm{A}}} % microampere
75: \newcommand{\uF}{\ensuremath{\mu\mathrm{F}}} % microfarad
76:
77: \renewcommand{\i}{i} % index in the abstract system of equations
78: \newcommand{\n}{N} % number of variables in the abstract system of equations
79: \newcommand{\y}{y} % abstract gate name
80:
81: \newcommand{\mx}[1]{\mathbf{#1} } % boldface vector variables of abstract fast-slow system
82: \newcommand{\F}{\mx{f}} % abstract fast RHS
83: \newcommand{\G}{\mx{g}} % abstract slow RHS
84: \newcommand{\X}{\mx{X}} % abstract far vat
85: \newcommand{\Y}{\mx{Y}} % abstract slow var
86:
87: \newcommand{\emb}[1]{\hat{{#1}}} % parametric embedding
88: \newcommand{\Qstat}[1]{\overline{#1}} % quasistationary values of a gate
89: \newcommand{\CM}{C_M} % membrane capacitance
90: \newcommand{\EK}{E_K} % other std electrophysiol quantities
91: \newcommand{\ENa}{E_{Na}}
92: \newcommand{\El}{E_l}
93: \newcommand{\INa}{I_{\mathrm{Na}}}
94: \newcommand{\dbar}{\Qstat{d}}
95: \newcommand{\gKi}{g_{K_1}}
96: \newcommand{\gK}{g_{K}}
97: \newcommand{\gNai}{g_{Na_1}}
98: \newcommand{\gNa}{g_{Na}}
99: \newcommand{\gl}{g_{l}}
100: \newcommand{\mbar}{\Qstat{m}}
101: \newcommand{\nbar}{\Qstat{n}}
102: \newcommand{\oabar}{\Qstat{\oa}}
103: \newcommand{\oa}{o_a}
104: \newcommand{\oi}{o_i}
105: \newcommand{\uabar}{\Qstat{\ua}}
106: \newcommand{\ua}{u_a}
107: \newcommand{\wbar}{\Qstat{w}}
108: \newcommand{\ybar}{\Qstat{\y}}
109: \renewcommand{\hbar}{\Qstat{h}}
110:
111: \newcommand{\Ealp}{E_-} % pre-front voltage
112: \newcommand{\Eomg}{E_+} % post-front voltage
113: \newcommand{\Eh}{E_h} % h-gate switch voltage
114: \newcommand{\Em}{E_m} % m-gate switch voltage
115:
116: \newcommand{\jmin}{j_{\min}} % critical value of j
117: \newcommand{\cmin}{c_{\min}} % critical value of c
118:
119: \newcommand{\SI}{{\Sigma_I}} % sum of all currents
120: \newcommand{\SIsmall}{{\Sigma_{I}^{\prime}}} % sum of all currents except fast sodium current
121:
122:
123: \begin{document}
124: \title[Asymptotics of excitability]{Asymptotic properties of mathematical models of excitability}
125: \author[I. V. Biktasheva et al.]{I. V. Biktasheva$^{1}$, R. D. Simitev$^{2}$, R. Suckley$^{2}$, V. N. Biktashev$^{2,*}$}
126: \affiliation{
127: $^1$ Department of Computer Science,
128: University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
129: and
130: $^2$ Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of
131: Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZL, UK.
132: $^*$ Corresponding author.
133: }
134: \label{firstpage}
135: \maketitle
136:
137: \begin{abstract}{
138: singular perturbations, action potential, front dissipation
139: }
140: We analyse small parameters in selected models of biological
141: excitability, including Hodgkin-Huxley (1952) model of
142: nerve axon, Noble (1962) model of heart Purkinje fibres, and
143: Courtemanche et al. (1998) model of human atrial cells. Some of the
144: small parameters are responsible for differences in the characteristic
145: timescales of dynamic variables,
146: as in the traditional singular perturbation approaches.
147: Others appear in a way which makes
148: the standard approaches inapplicable. We apply this analysis to study the
149: behaviour of fronts of excitation waves in spatially-extended cardiac
150: models. Suppressing the excitability of the tissue leads to a decrease in
151: the propagation speed, but only to a certain limit; further
152: suppression blocks active propagation and leads to a passive
153: diffusive spread of voltage. Such a dissipation may happen if a front
154: propagates into a tissue recovering after a previous wave, e.g. re-entry.
155: A dissipated front does not recover even when the
156: excitability restores. This has no analogy in
157: FitzHugh-Nagumo model and its variants, where fronts can stop and then
158: start again. In two spatial dimensions, dissipation accounts for
159: break-ups and
160: self-termination of re-entrant waves in excitable
161: media with Courtemanche et al. (1998) kinetics.
162: \end{abstract}
163:
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165: \section{Introduction}
166:
167: The motivation of this study comes from a series of numerical
168: simulations of spiral waves \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2003} in a model
169: of human atrial tissue based on the excitation kinetics of
170: \citeasnoun{Courtemanche-etal-1998} (CRN). The spiral waves in this
171: model tend to break up into pieces and even spontaneously
172: self-terminate (see \fig{selfterm}).
173:
174: \myfigure{fig1}{
175: Self-termination of a spiral wave in the CRN model. Red colour
176: component: transmembrane voltage $E$, green
177: colour component: gating variable $\oi$.
178: Diffusion coefficient $D=0.03125\mm^2/\ms$, preparation size
179: $75\times75\,\mm$.
180: See also \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2003}.
181: }{selfterm}
182:
183: No mathematical model of cardiac tissue is now considered
184: ultimate or can claim absolute predictive power.
185: The spontaneous self-termination may be relevant
186: to human atrial tissue or may be an artefact
187: of modelling.
188: Understanding
189: the mechanism of this behaviour in some simple terms
190: would allow a more direct and certain verification. This is difficult
191: as the models are very complex and the events depicted in
192: \fig{selfterm} have many different aspects. Traditionally,
193: such understanding has been achieved in terms of simplified models,
194: starting from axiomatic cellular automata description
195: \cite{Wiener-Rosenblueth-1946} through to simplified PDE models
196: \cite{FitzHugh-1961,Nagumo-etal-1962} which allow asymptotic study by
197: means of singular perturbation techniques \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988}.
198: This approach can describe some of the features observed in
199: \fig{selfterm}, e.g. the ``APD restitution slope 1'' theory predicts when the
200: stationary rotation of a spiral wave is unstable against
201: alternans
202: \cite{Nolasco-Dahlen-1968,Karma-etal-1994,Karma-1994}. The relevance
203: of the ``slope-1'' theory to particular models is debated
204: \cite{Cherry-Fenton-2004}, but in any case it
205: only predicts the instability of a spiral wave, not whether
206: it will lead to complete self-termination of the spiral wave, its
207: breakup, or just meandering of its tip.
208: We need to understand how the propagation of a wave is blocked.
209: This has unexpectedly turned out to be rather interesting.
210: Some features of the propagation block in \fig{selfterm} can
211: \emph{never} be explained within the standard FitzHugh-Nagumo
212: approach. As this was the only well developed asymptotic approach to
213: excitable systems around, we had either to accept that this problem
214: is too complicated to be understood in simplified terms, or to develop
215: an alternative type of simplified model and corresponding
216: asymptotics.
217:
218:
219: We chose the latter.
220: This paper summarizes our progress in this direction in the last few
221: years \cite{%
222: Biktashev-2002,%
223: Biktashev-2003,%
224: Biktasheva-etal-2003,%
225: Suckley-Biktashev-2003,%
226: Biktashev-Suckley-2004,%
227: Suckley-2004,%
228: Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005%
229: }. The results on the asymptotic structure of the CRN model are published
230: for the first time.
231:
232:
233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
234: \section{Tikhonov asymptotics}
235: \label{sec:Tikhonov}
236:
237: The standard Tikhonov-Pontryagin singular perturbation theory
238: \cite{Tikhonov-1952,Pontryagin-1957} summarized in \cite{Arnold-etal-1994}
239: is usually formulated in terms of ``fast-slow'' systems in
240: one of the two equivalent forms
241: %
242: \begin{equation}
243: \begin{array}{l}
244: \Df{\X}{t}=\F(\X,\Y) \\
245: \epsilon\Df{\Y}{t}=\G(\X,\Y)
246: \end{array}
247: \Leftrightarrow
248: \begin{array}{l}
249: \Df{\X}{T}=\epsilon \F(\X,\Y) \\
250: \Df{\Y}{T}=\G(\X,\Y)
251: \end{array}
252: \end{equation}
253: %
254: where $\epsilon>0$ is small, $t$ is the ``slow time'', $T$ is the
255: ``fast time'', $t=\epsilon T$, $\X$ is the vector of ``slow
256: variables'' and $\Y$ is the vector of ``fast variables''. The theory
257: is applicable if all relevant attractors of the fast subsystem are
258: asymptotically stable fixed points. So the variables have to be
259: explicitly classified as fast and slow, and the system should contain
260: a small parameter which formally tends to zero although the
261: original system is formulated for a particular value of that
262: parameter, say 1.
263:
264: We consider \citeasnoun{Hodgkin-Huxley-1952} (henceforth referred to as HH)
265: and \citeasnoun{Noble-1962} (henceforth N62) models. Both can
266: be written in the same form,
267: %
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: \Df{E}{t}&=& - \SI(E,h,m,n)/\CM, \nonumber \\
270: \Df{\y}{t}&=& {(\ybar(E)-\y)}/{\tau_{\y}(E)},\quad \y=m,h,n, \label{hh+n62}
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: %
273: where
274: \(
275: \SI (E,h,m,n) = (\gK n^{4}+\gKi(E))(E-\EK)
276: + (\gNa m^{3}h+\gNai )(E-\ENa)
277: + \gl (E-E_l)
278: \)
279: %
280: is the total transmembrane current ($\uA/\cm^2$),
281: $t$ is time (\ms),
282: $E$ is the transmembrane voltage (\mV),
283: $E_k$, $k=Na,K,l$ are the reversal potentials of sodium, potassium and leakage currents respectively (\mV),
284: $\Bar{g}_{k}$ are the corresponding maximal specific conductances ($\mS/\cm^2$),
285: $n$, $m$, $h$ are dimensionless ``gating'' variables,
286: $C_M$ is the specific membrane capacitance ($\uF/\cm^2$),
287: $\ybar(E)$ are the gates' instantaneous equilibrium ``quasi-stationary'' values, and
288: $\tau_{\y}(E)$ are the characteristic timescale coefficients of the gates dynamics ($\ms$).
289: Definition and comparison of parameters and functions used in
290: \Eq{hh+n62} for HH and N62 models can be found in
291: \cite{Suckley-Biktashev-2003}.
292:
293: To classify the dynamic variables by their speeds, we define empiric
294: characteristic timescale coefficients, $\tau_{\i}$. For a system of differential equations
295: $\Df{x_{\i}}{t} = f_{\i}(x_1,\dots,x_{\n})$, $\i=1,\dots,\n$, we define
296: $\tau_{\i}(x_1,\dots,x_{\n}) \equiv
297: \left|\left(\df{f_{\i}}{x_{\i}}\right)^{-1}\right|$.
298: The $\tau$'s obtained for $m$, $h$ and $n$ in this way
299: coincide with $\tau_{m,h,n}$ in \Eq{hh+n62}, and this definition
300: can be extended to other variables, e.g. $E$ in the case of \Eq{hh+n62}.
301:
302: \paragraph{Hodgkin-Huxley.}
303:
304: \Fig{hhtikh}(a) shows how $\tau$'s
305: change during a typical action potential (AP) in the HH model. The speeds of $E$
306: and $m$ exchange places during the AP, as do the speeds of $h$ and
307: $n$, but at all times the pair $(E,m)$ remains faster than the
308: pair $(h,n)$. This suggests introduction into system \Eq{hh+n62}
309: of a parameter $\epsilon$ which in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$
310: makes variables $E$ and $m$ much faster than $n$ and $h$:
311: %
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: \epsilon \Df{m}{t} &=& {(\mbar(E)-m)}/{\tau_{m}(E)},\nonumber \\
314: \epsilon \Df{E}{t} &=& -\SI(E,h,m,n)/\CM, \nonumber \\
315: \Df{h}{t} &=& {(\hbar(E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)},\nonumber \\
316: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_{n}(E)}.
317: \label{hh-22}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319:
320: \myfigure{fig2}{
321: %
322: Tikhonov asymptotics of HH.
323: (a) Characteristic times $\tau_{\i}$ during an AP.
324: Thin solid magenta line: the AP for a reference.
325: %
326: (b) Phase portrait of the fast subsystem \Eq{hh-fast}
327: at $n=0.37$, $h=0.02$.
328: Solid red line: horizontal isocline. Dashed blue line: vertical
329: isocline.
330: Filled black circles: stable equilibria.
331: Dash-dotted green line: stable separatrix of the saddle,
332: the boundary of attraction basins.
333: Black dotted lines: selected trajectories.
334: %
335: (c) A three-dimensional view of the slow manifold (the surface).
336: Solid line: the fold line.
337: Dotted line: the selected trajectory and its projections on coordinate walls.
338: %
339: (d) AP in the original model, $\epsilon=1$, solid red line,
340: and when the fast variables are made faster, $\epsilon=10^{-3}$,
341: dashed blue line.
342: See also \cite{Suckley-Biktashev-2003}.
343: %
344: }{hhtikh}
345:
346: The properties of this system in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$ are
347: shown in \fig{hhtikh}(b--c). The fast transient, corresponding to the
348: AP upstroke can be studied by changing the independent
349: time variable in \Eq{hh-22} to $T=t/\epsilon$ and then considering the
350: limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$ which gives the \emph{fast subsystem} of
351: two equations for $m$ and $E$,
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: \Df{m}{T} &=& {(\mbar(E)-m)}/{\tau_{m}(E)},\nonumber \\
354: \Df{E}{T} &=& -\SI(E,h,m,n)/\CM,
355: \label{hh-fast}
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: %
358: in which the slow variables $h$ and $n$ are parameters as their
359: variations during the onset are negligible. An example of a phase
360: portrait of system \Eq{hh-fast} at selected values of $h$ and $n$
361: is shown in \fig{hhtikh}(b). It is \emph{bistable}, i.e it has two
362: asymptotically stable equilibria, and a particular trajectory
363: approaches one or the other depending on the initial conditions. The basins
364: of attraction\label{basins} of the two equilibria are separated
365: by the stable
366: separatrices of a saddle point, which is the threshold between ``all''
367: and ``none'' responses. A fine adjustment of initial conditions at
368: the threshold will cause the system to come to the saddle point. This is a mathematical
369: representation of the excitation threshold in Tikhonov asymptotics.
370:
371: For different values of $n$ and $h$, the location of
372: the equilibria in the fast subsystem vary. All equilibria $(E,m)$
373: at all values of $n$ and $h$ form a two-dimensional \emph{slow
374: manifold} in the four-dimensional phase space of \Eq{hh-22} with
375: coordinates $(E,m,h,n)$. Projection of this two-dimensional manifold
376: into the three dimensional space with coordinates $(E,h,n)$ is
377: depicted in \fig{hhtikh}(c). It has a characteristic cubic folded shape,
378: with two fragments of a positive
379: slope (as it appears on the figure), separated by an ``overhanging''
380: fragment of a negative slope. The borders between the fragments are the
381: \emph{fold lines}, seen as nearly horizontal solid curves on the
382: picture. The positive slope fragments consist of
383: stable equilibria, and the negative slope fragment
384: consists of unstable equilibria (saddle points) of the fast subsystem.
385:
386: The points of this manifold are steady-states if considered on the
387: time scale $T\sim1$ or equivalently $t\sim\epsilon$. On the time
388: scale $t\sim1$ these points are no longer steady states, but we
389: observe a slow (compared to the initial transient) movement along this
390: manifold, which explains its name. Asymptotically, the evolution on
391: the scale $t\sim1$ can be described by the limit
392: $\epsilon\rightarrow0$ in \Eq{hh-22}, which gives a system of two
393: finite equations and two differential equations,
394: %
395: \begin{eqnarray}
396: 0 &=& {\mbar(E)-m},\nonumber \\
397: 0 &=& \SI(E,h,m,n), \nonumber \\
398: \Df{h}{t} &=& {(\hbar(E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)},\nonumber \\
399: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_{n}(E)},
400: \label{hh-slow}
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: %
403: The finite equations define the slow manifold and the
404: differential equations define the movement along it.
405:
406: \Fig{hhtikh}(c) shows a selected trajectory of system \Eq{hh-22}
407: corresponding to a typical AP solution. The only
408: equilibrium of the full system \Eq{hh-22}, corresponding to the
409: resting state, is at the lower, ``diastolic'' branch of the slow
410: manifold. If the initial condition is in the basin of the upper
411: branch, the trajectory starts with a fast initial transient,
412: corresponding to the upstroke of the AP, then proceeds
413: along the upper, ``systolic'' branch of the slow manifold, which
414: corresponds to the plateau of the AP. When the
415: trajectory reaches the fold line, a boundary of the systolic branch,
416: the plateau stage is over. The fast subsystem is no longer bistable.
417: The only stable equilibrium is now at the diastolic branch. So the
418: trajectory jumps down. This is repolarization from the AP
419: and it happens at the time scale $t\sim\epsilon$. The
420: trajectory then slowly proceeds along the diastolic branch towards the
421: resting state.
422:
423: So, an inevitable feature of the asymptotics \Eq{hh-22} is
424: that the
425: solution at smaller $\epsilon$
426: has not only a faster upstroke, but also a faster repolarization, and the
427: asymptotic limit of the AP shape is rectangular as
428: opposed to the triangular shape in the exact model, see \fig{hhtikh}(d). This is
429: undesirable as it means that asymptotic formulae obtained in
430: this way produce qualitatively inappropriate results.
431:
432: The practical importance of this excercise is limited as in HH the
433: AP are not much longer than upstrokes.
434:
435: \paragraph{Noble 1962.}
436: This model is more relevant to cardiac AP.
437: The speed analysis of N62 model, similar to the one we have done for HH model,
438: reveals a different asymptotic structure but ultimately similar results.
439: \Fig{n62tikh}(a) demonstrates three rather than two different time
440: scales. Variable $m$ is the fastest of all, we call it
441: ``superfast''. Of the remaining three, variables $E$ and $h$ are fast
442: and variable $n$ is slow. So we need two small
443: parameters,
444: $\epsilon_1$ to describe the difference
445: between the fast and superfast time scales,
446: and
447: $\epsilon_2$ to describe the difference between the slow
448: and fast time scales.
449: System \Eq{hh+n62} then
450: takes the form
451: %
452: \begin{eqnarray}
453: \epsilon_2\epsilon_1 \Df{m}{t} &=& {(\mbar(E)-m)}/{\tau_m(E)}, \nonumber \\
454: \epsilon_2 \Df{E}{t} &=& -\SI(E,h,m,n)/\CM, \nonumber \\
455: \epsilon_2 \Df{h}{t} &=& {(\hbar(E)-h)}/{\tau_h(E)}, \nonumber \\
456: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_n(E)}.
457: \label{n62-121}
458: \end{eqnarray}
459: %
460: Consider first the limit $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$. The superfast
461: subsystem consists of one differential equation for $m$. It always has
462: exactly one equilibrium which is always stable. So after a supershort
463: transient, $m(t)$ is always close to its quasi-stationary value
464: $\mbar(E(t))$. Thus, with an error $\sim\epsilon_1$ we may approximate
465: $m$ by $\mbar$ and discard the first equation,
466: i.e. \emph{adiabatically eliminate} superfast variable $m$.
467:
468:
469: \myfigure{fig3}{
470: %
471: Tikhonov asymptotics of N62.
472: (a,b,d) Notations similar to \fig{hhtikh}.
473: (c) A two-dimensional view of the stable (black solid)
474: and unstable (green dashed) branches of the slow manifold, and
475: typical pacemaker potential trajectories (the limit cycles):
476: solid red ($\epsilon_2=1$) and dashed blue ($\epsilon_2=10^{-3}$),
477: vertical dash-dotted line shows value $n=0.5$ for the fast phase portrait on (b).
478: See also \cite{Suckley-Biktashev-2003}.
479: %
480: }{n62tikh}
481:
482: With the remaining system of three differential equations for $E$, $h$
483: and $n$, we consider the change of the time variable as before,
484: $t=\epsilon_2T$, and proceed to the limit $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$. This
485: produces the fast subsystem in the form
486: %
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: \Df{E}{T} &=& -\SI(E,h,\mbar(E),n)/\CM, \nonumber \\
489: \Df{h}{T} &=& (\hbar(E)-h)/{\tau_h(E)} .
490: \label{n62-fast}
491: \end{eqnarray}
492: %
493: \Fig{n62tikh}(b) shows a phase portrait of this system for a selected
494: value of $n$ when \Eq{n62-fast} is bistable. As there is one slow variable, all the equilibria of the
495: fast subsystem form a one-dimensional manifold,
496: i.e. a curve, in the three-dimensional phase
497: space with coordinates $(E,h,n)$. Its projection
498: on the plane $(h,E)$ is shown in \fig{n62tikh}(c). Again
499: the stable equilibria correspond to one slope (negative for the given
500: choice of coordinates) and the opposite slope corresponds to the
501: unstable equilibria. The branches are separated from each other by
502: fold points. Again we have an upper, systolic branch,
503: separated from the lower, diastolic branch, and the system has no
504: alternative but to jump from one branch to the other in the
505: time scale $t\sim\epsilon_2$. As it happens, there are no true
506: equilibria in the N62 model at standard parameter values, so
507: these jumps happen periodically, producing pacemaker potential. This
508: corresponds to the automaticity of cardiac Purkinje cells.
509: Certain physiologically feasible changes of parameters may produce
510: an asymptotically stable equilibrium at the diastolic branch, i.e turn
511: an automatic Purkinje cell into an excitable cell.
512:
513: The systolic branch is separated from the diastolic
514: branch, so in the asymptotic limit
515: $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$, if the upstrokes are
516: fast, the repolarizations are
517: similarly fast. This is in contradiction with the
518: behaviour of the full
519: model, which makes such an asymptotic analysis unsuitable.
520:
521:
522: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
523: \section{Non-Tikhonov asymptotics}
524: \label{sec:Non-Tikhonov}
525:
526: \paragraph{Noble 1962.}
527:
528: To overcome the difficulties of the Tikhonov approach, we
529: have developed an alternative based on actual
530: biophysics behind N62 and other cardiac excitation
531: models, see \fig{n62nont}(a). The upstroke of an AP is much faster
532: than the repolarization as the two processes are caused by different
533: ionic currents. The upstroke is very fast as the fast Na current causing
534: it is very large. However all other currents,
535: including the outward K currents that bring about repolarization
536: are not as large, and there is no reason to tie the two classes of
537: currents together in an asymptotic description. Mathematically, this means that
538: in the right-hand side of the equation for $E$, only the term
539: corresponding to the fast Na current is large and should have the
540: coefficient $\epsilon_2^{-1}$ in front of it.
541:
542: Next, the fast Na current is large only
543: during AP upstroke, and remains small during
544: other stages.
545: The current is
546: regulated by two gating variables, $m$ and $h$, and the
547: quasi-stationary value of the specific conductivity of the current,
548: defined as $W(E)=\mbar^3(E)\hbar(E)$, is always much smaller than one.
549: This happens because $m,h\in[0,1]$ and $\mbar^3(E)$ is very small for $E$ below a
550: certain threshold voltage $\Em$, and $\hbar(E)$ is very small for $E$
551: above another threshold voltage $\Eh$, and $\Eh<\Em$. So the ranges of
552: almost complete closure of $\mbar^3(E)$ and $\hbar(E)$ overlap. So
553: whenever $E$ changes so slow that $m$ and $h$ have enough time to
554: approach their quasi-stationary values, the fast Na channels are mostly
555: closed. The possibility for the opening of a large fraction of Na
556: channels only exists during the fast upstroke, as $m$ gates are
557: much faster than $h$ gates and have time to open before $h$ close.
558:
559: Thus, the facts that $m$ gate is much faster than $h$ gate,
560: $\mbar^3(E)\ll1$ for $E<\Em$, $\hbar(E)\ll1$ for $E>\Eh$ and $\Eh<\Em$,
561: are all related and reveal why the
562: upstroke of the AP is much faster than
563: all other stages.
564:
565:
566: \myfigure{fig4}{
567: Non-Tikhonov asymptotics of N62, excitable variant.
568: (a) Functions of $E$ illustrating the small quantities taken into account.
569: (b) Phase portrait of the fast subsystem.
570: (c) Phase portrait of the slow subsystem.
571: (d) Action potential solution of \Eq{n62nt-e2} for $\epsilon_2=1$,
572: solid red, and for $\epsilon_2=10^{-3}$, dashed blue.
573: See also \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}.
574: }{n62nont}
575:
576: We adopt the
577: hierarchy of times suggested by the formal speed analysis in the
578: previous section, i.e. $m$ is a superfast variable, $E$ and $h$ are
579: equally fast variables and $n$ is a slow variable. We keep the same
580: notation $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ for the corresponding small parameters.
581: The small parameters should also ensure that
582: $\mbar^3(E)$ and $\hbar(E)$ are small in some ranges of $E$ but not in others.
583: We identify this smallness with $\epsilon_2$
584: rather than $\epsilon_1$, as it is to compensate the large value
585: of $\gNa$ outside the upstroke, and the large value of $\gNa$ is described
586: by $\epsilon_2$. We denote the $\epsilon_2$-dependent versions of
587: $\mbar^3(E)$ and $\hbar(E)$ as $\emb{\mbar^3}(E;\epsilon_2)$ and $\emb{\hbar}(E;\epsilon_2)$.
588: In this way we obtain
589: %
590: \begin{eqnarray}
591: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\Df{m}{t} &=& {(\emb{\mbar}(E;\epsilon_2)-m)}/{\tau_{m}(E)},
592: \qquad \emb{\mbar}(E;0)=M(E)\Heav(E-E_{m}), \nonumber\\
593: \CM\Df{E}{t} &=&
594: \epsilon_2^{-1} \gNa\left(\ENa -E\right) m^3 h
595: + \gK \left(\EK -E\right) n^4 \nonumber\\
596: &+& \gNai(E)\left(\ENa -E\right)
597: + \gKi(E)\left(\EK -E\right)
598: + \gl \left(\El -E\right) , \nonumber\\
599: \epsilon_2\Df{h}{t} &=& {(\emb{\hbar}(E;\epsilon_2)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)},
600: \qquad \hbar(E;0)=H(E)\Heav(E_{h}-E), \nonumber\\
601: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_n(E)} ,
602: \label{n62nt-e1e2}
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: %
605: where $\Heav()$ is the Heaviside function.
606:
607: The limit $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$ gives
608: adiabatic elimination of the $m$ gate, $m\approx\mbar(E)$.
609:
610: The analysis of the limit $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$ is complicated by
611: a feature incidental to N62 and not found in other
612: cardiac excitation models. The small conductivity of the window
613: current, $W(E)$, is multiplied by a large factor $\gNa$. In N62
614: the resulting window component of $\INa$ is comparable
615: to other small currents and cannot be neglected
616: outside the upstroke. The implications of this
617: complication are analysed in \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}. The result, in
618: brief, is that the $\epsilon_2$-dependent part of \Eq{n62nt-e1e2} can,
619: in the limit $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$,
620: be replaced with a ``modified N62'' model:
621: %
622: \begin{eqnarray}
623: \CM\Df{E}{t} &=&
624: \epsilon_2^{-1} \gNa\left(\ENa -E\right) M^3(E)\Heav(E-E_{m}) h
625: + \gK \left(\EK -E\right) n^4 + G(E) \nonumber\\
626: \epsilon_2\Df{h}{t} &=& {(H(E)\Heav(E_{h}-E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)}, \nonumber\\
627: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_n(E)} ,
628: \label{n62nt-e2}
629: \end{eqnarray}
630: %
631: where
632: $G(E)=\gNa\left(\ENa -E\right) W(E) + \gNai(E)\left(\ENa -E\right) + \gKi(E)\left(\EK -E\right) + \gl\left(\El -E\right)$, and
633: as before $M(E)\approx\mbar(E)$ for $E>\Em$,
634: $H(E)\approx\hbar(E)$ for $E<\Eh$ and $W(E)=\mbar^3(E)\hbar(E)$.
635:
636: The limit
637: $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$ of \Eq{n62nt-e2} in the fast time $T=t/\epsilon_2$
638: gives the fast subsystem
639: %
640: \begin{eqnarray}
641: \CM\Df{E}{T} &=& \gNa\left(\ENa -E\right) M^3(E)\Heav(E-\Em) h \nonumber\\
642: \Df{h}{T} &=& {(H(E)\Heav(\Eh-E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)} .
643: \label{n62nt-fast}
644: \end{eqnarray}
645: %
646: As intended, \Eq{n62nt-fast} takes into
647: account only the fast sodium current and the gates controlling
648: it, and everything else is a small perturbation
649: on this timescale.
650: The phase portrait of \Eq{n62nt-fast} is unusual, see \fig{n62nont}(b).
651: The horizontal isocline (the red set)
652: is not just a curve but contains a whole domain $E<E_m$. The
653: vertical isocline (the blue set) lies entirely within the red
654: set,
655: so the whole line $h=H(E)\Heav(\Eh-E)$ consists
656: of equilibria.
657: %
658: An upstroke trajectory may end up in any of the equilibria above
659: $\Em$, so the height of an upstroke depends on initial conditions.
660: For subthreshold initial condition, voltage remains unchanged in the
661: fast time scale. Exactly what happens at the threshold $E=\Em$ depends
662: on details of approximating function $M(E)$, but in any case it does
663: not involve any unstable equilibria. This is all different from
664: Tikhonov systems (see the paragraph after equation \Eq{hh-fast}) where the height of the
665: upstroke is fixed, subthreshold potential decays in the fast time
666: scale and the threshold consists of unstable equilibria and, if appropriate, their
667: stable manifolds. In this sense, asymptotics of
668: \Eq{n62nt-fast} give a new meaning to the notion of
669: excitability, completely different from that in the Tikhonov systems.
670:
671: Let us consider the slow subsystem of \Eq{n62nt-e2}.
672: For any value of $n$ we have a whole line of equilibria in
673: the fast system $h=H(E)\Heav(\Eh-E)$. The
674: collection of such lines makes a two dimensional manifold in the
675: three-dimensional space with coordinates $(E,h,n)$.
676: So the fast variable $h$ can be adiabatically eliminated on the time scale
677: $t\sim1$. Thus the slow subsystem, i.e. the limit $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$
678: in \Eq{n62nt-e2}, is
679: %
680: \begin{eqnarray}
681: \CM\Df{E}{t} &=& \gK \left(\EK -E\right) n^4 + G(E) , \nonumber\\
682: \Df{n}{t} &=& {(\nbar(E)-n)}/{\tau_n(E)} .
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: %
685: The phase portrait of this system is shown in
686: \fig{n62nont}(c). Further discussion of its properties can be found in
687: \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}. Notice that voltage $E$ features in both the fast and
688: slow subsystems, i.e. it is a fast or a slow variable depending
689: on circumstances. This kind of behaviour is not allowed in Tikhonov
690: asymptotic theory, so it is ``a non-Tikhonov'' variable.
691:
692:
693: \paragraph{Courtemanche et al. 1998.}
694:
695: CRN is a system of 21 ODE modelling electric excitation of human
696: atrial cells, see \cite{Courtemanche-etal-1998} for a description.
697:
698: Formal analysis of the time scales $\tau_{\i}$ of dynamic variables
699: by the same method as we used for HH and N62, reveals a complicated
700: hierarchy of speeds, which changes during the course of the AP
701: (see \fig{crnnont}(a)).
702: From variables with smaller $\tau$'s, we
703: select those that remain close to their quasi-stationary
704: values during an AP, and which can be replaced by those
705: quasi-stationary values without significantly affecting the AP
706: solution. We call them supefast variables. These include $m$, $\ua$
707: and $w$. As before, we denote the associated small parameter
708: $\epsilon_1$.
709:
710: \myfigure{fig5}{
711: Non-Tikhonov asymptotics of the Courtemanche et al. 1998 model.
712: (a) Characteristic times
713: during a typical AP potential solution, as indicated by the
714: legend. Red solid line: $\tau_E$, blue dashed line:
715: $\tau$'s of superfast ($m$, $\ua$, $w$) and fast ($h$, $\oa$, $d$),
716: green dash-dotted lines: $\tau$'s of other, slow variables.
717: (b) Phase portrait of the fast subsystem \Eq{CRNfast}.
718: (c) Action potential upstroke,
719: $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2=1$ (solid red),
720: $\epsilon_1=10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_2=1$ (dotted blue),
721: $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2=10^{-3}$ (dashed green),
722: in the fast time $T=t/\epsilon_2$.
723: (d) Same, for the whole AP in the slow time $t$.
724: See also \cite{Suckley-2004}.
725: }{crnnont}
726:
727: Next, we identify the fast variables with speeds comparable
728: to the AP upstroke. This is also done by
729: comparing the instantaneous values of the variables with the corresponding
730: quasi-stationary values, and checking how their adiabatic elimination
731: affects the AP, for the AP solution
732: \emph{after} the initial upstroke. In this way, we identify variables
733: $h$, $\oa$ and $d$ as fast, with associated small
734: parameter $\epsilon_2$.
735:
736: Similar to N62, the transmembrane voltage is
737: $\epsilon_2^{-1}$-fast only during the AP upstroke due to
738: $\epsilon_2^{-1}$-large values of $\INa$ during that period, and is
739: slow otherwise. This is due to nearly perfect switch behaviour of
740: the gates $m$ and $h$. The definition of $\INa$ in this model is more
741: complicated as there is also the $j$ gate; however $j$ is slow
742: and does not change noticeably during the upstroke.
743:
744: These considerations lead to the following parameterization of the model:
745:
746: \begin{eqnarray}
747: \CM\Df{E}{t} &=& - \left(
748: \epsilon_2^{-1}\INa(E,m,h,j) + \SIsmall(E,\dots)
749: \right) , \nonumber\\
750: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\Df{m}{t} &=& {(\emb{\mbar}(E;\epsilon_2)-m)}/{\tau_{m}(E)},
751: \qquad \emb{\mbar}(E;0)=M(E)\Heav(E-E_{m}), \nonumber\\
752: \epsilon_2\Df{h}{t} &=& {(\emb{\hbar}(E;\epsilon_2)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)},
753: \qquad \emb{\hbar}(E;0)=H(E)\Heav(E_{h}-E), \nonumber\\
754: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\Df{\ua}{t} &=& {(\uabar(E)-\ua)}/{\tau_{\ua}(E)},
755: \nonumber\\
756: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\Df{w}{t} &=& {(\wbar(E)-w)}/{\tau_{w}(E)},
757: \nonumber\\
758: \epsilon_2\Df{\oa}{t} &=& {(\oabar(E)-\oa)}/{\tau_{\oa}(E)},
759: \nonumber\\
760: \epsilon_2\Df{d}{t} &=& {(\dbar(E)-d)}/{\tau_{d}(E)},
761: \nonumber\\
762: &\dots& \label{CRN}
763: \end{eqnarray}
764: %
765: where $\INa(E,m,h,j)=\gNa m^3hj(E-\ENa)$ is the fast Na current and
766: $\SIsmall(E,\dots)$ represents all other currents.
767: Here we have shown only equations that contain $\epsilon_1$ or $\epsilon_2$.
768: All other equations are the same as in the original model.
769:
770: As before, we adiabatically eliminate the superfast variables in the
771: limit $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$, and turn $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$ in
772: the fast time scale $T=t/\epsilon$. This gives the fast subsystem
773: %
774: \begin{eqnarray}
775: \CM\Df{E}{T} &=& \gNa j (\ENa-E) M^3(E)\Heav(E-\Em) h, \nonumber\\
776: \Df{h}{T} &=& {(H(E)\Heav(\Eh-E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)}, \nonumber\\
777: \Df{\oa}{T} &=& {(\oabar(E)-\oa)}/{\tau_{\oa}(E)}, \nonumber\\
778: \Df{d}{T} &=& {(\dbar(E)-d)}/{\tau_{d}(E)}. \label{CRNfast}
779: \end{eqnarray}
780: %
781: Notice that in \Eq{CRNfast} the equations for
782: $\oa$ and $d$ depend on $E$, but equations for $E$ and $h$ do
783: not depend neither on $\oa$ nor on $\d$. Thus, the evolution equations for
784: $E$ and $h$ form a closed subsystem. This system
785: is identical to \Eq{n62nt-fast}, up to the values of parameters,
786: definitions of the functions of $E$ and the presence of the slow
787: variable $j$ as the factor at the maximal conductance of the Na
788: current, $\gNa$. The phase portrait of \Eq{CRNfast},
789: \fig{crnnont}(b), is similar to that of N62, \fig{n62nont}(b). So the peculiar
790: features of the fast subsystem of N62 are not unique and are found
791: in many cardiac models, including CRN.
792:
793: With a view of a practical application of approximation
794: \Eq{CRNfast}, it is interesting to test its quantitative accuracy.
795: This is illustrated in \fig{crnnont}, panel (c) for the shape of the
796: upstroke in the fast time $T=t/\epsilon$, and panel (d) for the shape
797: of the AP in the slow time $t$. We see that the
798: approximation of the AP is very good in both limits
799: $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$ and $\epsilon_2\rightarrow0$,
800: except for the upstroke: e.g. the peak voltage is overestimated by
801: about 13\,mV. This is mostly due to the limit $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$,
802: i.e. replacement of $m$ with $\mbar(E)$. So the
803: accuracy could be significantly and easily improved by
804: retracting the limit $\epsilon_1\rightarrow0$, which
805: amounts to inclusion of the evolution equation for $m$ instead of
806: the finite equation $m=\mbar(E)$. Most of the qualitative analysis
807: remains valid.
808: However, here for simplicity we stick to the less accurate but
809: simpler case $\epsilon_1=0$.
810: Notice that
811: in \fig{crnnont}(b--d), we took $M(E)=1$,
812: $H(E)=1$; the error introduced by that was small compared to other
813: errors, particularly the error introduced by $m=\mbar(E)$.
814:
815: \section{Application to spatially distributed systems}
816: \label{sec:Spatial}
817:
818: \paragraph{Fronts.}
819:
820: We now use the fast Na subsystem of the cardiac excitation
821: \Eq{CRNfast} to consider a propagation of an excitation front through a
822: cardiac fibre.
823: In one spatial dimension, this requres replacement of
824: ordinary time derivatives with partial derivatives and adding a
825: diffusion term into the equation for $E$:
826: %
827: \begin{eqnarray}
828: \df{E}{t} &=& J(E) \Heav(E-\Em) h + D\ddf{E}{x}, \nonumber\\
829: \df{h}{t} &=& {(\Heav(\Eh-E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}(E)},
830: \label{CRNfastx}
831: \end{eqnarray}
832: %
833: where $J(E)=\gNa j (\ENa-E) M^3(E)$ and we have put $H(E)=1$. We
834: consider solutions in the form of propagating fronts.
835: For definiteness, let us assume the fronts propagating
836: leftwards, so $E(x,t)=E(\xi)$, $h(x,t)=h(\xi)$, $\xi=x+ct$,
837: $h(-\infty)=1$, $h(+\infty)=0$, $E(-\infty)=\Ealp$ and
838: $E(+\infty)=\Eomg$. In this formulation, we have three constants
839: characterizing the solutions, the prefront voltage $\Ealp$, the
840: postfront voltage $\Eomg$ and the speed $c$. It is not obvious
841: which combinations of the three parameters admit how
842: many front solutions. So we have considered a ``caricature'' of
843: \Eq{CRNfastx} by replacing functions $J(E)$ and $\tau_h(E)$ in it with
844: constants:
845: %
846: \begin{eqnarray}
847: \df{E}{t} &=& J \Heav(E-\Em) h + D\ddf{E}{x}, \nonumber\\
848: \df{h}{t} &=& {(\Heav(\Eh-E)-h)}/{\tau_{h}},
849: \label{caric}
850: \end{eqnarray}
851:
852:
853: \myfigure{fig6}{
854: Fronts in the spatially distributed Na subsystem.
855: (a) The structure of the front solution in the caricature model.
856: (b) Speed of the fronts as function of excitability, at selected
857: values of the pre-front voltage, in the caricature model \Eq{caric}.
858: $J_*$ is minimal excitability at which propagation is possible
859: at any $E_-$, and $c_*$ is the corresponding propagation speed.
860: (c) Speed of the fronts as function of excitability, at selected
861: values of pre-front voltage, in the Na subsystem of the CRN model
862: \Eq{CRNfastx}.
863: On (b) and (c), solid red lines, above and raising, are the stable branches
864: and dashed green lines, below and decreasing, are the unstable branches.
865: (d) For comparison: speed of the fronts in a typical Tikhonov front
866: (fast susbsystem of the FHN model).
867: See also \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005}.
868: }{nontwaves}
869:
870:
871:
872: This system is piecewise linear and admits
873: complete analytical investigation. Details can be found in
874: \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003}; here we only briefly outline the
875: results. \Fig{nontwaves}(a) illustrates a typical front solution. It
876: exists if speed $c$ and pre-front voltage $\Ealp$ satisfy a finite
877: equation involving also the constants $J$ and $\tau_h$.
878: The resulting dependence of the conduction velocity $c$ on
879: excitability $J$ for a few selected values of $\Ealp$ is shown in
880: \fig{nontwaves}(b). These front solutions exist only for $J$ at or above a
881: certain minimum $J_{\min}$ which depends on $\Ealp$. For
882: $J>J_{\min}(\Ealp)$ there are two solutions with different speeds.
883: Numerical simulations of PDE system \Eq{caric} suggest that solutions
884: with higher speeds are stable and solutions with lower speeds are
885: unstable; this has been confirmed analytically by
886: \citeasnoun{Hinch-2004}.
887:
888:
889: The replacement of functions $J(E)$ and $\tau_h(E)$ with constants is
890: a rather crude step.
891: The purpose of the caricature is not to provide a good
892: approximation, but to investigate qualitatively the structure of
893: the solution set. To see if this structure is the same for the more
894: realistic models, we have solved numerically the boundary-value
895: problems for the front solutions in \Eq{CRNfastx}. There the role of
896: the excitability parameter is played by the variable $j$.
897: The results of the calculations are shown in
898: \fig{nontwaves}(c). Not only the topology of the solution set is the
899: same, but the overall behaviour of $c(j,\Ealp)$ in \Eq{CRNfastx} is
900: quite similar to that of $c(J,\Ealp)$ in \Eq{caric}, despite
901: the crudeness of the caricature.
902:
903: PDE simulations show that approximation \Eq{CRNfastx} overestimates
904: the conduction velocity by almost 50\% compared to the full model,
905: and the error is again mainly due to the
906: adiabatic elimination of the $m$ gate.
907:
908:
909: After eliminating the superfast
910: variables $m$, $\ua$ and $w$ and the fast variables $h$, $\oa$ and $d$,
911: and retaining the non-Tikhonov variable $E$,
912: the slow subsystem of \Eq{CRN}
913: has 16 equations.
914: It describes the AP behind the front.
915:
916: The most important conclusion is that for any
917: particular value of the prefront voltage $\Ealp$ there is a certain
918: minimum excitability $\jmin=\jmin(\Ealp)$ and corresponding minimum
919: propagation speed $\cmin=\cmin(\Ealp)$, and for $j<\jmin$, no steady
920: front solutions are possible. This is completely different
921: from the behaviour in FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) type systems,
922: where local kinetics are Tikhonov and a front is a trigger wave in a
923: bistable reaction-diffusion system.
924: A typical dependence of the speed of such a trigger wave on a slow
925: variable is shown in \fig{nontwaves}(d): it can be slowed down to a halt
926: or even reversed. The reversed trigger waves describe backs of
927: propagating pulses in FHN systems.
928: %
929: Thus, questions about the shape of the backs of APs
930: and propagating pulses, and the spectrum of propagation speeds of a
931: propagating excitation wave in a tissue come to be closely related.
932: In both questions, our new non-Tikhonov approach provides
933: different answers from the traditional Tikhonov/FHN approach. We have
934: already seen that the new description is more in line with the
935: detailed ionic models regarding the back of an AP. In
936: the next section, we demonstrate the advantage of the new approach
937: regarding the fronts.
938:
939: \paragraph{Dissipation of fronts.}
940:
941: The fast subsystem of a typical spatially-dependent cardiac excitation
942: model, discussed in the previous section, only provides part of the
943: answer. This description should be completed with the description of
944: the slow movement.
945: The fronts
946: are passing so quickly through every given point that the values of
947: the slow variables at that point change little while it
948: happens.
949: Away from the fronts, the fast variables keep close to their
950: quasi-stationary values. In our asymptotics this means, in particular,
951: that the fast Na channels are closed, and $E$ is not a fast but a slow
952: variable.
953: %
954: Assuming absence of spatially sharp inhomogeneities of tissue
955: properties, simple estimates show that
956: outside fronts, the diffusive current is much smaller than ionic currents,
957: so dynamics of cells there are essentially
958: the same as dynamics of isolated cells outside AP upstrokes.
959:
960: Propagation of the
961: next front depends on the transmembrane voltage $E$, which serves
962: as parameter $\Ealp$, and the slow inactivation
963: gate $j$ of the fast Na current.
964: This dependence gives an equation of motion for the front coordinate $x(t)$,
965: %
966: \begin{equation}
967: \Df{x}{t}=c(j(x,t),E(x,t)),
968: \end{equation}
969: %
970: where the instantaneous speed of the front $c$ is determined by the values
971: of $E$ and $j$ at the sites through which the front traverses (in case
972: of $E$ this is the value which would be there if
973: not the front). This can only continue as long as the function $c(j,E)$
974: remains defined, i.e while $j(x,t)>\jmin(E(x,t))$. If the
975: front runs into a region where this is not satisfied,
976: its propagation becomes unsustainable.
977:
978: \myfigure{fig7}{
979: Effects of temporary propagation blocks.
980: (a) In the CRN model.
981: (b) In the FHN model.
982: (c) In the caricature Na front.
983: (d) In the Na subsystem of the CRN model.
984: See also \cite{Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005}.
985: }{nontdiss}
986:
987: What will happen then is illustrated in \fig{nontdiss}(a), where the
988: parameter $\gNa$ was varied in space and time. To make the effect
989: more prominent, we did not use smooth variation, but put $\gNa=0$ in the
990: left half of the interval for some time and then restored it to its
991: normal value. The propagating front reached this region while it was
992: in the inexcitable state. The result was that the sharp front ceased
993: to exist, it ``dissipated'', and instead of an active front we observed a
994: purely diffusive spread of the voltage. The excitability was restored
995: a few milliseconds later, but the sharp front did not recover and
996: diffusive spread of voltage continued, leading eventually to a
997: complete decay of the wave. Note that the back of the propagating
998: pulse was still very far when the impact that caused the front
999: dissipation happened.
1000:
1001: This is completely different from the behaviour of a FHN system in
1002: similar circumstances, shown in \fig{nontwaves}(b).
1003: There propagation was blocked
1004: for almost the whole duration of the
1005: AP. And yet when the block was removed, the propagation
1006: of the excitation wave resumed. Only if the block stays so long that
1007: the waveback reaches the block site and the ``wavelength'' reduces to
1008: zero, the wave would not resume. Such considerations have lead to a
1009: widespread, would-be obvious assumption that shrinking of the
1010: excitation wave to ``zero length'' is a necessary condition and
1011: therefore a ``cause'' of the block of propagation of excitation waves
1012: \cite{Weiss-etal-2000}. Comparison of panels (a) and (b) in
1013: \fig{nontwaves} shows that this is far from true for ionic cardiac
1014: models, where such reduction to zero length happens, but only as a
1015: very distant consequence, rather than a cause, of the propagation
1016: block. The true reason for the block is the disappearance of the fast
1017: Na current at the front, observed phenomenologically as its
1018: dissipation.
1019:
1020: We expect that the condition $j>\jmin(E)$ can also serve as a condition of propagation in the
1021: non-stationary situation on the slow space time/scale.
1022: Moreover, we conjecture that
1023: the dissipation of the front will
1024: happen where and when the front runs into a region with
1025: $j<\jmin(E)$. This is illustrated by a simulation shown in
1026: \fig{nontwaves}(c). It is a solution of the caricature system
1027: \Eq{caric}, where the excitability parameter $J$ has been maintained
1028: slightly above the threshold $J_{\min}(\Ealp)$ outside the block
1029: domain, and slightly below it within the block domain. As a result,
1030: the front propagation has been stopped and never resumed even after
1031: the block has been removed. A similar simulation for the quantitatively
1032: more accurate fast subsystem of the CRN model, \Eq{CRNfastx}, is shown
1033: on panel (d). Both agree with what happens in the full model on panel (a),
1034: and both confirm that the condition $j<\jmin$ is relevant for
1035: causing front dissipation.
1036:
1037: \paragraph{Break-ups and self-terminations of re-entrant waves}
1038:
1039: In two spatial dimensions, the condition $j<\jmin(E)$ may
1040: happen to a piece of a wavefront rather than the whole of it.
1041: Then instead of a complete block we observe a local block and breakup of the
1042: excitation wave. This happened in the episode shown in \fig{breakup}.
1043:
1044: \myfigure{fig8}{
1045: Analysis of a break-up of a re-entrant wave in a simulation similar to
1046: \fig{selfterm}.
1047: Top row: snapshots of
1048: the distribution of the transmembrane voltage, at the selected
1049: moments of time (designated above the panels).
1050: The other three rows:
1051: profiles of the key dynamic variables (designated on the left) along
1052: the dotted line shown on the top row panels, at the same moments of
1053: time. The scale of $E$ is $[-100\,\mV,0\,\mV]$. The scale of $m^3h$ is
1054: $[0,0.15]$. The scale of $j$ is $[0,0.5]$.
1055: Cyan dash-dotted line on $j$ panels represents $\jmin$.
1056: See also \cite{Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005}.
1057: }{breakup}
1058:
1059: The white dotted horizontal line on the top panels goes across the region
1060: where the propagating wave has been blocked and front has dissipated.
1061: The details of how it happened are analysed on the lower three rows,
1062: showing profiles of relevant variables along this dotted white
1063: line. The second row shows the profiles of $E$, which lose the sharp
1064: front gradient after $t=4100\,\ms$. The third row shows the peaks of
1065: the spatial distribution of the product $m^3h$; the sharpness of these
1066: peaks corresponds to the sharp localization of $\INa$ at the front,
1067: and their decay accompanies the process of the front dissipation. The
1068: most instructive is evolution of the profile of the $j$ variable shown
1069: on the bottom row. Consider the column $t=4100\,\ms$. The gradient of
1070: $j$ ahead of the front, i.e. to the left of the peak of $m^3h$, is
1071: positive, and the front is moving leftwards, i.e. towards smaller
1072: values of $j$. That is, the front moves into a less excitable area,
1073: left there after the previous rotation of the spiral wave. To the
1074: right of the peak of $\INa$ the gradient of $j$ is negative which
1075: corresponds to the fact that $j$ decreases during the plateau of the
1076: AP. Thus its maximal value at this
1077: particular time is observed at the front.
1078: This maximal value is, therefore,
1079: the value that should be considered in the condition of the
1080: dissipation, $j<\jmin(E)$.
1081:
1082: As soon as the front has dissipated ($t\approx4120\,\ms$),
1083: the profile of $j$ starts to raise, so the maximum of the $j$ profile
1084: observed at $t=4120\,\ms$ is the lowest one. From the fact that
1085: dissipation has started we conclude that this maximum is below the
1086: critical value $\jmin$. Assuming that dissipation usually happens soon
1087: after the condition $j<\jmin$ is satisfied (simulations of
1088: \Eq{CRNfastx} show that this happens within a few milliseconds), this
1089: smallest maximum value should be close to $\jmin$, which gives an
1090: empirical method of determining $\jmin$ from numerical simulations of
1091: complete PDE models. For this particular episode the empirical value
1092: of $\jmin$ was found to be approximately 0.3.
1093: This is about 50\% higher than the $\jmin$
1094: predicted for the same range of voltages by \Eq{CRNfastx}; we attribute
1095: this to the approximation $m\approx\mbar$ which caused similar errors
1096: in the upstroke height and front propagation speeds.
1097:
1098: \section{Conclusion}
1099:
1100: Our new asymptotic approach for cardiac excitability
1101: equations has significant advantages over the traditional approaches.
1102: The fast subsystem, represented by equations
1103: \Eq{n62nt-fast} and \Eq{CRNfastx}, appears to be typical for cardiac models.
1104: This predicts that front propagation cannot happen at a speed slower
1105: than a certain minimum and at an excitability parameter lower than
1106: a certain minimum. When these conditions are violated the front
1107: dissipates and does not recover even after excitability is
1108: restored. We have obtained a condition for front
1109: dissipation in terms of an inequality involving prefront values of $j$
1110: and $E$. This condition can be used for the analysis of break-up and
1111: self-termination of re-entrant waves in two and three spatial
1112: dimensions.
1113:
1114: \paragraph*{Acknowledgments}
1115: This work was supported in part by grants from EPSRC (%
1116: GR/S43498/01, % Large-scale parallelization
1117: GR/S75314/01% Analytical approach
1118: ) and by an RDF grant
1119: from Liverpool University.
1120:
1121: % \bibstyle{alpha}
1122: % \bibliography{ae}
1123: \begin{thebibliography}
1124:
1125: \harvarditem[Arnold et al.]{Arnold, Afrajmovich, Il'yashenko \&
1126: Shil'nikov}{1994}{Arnold-etal-1994}
1127: Arnold, V.~I., Afrajmovich, V.~S., Il'yashenko, Y.~S. \& Shil'nikov, L.~P.
1128: (1994), {\em Dynamical Systems V. Bifurcation Theory And Catastrophe Theory},
1129: Springer-Verlag.
1130:
1131: \harvarditem[Biktashev]{Biktashev}{2002}{Biktashev-2002}
1132: Biktashev, V.~N. (2002), `Dissipation of the excitation wavefronts', {\em
1133: Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}(16),~168102.
1134:
1135: \harvarditem[Biktashev]{Biktashev}{2003}{Biktashev-2003}
1136: Biktashev, V.~N. (2003), `A simplified model of propagation and dissipation of
1137: excitation fronts', {\em Int. J. of Bifurcation and Chaos} {\bf
1138: 13}(12),~3605--3620.
1139:
1140: \harvarditem[Biktashev \& Biktasheva]{Biktashev \&
1141: Biktasheva}{2005}{Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005}
1142: Biktashev, V.~N. \& Biktasheva, I.~V. (2005), `Dissipation of excitation
1143: fronts as a mechanism of conduction block in re-entrant waves'.
1144: \newblock To appear in {\textit{Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci.}}
1145:
1146: \harvarditem[Biktashev \& Suckley]{Biktashev \&
1147: Suckley}{2004}{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}
1148: Biktashev, V.~N. \& Suckley, R. (2004), `Non-{Tikhonov} asymptotic properties
1149: of cardiac excitability', {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}(16),~168103.
1150:
1151: \harvarditem[Biktasheva et al.]{Biktasheva, Biktashev, Dawes, Holden, Saumarez
1152: \& M.Savill}{2003}{Biktasheva-etal-2003}
1153: Biktasheva, I.~V., Biktashev, V.~N., Dawes, W.~N., Holden, A.~V., Saumarez,
1154: R.~C. \& M.Savill, A. (2003), `Dissipation of the excitation front as a
1155: mechanism of self-terminating arrhythmias', {\em IJBC} {\bf
1156: 13(12)},~3645--3656.
1157:
1158: \harvarditem[Cherry \& Fenton]{Cherry \& Fenton}{2004}{Cherry-Fenton-2004}
1159: Cherry, E.~M. \& Fenton, F.~H. (2004), `Suppression of alternans and
1160: conduction blocks despite steep {APD} restitution: Electrotonic, memory, and
1161: conduction velocity restitution effects', {\em Am. J. Physiol. - Heart C}
1162: {\bf 286},~H2332--H2341.
1163:
1164: \harvarditem[Courtemanche et al.]{Courtemanche, Ramirez \&
1165: Nattel}{1998}{Courtemanche-etal-1998}
1166: Courtemanche, M., Ramirez, R.~J. \& Nattel, S. (1998), `Ionic mechanisms
1167: underlying human atrial action potential properties: insights from a
1168: mathematical model', {\em Am. J. Physiol.} {\bf 275},~H301--H321.
1169:
1170: \harvarditem[FitzHugh]{FitzHugh}{1961}{FitzHugh-1961}
1171: FitzHugh, R. (1961), `Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models
1172: of nerve membrane', {\em Biophys. J.} {\bf 1},~445--456.
1173:
1174: \harvarditem[Hinch]{Hinch}{2004}{Hinch-2004}
1175: Hinch, R. (2004), `Stability of cardiac waves', {\em Bull. Math. Biol.} {\bf
1176: 66}(6),~1887--1908.
1177:
1178: \harvarditem[Hodgkin \& Huxley]{Hodgkin \& Huxley}{1952}{Hodgkin-Huxley-1952}
1179: Hodgkin, A.~L. \& Huxley, A.~F. (1952), `A quantitative description of
1180: membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve',
1181: {\em J. Physiol.} {\bf 117},~500--544.
1182:
1183: \harvarditem[Karma]{Karma}{1994}{Karma-1994}
1184: Karma, A. (1994), `Electrical alternans and spiral wave breakup in cardiac
1185: tissue', {\em Chaos} {\bf 4}(3),~461--472.
1186:
1187: \harvarditem[Karma et al.]{Karma, Levine \& Zou}{1994}{Karma-etal-1994}
1188: Karma, A., Levine, H. \& Zou, X.~Q. (1994), `Theory of pulse instabilities in
1189: electrophysiological models of excitable tissues', {\em Physica D} {\bf
1190: 73},~113--127.
1191:
1192: \harvarditem[Nagumo et al.]{Nagumo, Arimoto \&
1193: Yoshizawa}{1962}{Nagumo-etal-1962}
1194: Nagumo, J., Arimoto, S. \& Yoshizawa, S. (1962), `An active pulse transmission
1195: line simulating nerve axon', {\em Proc. IRE} {\bf 50},~2061--2070.
1196:
1197: \harvarditem[Noble]{Noble}{1962}{Noble-1962}
1198: Noble, D. (1962), `A modification of the {Hodgkin}-{Huxley} equations
1199: applicable to {Purkinje} fibre action and pace-maker potentials', {\em J.
1200: Physiol.} {\bf 160},~317--352.
1201:
1202: \harvarditem[Nolasco \& Dahlen]{Nolasco \& Dahlen}{1968}{Nolasco-Dahlen-1968}
1203: Nolasco, J.~B. \& Dahlen, R.~W. (1968), `A graphic method for the study of
1204: alternation in cardiac action potentials', {\em J. Appl. Physiol.} {\bf
1205: 25},~191--196.
1206:
1207: \harvarditem[Pontryagin]{Pontryagin}{1957}{Pontryagin-1957}
1208: Pontryagin, L.~S. (1957), `The asymptotic behaviour of systems of differential
1209: equations with a small parameter multiplying the highest derivatives', {\em
1210: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat.} {\bf 21}(5),~107--155.
1211:
1212: \harvarditem[Suckley]{Suckley}{2004}{Suckley-2004}
1213: Suckley, R. (2004), The Asymptotic Structure Of Excitable Systems Of
1214: Equations, PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, UK.
1215:
1216: \harvarditem[Suckley \& Biktashev]{Suckley \&
1217: Biktashev}{2003}{Suckley-Biktashev-2003}
1218: Suckley, R. \& Biktashev, V.~N. (2003), `Comparison of asymptotics of heart
1219: and nerve excitability', {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68},~011902.
1220:
1221: \harvarditem[Tikhonov]{Tikhonov}{1952}{Tikhonov-1952}
1222: Tikhonov, A.~N. (1952), `Systems of differential equations, containing small
1223: parameters at the derivatives', {\em Mat. Sbornik} {\bf 31}(3),~575--586.
1224:
1225: \harvarditem[Tyson \& Keener]{Tyson \& Keener}{1988}{Tyson-Keener-1988}
1226: Tyson, J.~J. \& Keener, J.~P. (1988), `Singular perturbation theory of
1227: traveling waves in excitable media (a review)', {\em Physica D} {\bf
1228: 32},~327--361.
1229:
1230: \harvarditem[Weiss et al.]{Weiss, Chen, Qu, Karagueuzian \&
1231: Garfinkel}{2000}{Weiss-etal-2000}
1232: Weiss, J.~N., Chen, P.~S., Qu, Z., Karagueuzian, H.~S. \& Garfinkel, A.
1233: (2000), `Ventricular fibrillation: How do we stop the waves from breaking?',
1234: {\em Circ. Res.} {\bf 87},~1103--1107.
1235:
1236: \harvarditem[Wiener \& Rosenblueth]{Wiener \&
1237: Rosenblueth}{1946}{Wiener-Rosenblueth-1946}
1238: Wiener, N. \& Rosenblueth, A. (1946), `The mathematical formulation of the
1239: problem of conduction of impulses in a network of connected excitable
1240: elements, specifically in cardiac muscle', {\em Arch. Inst. Cardiologia de
1241: Mexico} {\bf 16}(3--4),~205--265.
1242:
1243: \end{thebibliography}
1244:
1245:
1246: \end{document}
1247:
1248: