1: \documentclass[11pt,titlepage]{article}
2:
3: % Make doublespaced ugly typography required for mysterious
4: % reasons by most journals - comment out for normal output
5: \usepackage{setspace}
6: % \doublespacing
7: \singlespacing
8:
9: \usepackage{amsfonts} % |
10: \usepackage{amssymb} % | AmS-LaTeX packages
11: \usepackage{amsmath} % |
12: \usepackage{color}
13: \usepackage{epsfig}
14: \usepackage{psfrag}
15: % \usepackage{hhline} % Double borders of tables
16: % \usepackage{times}
17:
18: \usepackage[numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}
19: % \usepackage{geometry}
20: % \geometry{left=10mm,top=25mm,textwidth=194mm,textheight=258mm}
21: \setlength{\topmargin}{0in}
22: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
23: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
24: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.27in} % = 8.27in-2in for margins
25: % \setlength{\textwidth}{7in} % BJ say this is text width
26: % \setlength{\textheight}{9.69in} % = 11.69in-2in for margins
27: \setlength{\textheight}{9in} % 9.69 was too high by experimentation
28:
29: %-- FIGURES --
30: \newcommand{\mypsfrag}[2]{\psfrag{#1}{\footnotesize{#2}}}
31: \newcommand{\npsfrag}[3]{\psfrag{#1}[#2]{\footnotesize{#3}}}
32:
33:
34: %-- my shortcuts --
35: %? \providecommand\n{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}
36: %? \renewcommand{\.}{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}
37: %\renewcommand{\x}{\times}
38: %\newcommand{\x}{\times}
39: \newcommand{\f}[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}
40: \newcommand{\dd}{\partial}
41: \newcommand{\de}{{\rm \, d}}
42: \newcommand{\mysec}[1]{{\noindent\bf #1.}}
43: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $ #1$}}
44: \renewcommand{\v}{\vec}
45:
46: %-- EQUATIONS --
47: \makeatletter % The equations are left justified
48: \setlength{\@mathmargin}{4mm} % at 2cm from the margin
49: \makeatother
50: \allowdisplaybreaks
51:
52: %--- TIME OF DAY: usage \HH\MM
53: \newcount\HH
54: \newcount\MM
55: \MM=\time
56: \HH=\time
57: \divide\HH by 60
58: \divide\MM by 60
59: \multiply\MM by 60
60: \MM=-\MM
61: \advance\MM by \time
62: \def\mytime{\number\HH:\ifnum\MM<10{}0\fi\number\MM}
63:
64:
65: \newcommand\etal{\mbox{\textit{et al.}}}
66: \newcommand\etc{etc.}
67: \newcommand\eg{e.g.}
68: \newcommand\ie{i.e.}
69:
70: \newcommand{\Block}{\mathcal{B}}
71: \newcommand{\CM}{C_M}
72: \newcommand{\Curv}{\mathcal{K}}
73: \newcommand{\curv}{\kappa}
74: \newcommand{\D}{\partial}
75: \newcommand{\Df}[2]{\frac{\d #1}{\d #2}}
76: %? \newcommand{\Df}[2]{{\d #1}/{\d #2}}
77: \renewcommand{\d}{\mathrm{d}}
78: \newcommand{\dbar}{\Qstat{d}}
79: % \newcommand{\emb}[1]{\underline{{#1}}}
80: % \newcommand{\emb}[1]{\hat{{#1}}}
81: \newcommand{\emb}[1]{{#1}}
82: \newcommand{\E}{V} % It was V in CRN-1998 and E in most of our prev papers
83: \newcommand{\Eh}{\E_h}
84: \newcommand{\Em}{\E_m}
85: %+ \newcommand{\EKi}{\E_{K_1}}
86: %+ \newcommand{\EK}{\E_K}
87: %+ \newcommand{\El}{\E_l}
88: \newcommand{\ENa}{\E_{Na}}
89: \newcommand{\Ealpha}{\E_{\alpha}}
90: \newcommand{\Eomega}{\E_{\omega}}
91: \newcommand{\Ecr}{\E_{*}}
92: \newcommand{\g}{g} % The slow gates variable in FHN
93: %+ \newcommand{\gKi}{g_{K_1}}
94: %+ \newcommand{\gK}{g_{K}}
95: %+ \newcommand{\gl}{g_{l}}
96: %+ \newcommand{\gNai}{g_{Na_1}}
97: \newcommand{\gNa}{g_{Na}}
98: \newcommand{\Heav}{\theta}
99: \renewcommand{\hbar}{\Qstat{h}}
100: \newcommand{\INa}{I_{\mathrm{Na}}}
101: \newcommand{\INabar}{\overline{\INa}}
102: \newcommand{\jmin}{j_{\min}}
103: \newcommand{\jcr}{j_{*}}
104: \newcommand{\Ki}{\mathrm{K}_i}
105: \newcommand{\mbar}{\Qstat{m}}
106: \newcommand{\mm}{\mathrm{mm}}
107: \newcommand{\ms}{\mathrm{ms}}
108: \newcommand{\Nai}{\mathrm{Na}_i}
109: %+ \newcommand{\nbar}{\Qstat{n}}
110: \newcommand{\oabar}{\Qstat{\oa}}
111: \newcommand{\oa}{o_a}
112: % \newcommand{\Qstat}[1]{{#1}_{\infty}}
113: \newcommand{\Qstat}[1]{\overline{#1}}
114: \newcommand{\SIsmall}{{\Sigma_{I}^{\prime}}}
115: \newcommand{\uabar}{\Qstat{\ua}}
116: \newcommand{\ua}{u_a}
117: \newcommand{\wbar}{\Qstat{w}}
118:
119: \newcommand{\mx}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
120: \newcommand{\U}{\mx{U}}
121: \newcommand{\F}{\mx{F}}
122:
123:
124: % \newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~\ref{#1}}
125: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~\ref{#1}}
126: \newcommand{\eqs}[1]{Eqs.~\ref{#1}}
127: \def\eqtwo(#1,#2){Eqs.~\ref{#1},\ref{#2}}
128: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{Equation~\ref{#1}}
129: \newcommand{\Eqs}[1]{Equations~\ref{#1}}
130: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
131: \newcommand{\Fig}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
132: \newcommand{\figs}[1]{Figs.~\ref{#1}}
133: \newcommand{\Figs}[1]{Figures~\ref{#1}}
134:
135:
136: \newcommand{\myfigure}[3]{} % move all figures to after the text
137:
138:
139: \newcommand{\reva}[2][0]{#2}
140: \newcommand{\revb}[2][0]{#2}
141: \newcommand{\oth}[1]{#1}
142:
143:
144:
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146: % PAPER TEXT %
147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
148:
149:
150:
151: %-----title and author----------------------
152:
153: \title{Conditions for propagation and block \\ of excitation in
154: an asymptotic model of atrial tissue}
155:
156: \author{Radostin~D.~Simitev\\
157: Department of Mathematical Sciences,\\
158: University of Liverpool, UK \\
159: \and Vadim~N.~Biktashev\thanks{
160: Corresponding author. Address:
161: Department of Mathematical Sciences,
162: University of Liverpool,
163: Liverpool, L69 7ZL, UK,
164: Tel.:~+44-151-7944004, Fax:~+44-151-7944061} \\
165: Department of Mathematical Sciences,\\
166: University of Liverpool, UK}
167:
168: % Revision date - uncomment to exclude date in the final version
169: \date{Submitted: August 14, 2005 \\
170: Revised: \today{} at \mytime}
171:
172: % Running head
173: \pagestyle{myheadings}
174: \markright{Conditions for propagation in atrial tissue}
175:
176:
177: \begin{document}
178:
179: \maketitle
180:
181: \abstract{
182: Detailed ionic models of cardiac cells are difficult for numerical
183: simulations because they consist of a large number of equations
184: and contain small parameters.
185: The presence of small parameters, however, may be used for asymptotic
186: reduction of the models.
187: Earlier results have shown that the asymptotics of
188: cardiac equations are non-standard. Here we apply such a novel
189: asymptotic method to an ionic model of human atrial
190: tissue in order to obtain a reduced but accurate model for the
191: description of excitation fronts.
192: Numerical simulations of spiral waves in atrial tissue show
193: that wave fronts of propagating action potentials break-up and
194: self-terminate. Our model,
195: in particular, yields a simple analytical criterion of propagation block,
196: which is similar in purpose but completely
197: different in nature to the `Maxwell rule' in the FitzHugh-Nagumo type models.
198: Our new criterion agrees with
199: direct numerical simulations of break-up of
200: re-entrant waves.
201: \emph{Key words:} excitation; conduction; refractoriness; mathematical model
202: }
203:
204: \clearpage
205:
206: \section{Introduction}
207: \label{sec:1}
208:
209: Refractoriness is a fundamental characteristic of biological excitable
210: media, including cardiac tissues. The boundary between absolute and
211: relative refractoriness can be defined as the boundary between the
212: ability and the inability of the medium to conduct excitation waves
213: \cite{Krinsky-1966}.
214: Transient conduction block is thought to be a key
215: event in the initiation of re-entrant arrhythmias and in the development and
216: the self-perpetuation of atrial and ventricular fibrillation
217: \cite{Moe-1962,Weiss-etal-2000,Panfilov-Pertsov-2001,Kleber-Rudy-2004}.
218: So it is important to understand well
219: the immediate causes and conditions of propagation blocks
220: and sudden break-ups in such nonstationary regimes.
221: The aim of the present work is to improve this understanding
222: via analysis of a
223: mathematical model of human atrial tissue \cite{CRN98}.
224:
225: \citet{Kohl-etal-2000} distinguish two types of single-cell cardiac
226: models: `membrane potential models' and `ionic current
227: models'. The membrane potential models attempt to represent cellular
228: electrical activity by describing, with a minimal number of equations,
229: the spatio-temporal course of changes in membrane potential.
230: Their equations are constructed using a
231: dynamical-systems arguments to caricature various properties and
232: processes of cardiac function. Examples of this type of models start
233: with the mathematical description of heartbeat as a relaxation
234: oscillator by \citet{vanderPol-vanderMark-1928} and continue to play an important
235: role in describing biophysical behaviour \cite{Holden-Panfilov-1997}
236: with the the most successful one arguably being the FitzHugh-Nagumo
237: equations \cite{FitzHugh-1961,Nagumo-etal-1962},
238: \begin{align}
239: \label{FHN}
240: & \dd_{T} \E = D\, \dd_{X}^2 \E + \epsilon_\E\, (\E-\E^3/3 - \g),\nonumber\\
241: & \dd_{T} \g = \epsilon_{\g} \, (\E+\beta -\gamma \g),
242: \end{align}
243: where $\E$ and $\g$ are dynamical variables corresponding to the action
244: potential and the cardiac current gating variables, $\epsilon_{\E}$,
245: $\epsilon_{\g}$, $\gamma$, and $\beta$ are parameters and $D$ is a
246: diffusion constant.
247: Further examples of such models can be found in
248: \cite{%
249: Pertsov-Panfilov-1981,%
250: Barkley-1991,%
251: Winfree-1991,%
252: Aliev-Panfilov-1996%
253: }, among others.
254: An attractive feature of this approach is that, along with a reasonable
255: description of excitability, threshold, plateau and refractoriness,
256: it focusses on generic equations which can often be treated
257: analytically and their dynamical properties can be extended and
258: applied to very different physical, chemical or biological problems
259: of similar mathematical structure. The main drawback of these models,
260: however, is their lack of an explicit correspondence between model
261: components and constituent parts of the biological system,
262: \eg{} ion channels and transporter proteins.
263: The second type of models, the ionic current models,
264: attempt to model action potential (AP)
265: behaviour on the basis of ion fluxes in as much detail as possible in
266: order to fit experimental data and predict behaviour under previously
267: untested conditions.
268: A major breakthrough in this direction of cell
269: modelling was the work of \citet{Hodgkin-Huxley-1952} representing the first
270: complete quantitative description of the giant squid axon.
271: The ionic concept was applied to cardiac cells by \citet{Noble-1960,Noble-1962}
272: and there are now ionic models of sinoatrial node pacemaker cells
273: \eg{}~\cite{Demir}, atrial myocytes \eg{}~\cite{Nygren}, Purkinje
274: fibres \eg{}~\cite{Varghese}, ventricular myocytes
275: \eg{}~\cite{BeelerReuter,LuoRudy} and cardiac
276: connective tissue cells \eg{}~\cite{Kohl-Noble-1996}. This
277: is only an incomplete list and the collection of
278: available models continues to expand.
279: The ionic models have been
280: successfully applied to study various conditions of metabolic activity
281: and excitation-contraction coupling, feedback mechanisms, response to
282: drugs, etc. For recent reviews of detailed
283: ionic models, their computational aspects and applications we refer to
284: the reviews of \citet{Kohl-etal-2000} and \citet{Clayton}.
285: However, these models are very complicated
286: and have to be studied mostly numerically.
287: Their numerical study is aggravated by stiffness of the equations, \ie{}
288: broad range of characteristic time scales of dynamic variables
289: caused by numerous small parameters of the models.
290:
291: An attractive compromise is exemplified by the model of
292: \citet{Fenton-Karma-1998}, which combines the simplicity of only three
293: differential equations with realistic description of (crudely) the AP shape and
294: (rather nicely) the dependence of the AP duration and front propagation speed on
295: the diastolic interval, i.e. `restitution curves'. Unlike the
296: earlier two-component model by \citet{Aliev-Panfilov-1996} it has a
297: structure similar to that of true ionic models, and its parameters
298: have been fitted to mimick properties of selected four detailed
299: ventricular myocyte models. It is simpler than later proposed
300: models of the same "intermediate" kind such as~\cite{Bernus-etal-2002}.
301: However, this deservedly popular model has not been in any
302: way "derived" from any detailed model, so it
303: is only reliable within the phenomenology on which it has been
304: validated, i.e. normal or premature APs, but not propagation blocks.
305:
306: The problem of conditions for propagation has an elegant
307: solution for the FitzHugh-Nagumo system \eqs{FHN} and its generalizations,
308: within an asymptotic theory exploiting the difference of
309: time scales of different variables, such as
310: $\epsilon_{\g}\ll\epsilon_{\E}$ in case of \eqs{FHN}
311: \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988}. The answer is formulated in terms of the
312: instantaneous values of the slow variables
313: ($\g$ in \eqs{FHN}), and claims that excitation will propagate
314: if the definite integral of the kinetic term in the right hand side
315: of the equation for the fast variable ($\E$ in \eqs{FHN} ),
316: between the lower and the upper quasi-stationary states, is positive
317: \cite[see eq. 4.5]{Fife-1976}. This is similar to Maxwell's
318: `equal areas' rule in the theory of phase transitions \cite[see
319: section 9.3]{Haken-1978}.
320: In case of \eqs{FHN} , this rule boils down to an inequality
321: for the slow variable $\g$: excitation front will propagate
322: if the value of $\g$ at it is less than a certain $\g_*$.
323: However, FitzHugh-Nagumo type models completely misrepresent
324: the idiosyncratic `front dissipation' scenario by which
325: propagation block happens in the ionic current models
326: \cite{Biktashev-2002}. The reason is that small parameters
327: in such models appear in essentially different ways from the one
328: assumed by the standard asymptotic theory
329: \cite{Suckley-Biktashev-2003b,Biktashev-Suckley-2004}.
330: So, this elegant `Maxwell rule' solution
331: is not applicable to any realistic models.
332:
333:
334: We have developed an alternative asymptotic approach based on special
335: mathematical properties of the detailed ionic models, not captured by
336: the standard theory \cite{Arnold}. This approach demonstrated
337: excellent quantitative accuracy for APs in isolated Noble-1962 model
338: cells \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}, and correctly, on a qualitative
339: level, described the front dissipation mechanism of break-up of
340: re-entrant waves in \citet{CRN98} model of human atrial tissue,
341: although quantitative correspondence with the full model was poor
342: \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005}.
343: In this paper we suggest, for the first time, a refined simplified
344: asymptotic model of a cardiac excitation front, which provides
345: numerically accurate prediction of the front propagation velocity
346: (within 16\,\%) and its profile (within $0.7$\,mV). It also gives an
347: analytical condition for propagation block in a re-entrant wave,
348: expressed as a simple inequality involving the slow inactivation gate
349: $j$ of the fast sodium current. The condition is in excellent agreement with
350: results of direct numerical simulations of the \citet{CRN98} full
351: ionic model of 21 partial differential equations.
352:
353: The paper is organised as follows. In \S \ref{sec:2} we introduce the
354: simplified model equations and discuss their properties. Analytical
355: solutions are presented in \S \ref{sec:3} for a piecewise linear
356: `caricature' version of our simplified model. Accurate numerical
357: results and a two-dimensional test are presented in \S \ref{sec:4}.
358: The paper concludes with a discussion of results and questions open
359: for future studies in \S \ref{sec:5}.
360:
361: \section{Mathematical formulation of the model equations}
362: \label{sec:2}
363:
364: \subsection{Asymptotic reduction}
365: \label{ssec:2.1}
366:
367: In this section we briefly summarise the asymptotic arguments of
368: \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005} relevant to our present purposes. We re-write
369: \citet{CRN98} model in the following one-parameter form:
370: %
371: \begin{align}
372: \hspace*{-6mm}
373: &\D_{T}{\E} = D \left(\D_{X}^2 +\Curv \D_{X} \right){\E} - \f{\left(\epsilon^{-1}\INa(\E,m,h,j) + \SIsmall(\E,\dots)
374: \right)}{\CM}, \nonumber\\
375: &\D_{T}{m} = \frac{\big(\emb{\mbar}(\E;\epsilon)-m\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{m}(\E)}, \quad
376: \emb{\mbar}(\E;0)=M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em), \nonumber\\
377: &\D_{T}{h} = \frac{\big(\emb{\hbar}(\E;\epsilon)-h\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{h}(\E)}, \quad
378: \emb{\hbar}(\E;0)=H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E), \nonumber\\
379: &\D_{T}{\ua} = \frac{\big(\uabar(\E)-\ua\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{\ua}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
380: %\big
381: &\D_{T}{w} = \frac{\big(\wbar(\E)-w\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{w}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
382: %
383: &\D_{T}{\oa} = \frac{\big(\oabar(\E)-\oa\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{\oa}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
384: %
385: &\D_{T}{d} = \frac{\big(\dbar(\E)-d\big)}{\epsilon \, \tau_{d}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
386: %
387: &\D_{T}{\U} = \F(\E,\dots) \label{e:CRN}
388: \end{align}
389: %
390: where $D$ is the voltage diffusion constant,
391: $\epsilon$ is a small parameter used for the asymptotics,
392: $\Curv$ is the curvature of the propagating front,
393: $\Heav()$ is the Heaviside function,
394: $\SIsmall()$ is the sum of all currents except the fast sodium current $\INa$,
395: the dynamic variables $\E$, $m$, $h$, $\ua$, $\oa$ and $d$
396: are defined in \cite{CRN98},
397: $\U=(j,o_i,\dots,\Nai,\Ki,\dots)^T$ is the vector of all other, slower variables,
398: and $\F$ is the vector of the corresponding right-hand sides.
399: The rationale for this parameterisation is:
400: %
401: \begin{enumerate}
402: %
403: \item The dynamic variables $\E$, $m$, $h$, $u_a$, $w$, $o_a$,
404: $d$ are `fast variables', \ie\ they change significantly during
405: the upstroke of a typical AP potential, unlike all other variables
406: which change only slightly during that period.
407: The relative speed of the dynamical variables is estimated by
408: comparing the magnitude of their corresponding 'time scale
409: functions' as shown in \fig{f:0000}(a). For a system of
410: differential equations $\de\vec{y}/\de t = \vec{F}(\vec{y})$ the
411: time scale functions are defined as $\tau_i(\vec{y}) \equiv \left| (
412: \de F_i /\de y_i )^{-1}\right|$, $i= 1\ldots N$ and coincide with the
413: functions $\tau$ already present in \eqs{e:CRN}.
414:
415: %
416: \item A specific feature of $\E$ is that it is fast only because of one of
417: the terms in the right-hand side, the large current $\INa$, whereas
418: other currents are not that large and so do not have the large
419: coefficient $\epsilon^{-1}$ in front of them.
420: %
421: \item The fast sodium current $\INa$ is only large during the upstroke
422: of the AP, and not that large otherwise as illustrated in
423: \fig{f:0000}(d). This is due to the fact that either
424: gate $m$ or gate $h$ or both are almost closed outside the upstroke
425: since their quasistationary values $\mbar(\E)$ and $\hbar(\E)$ are small
426: there as seen in \fig{f:0000}(b). Thus
427: in the limit $\epsilon\to0$, functions $\mbar(\E)$ and $\hbar(\E)$ have to be
428: considered zero in certain overlapping intervals $\E\in(-\infty,\Em]$
429: and $\E\in[\Eh,+\infty)$, and $\Eh\le\Em$, hence the representations
430: $\emb{\mbar}(\E;0)=M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em)$ and
431: $\emb{\hbar}(\E;0)=H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$.
432: %
433: \item
434: The term $\Curv \D_{X}\E$ in the first equation represents the effect of the
435: front curvature for waves propagating in two or three spatial dimensions.
436: Derivation of this term using asymptotic arguments can be found e.g. in
437: \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988}.
438: A simple rule-of-thumb way to understand it is this. Imagine
439: a circular wave in two spatial dimensions. The diffusion term in the
440: equation for $\E$ then has the form
441: $D \left(\D_{X}^2 + \D_{Y}^2 \right){\E}
442: =D \left(\D_{R}^2 + \frac{1}{R} \D_{R} \right){\E}$
443: where $R$ is the polar radius. If $R$ at the front is large,
444: its instant curvature $\Curv=1/R$ changes slowly as the front propagates,
445: and can be replaced with a constant for long time intervals.
446: Considering $R$ as a new $X$ coordinate, we then get \eqs{e:CRN}.
447: %
448: \end{enumerate}
449: %
450: These aspects, as applied to the fast sodium current, have been shown
451: to be crucial for the correct description of the propagation
452: block \cite{Biktashev-2002}.
453: In particular, it is important that the $h$-gate is included among the fast variables.
454: The particular importance of $h$ dynamics at the fringe of excitability
455: has been noted before, e.g. for the modified
456: Beeler-Reuter model~\cite{Vinet-Roberge-1994}.
457: A more detailed discussion of the parameterisation
458: given by \eqs{e:CRN} can be found in \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005}.
459:
460: A change of variables\footnote{
461: A change of the value of $D$ is equivalent to rescaling of the
462: spatial coordinate, and is not critical to any of the questions
463: considered here. In order to operate with dimensional velocity, we
464: assume the value of the diffusion coefficient
465: $D=0.03125\,\mm^2/\ms$,
466: as in our earlier publications
467: \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2003,Biktasheva-etal-2005}.
468: Increase of the diffusion coefficient
469: to, say, $D=0.1\,\mm^2/\ms$
470: raises the propagation velocity from $0.28\,\mm/\ms$ in
471: Table~\ref{t:01} to $0.50\,\mm/\ms$, in full agreement
472: e.g. with results of \citet{Xie-etal-2002} for the same model.
473: }
474: ${t}=\epsilon^{-1}T$, ${x}=(\epsilon D)^{-1/2}X$,
475: ${\curv}=(\epsilon D)^{1/2}\Curv$ and subsequently the limit
476: $\epsilon\to0$ transforms \eqs{e:CRN} into
477: %
478: \begin{align}
479: \hspace*{-6mm}
480: &\D_{{t}}{\E} = \left(\D_{{x}}^2 +\curv\D_{{x}}\right){\E} - \CM^{-1} \INa(\E,m,h,j), \nonumber\\
481: &\D_{{t}}{m} =
482: {\big(M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em)-m\big)}/{\tau_{m}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
483: &\D_{{t}}{h} = {\big(H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)-h\big)}/{\tau_{h}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
484: &\D_{{t}}{\ua} = {\big(\uabar(\E)-\ua\big)}/{\tau_{\ua}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
485: &\D_{{t}}{w} = {\big(\wbar(\E)-w\big)}/{\tau_{w}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
486: &\D_{{t}}{\oa} = {\big(\oabar(\E)-\oa\big)}/{\tau_{\oa}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
487: &\D_{{t}}{d} = {\big(\dbar(\E)-d\big)}/{\tau_{d}(\E)}, \nonumber\\
488: &\D_{{t}}{\U} = 0 . \label{e:CRN0}
489: \end{align}
490: %
491: In other words, we consider the fast time scale on which the upstroke
492: of the AP happens, neglect the variations of slow variables
493: during this period as well as all transmembrane currents except $\INa$,
494: as they do not make significant contribution during this period and
495: replace $\mbar$ and $\hbar$ with zero when they are small.
496:
497: In the resulting \eqs{e:CRN0} the first three equations for
498: $\E$, $m$ and $h$ form a closed subsystem, the following four equations for
499: $\ua$, $w$, $\oa$ and $d$, can be solved if $\E(x,t)$ is known but do
500: not affect its dynamics, and the rest of the equations state that all
501: other variables remain unchanged.
502: Hence we concentrate on the first three equations as the system
503: describing propagation of an AP front or its failure. The above
504: derivation procedure
505: does not give a precise definition of the functions $H(\E)$ and $M(\E)$, it only
506: requires that these are reasonably close to $\hbar(\E)$ and $\mbar(\E)$ for those
507: values of $\E$ where these functions are not small. Here `reasonably close'
508: means that replacement of
509: $\hbar(\E)$ with $H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$ and
510: $\mbar(\E)$ with $M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em)$ does not change significantly
511: the solutions of interest, \ie\ the propagating fronts. We have found
512: that the simplest approximation in the form $M(\E)=1$, $H(\E)=1$ works
513: well enough. This is demonstrated in table \ref{t:01} where various
514: choices of $M(\E)$ and $H(\E)$ are tested. So, ultimately, we consider
515: the following system
516: %
517: \begin{subequations}
518: \label{e:0020}
519: \begin{align}
520: \label{e:0021}
521: & \dd_t \E = \left(\dd_x^2 +\curv \dd_x\right)\E + \INabar(\E)\,j\,h\,m^3, \\
522: \label{e:0022}
523: & \dd_t h = \big(\Heav(\Eh-\E) - h\big)/\tau_h(\E), \\
524: \label{e:0023}
525: & \dd_t m = \big(\Heav(\E-\Em) - m\big)/\tau_m(\E),
526: \end{align}
527: \end{subequations}
528: %
529: where
530: %
531: \begin{subequations}
532: \label{e:0030a}
533: \begin{align}
534: & \label{e:0030.1}
535: \INabar(\E) = g_{Na}(\ENa - \E), \\
536: & \label{e:0030.2}
537: \tau_k(\E) = \big(\alpha_k(\E)+\beta_k(\E)\big)^{-1}, \qquad k=h, m, \\
538: & \alpha_h(\E) = 0.135\,e^{-(\E+80)/6.8}\,\Heav(-\E-40), \nonumber \\
539: & \beta_h(\E) = \left(3.56\,e^{0.079\E}+3.1\times 10^5\,e^{0.35\E}\right)\,
540: \Heav(-\E-40) \nonumber \\
541: &\hspace{2cm} + \Heav(\E+40)\,\big(0.13 (1+e^{-(\E+10.66)/11.1})\big)^{-1}, \nonumber \\
542: & \alpha_m(\E) = \f{0.32 (\E+47.13)}{1-e^{-0.1(\E+47.13)}}, \nonumber \\
543: & \beta_m(\E) = 0.08 e^{-\E/11}, \nonumber \\
544: & g_{Na}=7.8, \quad \ENa=67.53, \quad \Eh=-66.66, \quad \Em=-32.7. \nonumber
545: \end{align}
546: \end{subequations}
547: %
548: All parameters and functions here are defined as in \cite{CRN98} except the
549: new `gate threshold' parameters $\Eh$ and $\Em$ which are
550: chosen from the conditions $\hbar(\Eh)=1/2$ and $\mbar^3(\Em)=1/2$.
551: As follows from the derivation, variable $j$, the slow inactivation gate
552: of the fast sodium current, acts as a parameter of the
553: model. It is the only one of all slow variables included in the vector $\U$
554: that affects our
555: fast subsystem. We say that it describes the `excitability' of the
556: tissue. Notice that it is a multiplier of $\gNa$, so a reduced
557: availability of the fast sodium channels, \eg\ as under
558: tetrodotoxin~\cite{Matthews-2003} or arguably in Brugada
559: syndrome~\cite{Antzelevitch-etal-2005} can be \reva{formally}
560: described by a reduced value of the parameter $j$.
561:
562: % \input{fig1.tex}
563:
564: Before proceeding to the analysis of the simplified three-variable
565: model defined by \eqs{e:0020} we wish to demonstrate that it is a good
566: approximation of the full model of \cite{CRN98} both on a qualitative
567: and a quantitative level.
568: On the qualitative level, we show that a temporary obstacle
569: leads to a dissipation of the front. This is illustrated
570: in \fig{f:0010} which
571: shows propagation of the AP
572: into a region in time and space where the excitability of
573: the tissue is artificially suppressed. The sharp wave fronts of
574: the model of \citet{CRN98} as well as of \eqs{e:0020}
575: stop propagating and start to spread diffusively once they reach the
576: blocked zone. The
577: propagation does not resume after the block is removed. This behaviour
578: is completely different from that of the FitzHugh-Nagumo system of
579: \eqs{FHN} in which even though the propagation is blocked for
580: nearly the whole duration of the AP, the wave
581: resumes once the block is removed.
582: Table~\ref{t:01} illustrates, on the quantitative level,
583: the accuracy of \eqs{e:0020} as an approximation of the full model of
584: \cite{CRN98}.
585:
586: It is a popular concept going back to classical works
587: \cite[\eg{}][]{Krinsky-Kokoz-1973-3} that the fast activation gate $m$
588: is considered a `fast variable' and is `adiabatically eliminated' since most
589: of the time, except possibly during a very short transient, it is close to
590: its quasistationary value $m\approx \mbar(\E)$. Hence the model can
591: be simplified by replacing $m$ with $\mbar(\E)$ and eliminating the
592: equation for $m$,
593: %
594: \begin{align}
595: \label{e:0020a}
596: & \dd_t \E = \dd_x^2 \E + \INabar\,\Heav(\E-\Em)\,j\,h, \nonumber \\
597: & \dd_t h = \big(\Heav(\Eh-\E) - h\big)/\tau_h.
598: \end{align}
599: %
600: We have explored this possibility for the model of \citet{CRN98} in \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005}.
601: \eqs{e:0020a} are qualitatively correct, \ie{} they still show front
602: dissipation on collision with a temporary obstacle, but make a large
603: error in the front propagation speed, as demonstrated in table~\ref{t:01}.
604:
605: \subsection{Travelling waves and reduction to ODE of the three-variable model}
606: \label{ssec:2.3}
607:
608: To find out when propagation of excitation is possible in our simplified model
609: and when it will be blocked, we study solutions in the form of
610: propagating fronts as well as the conditions of existence of such solutions.
611:
612: We look for solutions in the form of a front propagating
613: with a constant speed and shape. So we use
614: the ansatz $F(z) = F(x+ct)$ for $F=\E,h, m$
615: where $z=x+ct$ is a `travelling wave coordinate' and $c$ is the
616: dimensionless wave
617: speed of the front,
618: related to the dimensional speed $C$ by
619: $c=(\epsilon/D)^{1/2}C$.
620: Then \eqs{e:0020} reduce to a system of
621: autonomous ordinary differential equations,
622: %
623: \begin{subequations}
624: \label{e:0030}
625: \begin{align}
626: \label{e:0031}
627: & \E'' = (c - \curv)\, \E' - \INabar(\E)\,j\,h\,m^3, \\
628: \label{e:0032}
629: & h' = \big(c\,\tau_h(\E) \big)^{-1} \big(\Heav(\Eh-\E) - h \big), \\
630: \label{e:0033}
631: & m' = \big(c\,\tau_m(\E) \big)^{-1} \big(\Heav(\E-\Em) - m \big),
632: \end{align}
633: \end{subequations}
634: %
635: where the boundary conditions are given by
636: %
637: \begin{subequations}
638: \label{e:0040}
639: \begin{align}
640: %
641: & \E(-\infty) = \Ealpha, & & \E(+\infty) = \Eomega, \quad \Ealpha < \Eh < \Em < \Eomega, \\
642: & h(-\infty)=1, & & h(+\infty)=0, \\
643: & m(-\infty)=0, & & m(+\infty)=1.
644: %
645: \end{align}
646: \end{subequations}
647: %
648: Here $\Ealpha$ and $\Eomega$ are the pre- and post-front voltages.
649:
650: \eqs{e:0030} represent a system of fourth order so its general solution
651: depends on four arbitrary constants. Together with constants
652: $\Ealpha$, $\Eomega$ and $c$ this makes seven constants to be determined
653: from the six boundary conditions in \eqs{e:0040}. Thus, we should have
654: a one-parameter family of solutions, \ie{} one of the parameters
655: $(\Ealpha, \Eomega, c)$ can be chosen arbitrary from a certain range.
656: A natural choice is $\Ealpha$ because the pre-front voltage acts as an
657: initial condition for a propagating front in the tissue, and because in our
658: study of the conditions for propagation it is most conveniently treated
659: as a parameter rather than as an unknown.
660:
661: % \input{fig2.tex}
662:
663: \section{Analytical study of the reduced model}
664: \label{sec:3}
665:
666: \subsection{An exactly solvable caricature model}
667:
668: The parameter-counting arguments given in the previous section make it
669: plausible that the problem defined by \eqs{e:0030} with boundary
670: conditions of
671: \eqs{e:0040} has a one-parameter family of travelling wave-front
672: solutions. However, the problem is posed in a highly unusual way since
673: the asymptotic pre-front and post-front states are not stable
674: isolated equilibria but belong to continua of equilibria and thus are
675: only neutrally stable. We are not aware of any
676: general theorems that would guarantee
677: existence of solutions of a nonlinear boundary value-eigenvalue problem
678: of this kind. For the two-component model of \eqs{e:0020a} considered in
679: \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005} this worry has been alleviated by the fact
680: that there is a `caricature' model which has the same structure
681: as \eqs{e:0020a} including the structure and stability of the
682: equilibrium set and which admits an exact and exhaustive analytical
683: study~\cite{Biktashev-2002}.
684: Fortunately, a similar `caricature' exists for our present
685: three-variable problem as well.
686: %
687: We replace functions ${\INabar(\E)}$, ${\tau_h(\E)}$ and
688: ${\tau_m(\E)}$ defined in \eqs{e:0030a} with constants. The choice of
689: the constants is somewhat arbitrary. We assume that the events in the
690: beginning of the interval $z\in[\xi,+\infty)$, where $\E$ is just
691: above $\Em$, are most important for the front propagation. So for
692: numerical illustrations we choose the values of constants ${\INabar}$,
693: ${\tau_h}$ and ${\tau_m}$ as the values of the corresponding functions
694: in \eqs{e:0030a} at some fixed value of the voltage $\E$.
695: %
696: We set the $z$ axis so that $\E(0)=\Eh$,
697: and then $\E(\xi)=\Em$ for some $\xi>0$ still to be determined.
698: We demand that the solutions for
699: the unknowns $\E$, $h$ and $m$ are continuous and that $\E$
700: is smooth at the internal boundary points.
701:
702: % \input{fig3.tex}
703:
704: In this formulation, \eqs{e:0032} and \ref{e:0033} decouple
705: from \eq{e:0030}a and from each other and solved
706: separately. The solutions of these first-order linear ODE with
707: constant coefficients are given by \eqs{e:0050}b and \ref{e:0050}c,
708: respectively. It follows that in the interval $\E \leq \Em$,
709: \eq{e:0031} is a linear homogeneous ODE with constant coefficients and
710: its solution given at the first row of \eq{e:0050}a satisfies the
711: boundary conditions $\E(-\infty)=\Ealpha$, $\E(0)=\Eh$ and
712: $\E(\xi)=\Em$ provided that the internal boundary point $\xi$ is given
713: by \eq{e:0040:i0030}. To solve the linear inhomogeneous \eq{e:0050} in the
714: interval $\E \geq \Em$ we note that its inhomogeneous term $f\equiv
715: \INabar(\E)\,j\,h\,m^3$ is a sum of exponentials
716: \begin{align}
717: \label{e.0045}
718: & \hspace*{-0.3cm}
719: f = \INabar(\E)\,j\ \sum_{n=0}^3 (-1)^n \dbinom{3}{n}
720: e^{n\xi/(c\tau_m)} e^{-B_n z/c}, \\
721: & \hspace*{-0.3cm}
722: B_n \equiv \f{1}{\tau_h} + \f{n}{\tau_m} = \f{\tau_m+ n\,\tau_h}{\tau_h\, \tau_m}, \nonumber
723: \end{align}
724: and terms proportional to $n \tau_h$ will appear in the solution
725: due to the expression for $B_n$. Imposing the boundary conditions at
726: the internal point
727: $\E(\xi)=\Em$ and at infinity $\E(\infty)=\Eomega$, we obtain the
728: solution in this interval given at the second row of \eq{e:0050}a.
729: Finally, the wave speed $c$ is fixed by \eq{e.0062} from the
730: requirement that the solution for $\E(z)$ is smooth at the internal
731: boundary point $\xi$. To summarise, the solution of \eqs{e:0030} and
732: \ref{e:0040} is
733: %%
734: \begin{subequations}
735: \label{e:0050}
736: \begin{align}
737: &\E(z) = \hspace{.3mm}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
738: (\Eh-\Ealpha)\, e^{(c-\curv)z} + \Ealpha, \\[1ex]
739: \displaystyle \Eomega-\INabar\, j\, c^2 \tau_h^2 \tau_m^2 \sum_{n=0}^3 A_n(c,z),
740: \end{array}\right.
741: &
742: \begin{array}{l}
743: \vphantom{(\Eh-\Ealpha)\, e^{(c-\curv)z} + \Ealpha,}
744: z \leq \xi,\\ [1ex]
745: \vphantom{\displaystyle \Eomega-\INabar\, j\, c^2 \tau_h^2 \tau_m^2 \sum_{n=0}^3 A_n(c,z),}
746: z \geq \xi,
747: \end{array}
748: \\[1ex]
749: &h(z) = \hspace{1.3mm} \left\{\begin{array}{l}
750: 1, \\[1ex]
751: e^{-z/(c\,\tau_h)},
752: \end{array}\right.
753: &
754: \begin{array}{l}
755: z \leq 0, \\[1ex]
756: z \geq 0,
757: \end{array}
758: \\[1ex]
759: &m(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{lr}
760: 0, \\[1ex]
761: 1-e^{(\xi-z)/(c\,\tau_m)},
762: \end{array}\right.
763: &
764: \begin{array}{l}
765: z \leq \xi, \\ [1ex]
766: z \geq \xi,
767: \end{array}
768: \end{align}
769: \end{subequations}
770: %
771: where the pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$,
772: the post-front voltage $\Eomega$ and the wave speed $c$ are
773: related by
774: %
775: \begin{subequations}
776: \label{e.0060}
777: \begin{align}
778: \label{e.0061}
779: & \hspace*{-0.3cm}
780: \Eomega = \Em+ \INabar\,j\, (c\, \tau_h\, \tau_m)^2 e^{-\xi/(c\,\tau_h)} \sum_{n=0}^3 \f{a_n(c)}{\tau_m+n\,\tau_h}, \\
781: \label{e.0062}
782: & \hspace*{-0.3cm}
783: 0 = (c-\curv)(\Em - \Ealpha) - \INabar\,j\,c\,\tau_h \tau_m\, e^{-\xi/(c\tau_h)}\sum_{n=0}^3 a_n(c),
784: \end{align}
785: \end{subequations}
786: %
787: the distance between points $\E=\Eh$ and $\E=\Em$ is
788: \begin{equation}
789: \label{e:0040:i0030}
790: \xi = \f{1}{(c-\curv)}\ln\!\left(\f{\Em-\Ealpha}{\Eh-\Ealpha}\right),
791: \end{equation}
792: %
793: and $A_n(c,z)$ and $a_n(c)$ are abbreviations for
794: \begin{subequations} \label{An.an}
795: \begin{align}
796: & A_n(c,z) \oth{\equiv} \f{a_n(c)}{\tau_m+n\tau_h} \,
797: \exp\left( \f{n\xi\tau_h - (\tau_m+n \tau_h) z}{c\,\tau_h\,\tau_m} \right), \label{An} \\
798: & a_n(c) \oth{\equiv} \dbinom{3}{n}\f{(-1)^n}{c(c-\curv)\, \tau_h\, \tau_m+\tau_m+n\, \tau_h}. \label{an}
799: \end{align}
800: \end{subequations}
801: In the limit $\tau_m\to0$ this solution
802: tends to the solution of the two-component model of \cite{Biktashev-2003}, as expected.
803:
804: The accurate expression in \eq{e:0030.1} for the
805: sodium current $\INabar(\E)$ vanishes for $\E=\ENa$
806: which, in particular, means that the transmembrane voltage never
807: exceeds $\ENa$. So, replacing this function with a constant changes the
808: properties of the system qualitatively. Even bigger
809: discrepancies are expected to occur from replacing the ${\tau_h(\E)}$ and
810: ${\tau_m(\E)}$ by constants because these functions vary by an order of
811: magnitude in the range between the pre- and the post-front voltage.
812: It is surprising, however, that even this rough approximation produces
813: results which, with exception of the post-front voltage, are within
814: several percent from the solution of the detailed ionic model
815: \cite{CRN98} and certainly capture its qualitative features as
816: can be seen in \fig{f:0020} where the constants are chosen at
817: $\E=\Em$, \ie{} $\INabar(\Em)$, ${\tau_h(\Em)}$ and ${\tau_m(\Em)}$.
818: This relatively good agreement is not due to this special choice of
819: parameter values. Indeed, the caricature model
820: and its solution \eqs{e:0050} involve the parameters $\INabar$,
821: $\tau_h$, $\tau_m$, $\curv$, $\Ealpha$ and $j$. The dependence on the
822: curvature $\curv$ is negligible in comparison to the deviation of the
823: solution \eqs{e:0050} of the caricature model from the numerical
824: solution of the three-variable model \eqs{e:0030}. The dependence on the
825: pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$ and the excitability parameter $j$ is
826: discussed in section \ref{ssec:3.2} and represented in Figs. \ref{f:0030} and
827: \ref{f:0040}. The
828: parameters $\INabar$, $\tau_h$, $\tau_m$, on the other hand, are
829: somewhat arbitrary but in order to achieve a good agreement with
830: the original system given by \eqs{e:0030} we choose these
831: values as the values of the corresponding functions in \eqs{e:0030a}
832: at various values of $\E$. In \fig{f:0030} the relationship between the wave
833: speed $c$ and the excitation parameter $j$ for several such choices of
834: $\E$ is presented. It can be seen that such a variation of the values
835: of $\INabar$, $\tau_h$, $\tau_m$ does not lead to significant
836: qualitative changes in the solution \eqs{e:0050} of the caricature model.
837: %
838: Figs.~\ref{f:0020} and \ref{f:0030} also show, for comparison,
839: the numerical solutions of the detailed ionic model of \cite{CRN98}
840: and of the full three-variable model of \eqs{e:0030}, which will be
841: described in detail in the next section.
842:
843:
844:
845: \subsection{The condition for propagation}
846: \label{ssec:3.2}
847:
848: \Eq{e.0062} defines $c$ as a smooth function of the parameters
849: within a certain domain.
850: The boundary of this domain is associated with the propagation failure.
851: Not all parameters, $\INabar$, $\tau_h$, $\tau_m$, $\curv$, $\Ealpha$ and $j$,
852: entering \eq{e.0062} are of equal importance.
853: We consider here
854: $\curv = 0$ and postpone the
855: investigation of the effects of curvature to the next section.
856: Parameters $\INabar$, $\tau_h$ and $\tau_m$
857: represent
858: well-defined
859: properties of the tissue, albeit changeable depending on physiological conditions.
860: On the other hand,
861: parameters $j$ and $\Ealpha$ are not model constants, but `slowly varying'
862: dynamic quantities: $j$
863: remains approximately constant throughout the front,
864: and $\Ealpha$ represents the transmembrane voltage ahead of the front,
865: but both can vary widely on large scales between different fronts.
866: Hence we need to determine the singular points of the
867: dispersion relation in \eq{e.0062} with respect to $j$ and $\Ealpha$.
868:
869: % \input{fig4.tex}
870:
871: Similarly to the two-component caricature \cite{Biktashev-2002},
872: \eq{e.0062} is a transcendental equation for $c$,
873: but it is easily
874: solvable for the excitation parameter $j$:
875: %
876: \begin{equation}
877: \label{e:0070}
878: j= \f{(\Em-\Ealpha)}{6\, \INabar\, \tau_h^{4}\, \tau_m}\,
879: e^{\f{\xi}{c\, \tau_h}} \prod_{n=0}^3
880: \big(c^2\, \tau_h\, \tau_m+\tau_m+n\, \tau_h\big).
881: \end{equation}
882: %
883: The resulting relationship of $j$ and $c$
884: for a selected value of $\Ealpha$
885: is
886: shown in \fig{f:0030}. This figure
887: reveals a bifurcation.
888: For
889: values of $j$ lower than some $\jmin$ no travelling
890: wave solutions exist. After a bifurcation at $j > \jmin$ two
891: solutions with different speeds are possible. Our direct numerical
892: simulations of \eqs{e:0020} as well as studies of the two-component
893: caricature
894: model by \citet{Hinch-2004} suggest that the solutions of the lower
895: branch are unstable.
896: The bifurcation point $\jmin$ can be determined
897: from the
898: condition
899: that $j$ has a minimum with respect to $c$
900: at this point and therefore satisfies
901: %
902: \begin{equation}
903: \label{e:0080}
904: \left(\f{\dd j}{\dd c}\right)_{\Ealpha=\mbox{const}} = 0.
905: \end{equation}
906: This produces, with $j(c)$ defined by \eq{e:0070},
907: a
908: quintic polynomial equation for $c^2$.
909:
910: Activation of the sodium current is possible because $\tau_m \ll
911: \tau_h$, permitting transient channel opening and
912: current flow through the cell membrane. The ratio $\tau_h/\tau_m$
913: is a function of $\E$ in the full model, and is a constant in
914: \eqs{e:0030}. The minimal value of this ratio, necessary
915: for propagation, is shown on \fig{f:0031} as a function of
916: various choices of $\INabar$, $\tau_m$ and $j$; it is
917: obtained by numerical solution of the algebraic equation \eq{e.0062}.
918: The smallness of $\tau_m/\tau_h$ allows approximate solution of
919: the above mentioned quintic equation for $c^2$. We set
920: %
921: \begin{equation}
922: \label{e:0090}
923: c^2 = \sum_{n=0}^\infty S_n \tau_m^{n} .
924: \end{equation}
925: %
926: Substituting this expansion in \eq{e:0080} and discarding the small
927: terms of order $O(\tau_m)$ gives the zeroth-order approximation to the
928: solution as a function of the pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$
929: \begin{align}
930: \label{e:0100}
931: &\jmin^{(0)} =
932: \frac{(\Em-\Ealpha)}{2 \INabar \tau_h}
933: e^{ \frac{
934: 2\Theta
935: }{
936: \Theta+\sqrt{\Theta^2+4\Theta}
937: } } \,
938: \left(\Theta+2+\sqrt{\Theta^2+4\Theta}\right),
939: \\
940: &
941: \Theta = \ln\!\big( (\Em-\Ealpha)/(\Eh-\Ealpha) \big). \nonumber
942: \end{align}
943: This limit corresponds to the two-variable caricature
944: \cite{Biktashev-2002}.
945: \textit{For any given value of the pre-front voltage the value
946: of $j$ must be larger than $\jmin$ in order for wave fronts to
947: propagate.} Although lacking sufficient
948: accuracy, the zeroth-order approximation given by
949: \eq{e:0100} reproduces qualitatively well the
950: conditions for propagation and dissipation of excitation fronts in
951: the model of \citet{CRN98}.
952: Analogously, discarding the small terms of order $O(\tau_m^2)$
953: gives the first-order approximation, % \newpage
954: \begin{align}
955: \label{e:0101}
956: &\jmin^{(1)} = \f{(\E_m-\Ealpha)}{6\,\Delta^4\,\tau_m}\,
957: %= e^{-\Delta\Theta/(A\tau_h-\Delta\Theta)}
958: e^{-\frac{\Delta\Theta}{(A\tau_h-\Delta\Theta)}}
959: \prod_{n=0}^{3}(A\,\tau_m-n\,\Delta), \\
960: & \Delta = 12\, \tau_h^2\sqrt{\Theta\,(\Theta+4)}, \nonumber \\
961: & A= \left(
962: \Theta^2 (\Theta + 4) +
963: \Theta^{3/2} (\Theta + 2) \sqrt{\Theta+4}
964: \right) \left(11\,\tau_m-6\,\f{\tau_h}{\Theta} \right) . \nonumber
965: \end{align}
966: This approximation is already very good and changes insignificantly as
967: more terms are considered in \eq{e:0090}, see \fig{f:0040}.
968:
969: %- \temp{An alternative condition for absolute refractoriness has been
970: %- suggested earlier by \citet{Vinet-Roberge-1994} who study the
971: %- space-clamped modified Beeler-Reuter model by premature simulation at
972: %- various coupling intervals under stable conditions of regular pacing
973: %- at different cycle lengths. They find that the loci of the unstable
974: %- and the depolarized stable states merge together and vanish for a
975: %- particular value of the coupling interval $(S_1-S_2)$. They identify this value to
976: %- be the limit of the absolutely refractory period.
977: %- However, we argue that our criterion, even if not more practical,
978: %- comes a step closer to the physiology of the problem. Indeed,
979: %- \eq{e:0100} determines absolute refractoriness in
980: %- terms a minimal value of an intrinsic physiological variable such as
981: %- $j$, as opposed to a definition in terms of an empirical measure
982: %- such as the duration of the coupling interval $(S_1-S_2)$ which may not
983: %- necessarily be in one-to-one correspondence to the value of any given
984: %- intrinsic variable.
985: %- Therefore, it is not clear how to compare the two criteris or how
986: %- apply the definition of \cite{Vinet-Roberge-1994} to the
987: %- spatially-extended systems in which we are interested.
988: %- }
989:
990: \section{Numerical results}
991: \label{sec:4}
992:
993: \subsection{Propagating front solutions}
994:
995: % \input{fig5.tex}
996:
997: % \input{fig6.tex}
998:
999: We solved \eqs{e:0030}--\ref{e:0040} numerically,
1000: using the method described in Appendix \ref{appx:1}.
1001: The results are shown in figures
1002: \ref{f:0020}, \ref{f:0030} and \ref{f:0050}. \Fig{f:0020}
1003: offers a comparison of the shapes of the solution of \eqs{e:0030} with
1004: a snapshot of a travelling wave solution of the full model of
1005: \citet{CRN98}.
1006: The values of the wave speed and the post-front voltage are
1007: presented in table \ref{t:01} and also show an excellent agreement.
1008: This confirms our assumptions that the fronts of travelling waves
1009: in the full model have constant speed and shape and thus
1010: satisfy an ODE system, and that $j$ remains approximately constant
1011: during the front.
1012: \Fig{f:0050} shows the wave speed $c$ as a function of two of the parameters
1013: of the problem, the pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$ and the excitability
1014: parameter $j$.
1015: For every value of $j$ and $\Ealpha$ from a certain domain,
1016: two values of the wave speed $c$ are possible,
1017: which is similar to the solutions of the caricature model.
1018: The smaller values of $c$ are not observed in the PDE simulation of the
1019: full model. This is a strong indication that they are unstable.
1020:
1021: % \input{fig7.tex}
1022:
1023: \subsection{The condition for propagation}
1024:
1025: In this subsection, we report numerical values for the threshold of
1026: excitability $\jmin$ below which wave fronts are not sustainable and
1027: have to dissipate, as predicted by the reduced three-variable model
1028: of \eqs{e:0030}--\ref{e:0040}. \Fig{f:0060} presents $\jmin$ as a
1029: function of the pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$.
1030: The curve $\jmin(\Ealpha)$ represents a boundary in the space
1031: of the slow variables $(\E,j)$ which separates the region of relative
1032: refractoriness where excitation fronts are possible, even though
1033: possibly slowed down, from the region of absolute refractoriness
1034: where excitation fronts cannot propagate at all.
1035: In practice, however, we can reduce the condition of the absolute
1036: refractoriness even further. This is possible because typical APs
1037: have their tails very closely following one path on the $(\E,j)$ plane.
1038: This property is known for cardiac models; e.g. \cite{Vinet-Roberge-1994}
1039: presents an evidence for the Modified Beeler-Reuter model
1040: that the dynamics of recovery from an AP do not depend on details
1041: of how that AP has been initiated.
1042: Therefore of the whole curve $(\E,\jmin(\E))$ only one point is important,
1043: its intersection with the curve $(\E(t),j(t))$ representing
1044: a typical AP tail.
1045: For the model \citet{CRN98} considered here, we simply state
1046: the existence of this universal $(\E(t),j(t))$ curve as an
1047: "experimental fact". This is illustrated in \fig{f:0060} where we
1048: plot the curve $(\E,\jmin(\E))$ together with projections of a
1049: selected set of AP trajectories.
1050: The AP solutions were obtained for a space-clamped
1051: version of \cite{CRN98} with initial conditions for $j$
1052: and $\E$ as shown in the figure and all other variables in their
1053: resting states. These trajectories allow us to follow the correlation
1054: between the transient of $j$ and the AP $\E$. Indeed, in the tail of an AP
1055: solution, the curve $j$ vs $\E$ is almost independent of the way
1056: the AP is initiated. As a result,
1057: the projections of the trajectories $(\E(t),j(t))$
1058: intersect the critical curve $(\Ealpha,\jmin(\Ealpha))$
1059: in a small vicinity of one point,
1060: $(\jcr,\Ecr)=(0.2975\pm0.0015,-72.5\pm0.5)$.
1061: This result suggests the following interpretation.
1062: As a wave front propagating into the tail of a
1063: preceding wave reaches a point in the state corresponding to this
1064: "absolute refractoriness" point $(\jcr,\Ecr)$, it will stop because of
1065: insufficient excitability of the medium, and dissipate.
1066:
1067: In a broader context, in the front propagation speed $c$ is a
1068: function of $j$ and $\E$ in the relative refractoriness region of
1069: the $(\E,j)$ plane, so the highly correlated dependencies of $\E(t)$
1070: and $j(t)$ in the wake of an AP mean that $c$ at a particular point
1071: becomes a fixed function of time. This makes it possible to describe
1072: $c$ in terms of the diastolic interval (DI), i.e the time passed
1073: after the end of the preceding AP. This dependence, known as
1074: dispersion curve or velocity restitution curve, is an important tool
1075: in simplified analysis of complex regimes of excitation
1076: propagation~\cite{%
1077: Nolasco-Dahlen-1968,%
1078: Courtemanche-etal-1993,%
1079: Vinet-Roberge-1994a,%
1080: Wellner-Pertsov-1997,%
1081: Weiss-etal-1999%
1082: }.
1083:
1084: \subsection{Propagation block in two dimensions}
1085:
1086: In two spatial dimensions, the condition of dissipation $j<\jcr$
1087: may happen to a piece of a
1088: wave front rather than the whole of it. In that case
1089: we observe a local block and a break-up of the excitation wave.
1090: \Fig{f:0070} shows how it happens in a
1091: two-dimensional simulation of the detailed model of \citet{CRN98}. A
1092: spiral wave was initiated by
1093: a cross-field protocol. This spiral wave develops instability, breaks
1094: up from time to time, and eventually self-terminates. This is one of
1095: the simulations discussed in detail in \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2005}. Here
1096: we use it to test our newly obtained criterion of propagation
1097: block. The red colour component represents the $\E$ field, white for
1098: the resting state and maximum for the AP peak. This is superimposed
1099: onto an all-or-none representation of the $j$ field, with black for
1100: $j>\jcr$ and blue for $j\le\jcr$. Thus the red rim represents the
1101: `active front' zone where excitation has already happened but $j$
1102: gates are not de-activated yet; most of the excited region is in shades of
1103: purple representing the gradual decay of the AP with $j$ deactivated. The
1104: wave ends up with a blue tail, which corresponds to $\E$ already
1105: close to the resting potential but $j$ not yet recovered and still
1106: below $\jcr$. So the blue zone is where there is no excitation, but
1107: propagation of excitation wave is impossible, \ie\ absolutely
1108: refractory zone. The black zone after the tail and before the new
1109: front is therefore relative refractory zone, where front propagation
1110: is possible. Thus, in terms of the colour coding of
1111: figure~\ref{f:0070}, the prediction of the theory is: the wavefront
1112: will be blocked and dissipate where and when it reaches the blue zone,
1113: and only there and then.
1114: This is exactly what happens in the shown panels: the red front touches
1115: the blue tail, first at the third panel, at the point indicated by the
1116: white arrow, and subsequently in its vicinity. The excitation front stops
1117: in that vicinity and dissipates.
1118: So we have a break-up of the front.
1119:
1120: The analysis of the numerics, which ran for the total of 7400\,ms
1121: until self-termination of the spiral and
1122: showed 4 episodes of front break-up, has confirmed that in all cases
1123: the break-up happened if and only if the front reached the blue
1124: region $j\le\jcr$.
1125:
1126: \subsection{Curvature effects}
1127: \label{ss:4.3}
1128:
1129: Since we attempt to compare the results of our one-dimensional model to
1130: simulations of spiral waves in two-dimensions, it is important to
1131: explore the dependence of the solution on the curvature of the front.
1132: The standard theory says
1133: that in two dimensions the normal velocity of the wave
1134: front need to be corrected by the term $\lambda \Curv$ where $\lambda$ is the typical
1135: width of the wave front \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988}.
1136: The speed-curvature
1137: diagram presented in \fig{f:0080}(a) shows that
1138: in our simplified model
1139: this relationship is
1140: satisfied to rather large values of $|\Curv|$.
1141: Our choice of boundary conditions in \eqs{e:0040}
1142: assumes that
1143: the excitation fronts propagate
1144: from right to left,
1145: so
1146: positive values of the curvature
1147: correspond to concave
1148: fronts.
1149: Only
1150: at very small values of the radius of curvature of the order of 0.3 mm
1151: for $j=1$ the wave speed shows a non-linear dependence on curvature as
1152: seen in the insert \fig{f:0080}(b). This part of the figure also
1153: demonstrates that there is a critical value of the curvature for which
1154: the excitation wave stops to propagate as well as an unstable branch
1155: of the solution. However, these phenomena occur at very large
1156: curvatures which are far outside of the range of values
1157: of $|\Curv|<0.1\mm^{-1}$ observed in the two-dimensional simulations
1158: of \fig{f:0070}.
1159:
1160:
1161: The most important question with respect to our study is whether the
1162: curvature changes significantly the critical value of the excitation
1163: parameter $\jcr$ below which the wave fronts fail to propagate. To
1164: answer this question we present \fig{f:0080}(c) in which the wave
1165: speed $c$ is shown as a function of $j$ for three values of the
1166: curvature corresponding to a non-curved front and to convex and
1167: concave fronts with radius of curvature equal to 10 mm. The values of
1168: $\jmin$ for these three cases differ only slightly.
1169: So, the propagation blocks in our simulations do not
1170: depend significantly on the curvature of the front.
1171:
1172: % \input{fig8.tex}
1173:
1174: This conclusion is valid for the particular
1175: cardiac model~\cite{CRN98} and for the particular
1176: context. In \cite{Comtois-Vinet-1999}, the minimal diastolic interval,
1177: defined as time from the moment $\E=-50$\,mV to the moment propagation
1178: becomes possible again, depended only slightly on curvature
1179: for the Modified Beeler-Reuter model at standard parameters,
1180: but was much more pronounced when $\tau_j$ was artificially
1181: increased 6-fold. The simplest explanation of this difference is
1182: that the small variation of $\jmin$ due to the curvature takes
1183: much longer for $j(t)$ to make if $\D{j}/\D{t}$ is very small,
1184: so even that small variation $\jmin$ becomes significant.
1185:
1186: \section{Conclusions}
1187: \label{sec:5}
1188:
1189: In this paper, we have shown that propagation of excitation and its block
1190: in \citet{CRN98} model of
1191: human atrial tissue can be successfully predicted by a simplified
1192: model of the excitation front, obtained by
1193: an asymptotic
1194: description focussed on the fast sodium current, $\INabar$.
1195: %
1196: Whereas it was known that main qualitative features of the
1197: $\INa$-driven fronts can be described by a two-component model for
1198: $\E$ and $h$, we have now found that for good quantitative predictions,
1199: one must also take into account the dynamics of $m$ gates.
1200: %
1201: Thus, we have proposed a three-component description of the
1202: propagating excitation fronts given by \eqs{e:0020}.
1203: %
1204: We have obtained an exact analytical solution for piecewise-linear
1205: `caricature' three-component model of \eqs{e:0020}. For an appropriate
1206: choice of parameters, it reproduces the key qualitative features of
1207: the accurate three-component model of \eqs{e:0020} and gives a correct
1208: order of magnitude quantitatively.
1209: %
1210: Numerical solution of the automodel equation of the proposed
1211: three-component model of \eqs{e:0020} gives a very accurate
1212: prediction of propagation block in two-dimensional re-entrant
1213: waves. For the given model, this reduces to a condition involving the
1214: pre-front values of $\E$ and $j$, or even in terms of $j$ alone. This
1215: provides the sought-for operational definition of absolute
1216: refractoriness in terms of $j$, simple and efficient.
1217:
1218: The success of the propagation block prediction justifies the
1219: assumptions made on the asymptotic structure, \ie{} appearance of the
1220: small parameter $\epsilon$, of \eqs{e:CRN}, and also confirms that
1221: two-dimensional effects, \eg{} front curvature, do not significantly
1222: affect the propagation block conditions, at least in the particular
1223: simulation.
1224:
1225: As the description and role of $\INa$ are fairly universal in
1226: cardiac models, most of the results should be applicable to other
1227: models. However, some other cardiac models may require a more
1228: complicated description. For instance, the contemporary `Markovian'
1229: description of $\INa$ \cite[][\eg\ ]{Clancy-Rudy-2001} is very
1230: different from the classical $m^3jh$ scheme. Also, propagation in
1231: ventricular tissue in certain circumstances can be essentially
1232: supported by L-type calcium current rather than mostly $\INa$ alone
1233: \cite{Shaw-Rudy-1997}.
1234:
1235: {\small
1236:
1237: \appendix
1238: \section{Numerical method}
1239: \label{appx:1}
1240:
1241: For a numerical solution the problem needs to be formulated on a
1242: finite interval $z \in [z_{min}, z_{max}]$ rather than on the open
1243: interval $z \in (-\infty, \infty)$.
1244: Furthermore, because of the piecewise definition of the problem this
1245: interval must be separated in three parts $[z_{min}, 0]$, $[0, \xi]$
1246: and $[\xi, z_{max}]$ as discussed in the beginning of section
1247: \ref{sec:3}. The standard numerical methods we use require that the
1248: problem is posed on a single interval, for instance $y \in [0, L]$.
1249: So we use the mapping,
1250: \begin{align}
1251: \label{e:0120}
1252: & [0,L] \ni y = \left\{
1253: \begin{array}{lll}
1254: -z, & z \in [z_{min},0], \\
1255: (\xi/L)\, z, & z \in [0,\xi], \\
1256: z - \xi, \qquad & z \in [\xi, z_{max}],
1257: \end{array}\right.
1258: \end{align}
1259: to transform \eqs{e:0030} as follows
1260: \begin{align}
1261: \label{e:0130}
1262: & \E_1'' = -(c-\curv)\, \E_1' + \gNa (\ENa-\E_1)\,j\,h_1\,m_1^3, \nonumber \\
1263: & h_1' = -\big(c\,\tau_h(\E_1) \big)^{-1} \big(1 - h_1 \big), \nonumber \\
1264: & m_1' = \big(c\,\tau_m(\E_1) \big)^{-1} m_1, \nonumber \\
1265: & \E_2'' = \big((c-\curv)\, \E_2' - \gNa (\ENa-\E_2)\,j\,h_2\,m_2^3\big)/p, \nonumber \\
1266: & h_2' = -\big(p\,c\,\tau_h(\E_2) \big)^{-1} h_2, \nonumber \\ & m_2' = -\big(p\,c\,\tau_m(\E_2) \big)^{-1} m_2, \\
1267: & \E_3'' = (c-\curv)\, \E_3' - \gNa (\ENa-\E_3)\,j\,h_3\,m_3^3, \nonumber \\
1268: & h_3' = -\big(c\,\tau_h(\E_3) \big)^{-1} h_3, \nonumber \\
1269: & m_3' = \big(c\,\tau_m(\E_3) \big)^{-1} (1-m_3), \nonumber \\
1270: & c' = 0,\nonumber \\
1271: & p'=0, \qquad \qquad \mbox{where $p\equiv \xi/L$}\nonumber \\
1272: & \Eomega'=0, \nonumber
1273: \end{align}
1274: where the subscripts 1, 2 and 3 denote the variables
1275: corresponding to the three subintervals.
1276: Here, the end of the second subinterval $\xi$ is an unknown parameter
1277: and together with the wave speed $c$ and the post-front voltage
1278: $\Eomega$ must be determined as a part of the solution. Because these
1279: unknowns are constants, their derivatives must vanish which leads to
1280: the introduction of the last three equations in \eqs{e:0130}.
1281:
1282: The boundary conditions in \eqs{e:0040}
1283: at infinity
1284: are substituted by
1285: \begin{equation}
1286: \label{e:0140}
1287: \Big(\vec u \Big)_{z_{min}, z_{max}} = \Big(\vec u \Big)_{(\mp\infty)}
1288: + \vec v,
1289: \end{equation}
1290: where $\vec u$ is the vector of unknown variables and $\vec v$ is a
1291: vector of small perturbations,
1292: obtained as a solution of
1293: \eqs{e:0030} linearised about \eqs{e:0040}. Together
1294: with the implicit assumptions $\E(0)=\Em$ and $\E(\xi)=\Eh$ which
1295: break the translational invariance and
1296: the additional requirements that the solutions must be continuous
1297: functions of $z$ and that $\E(z)$ must be smooth, the necessary 15
1298: conditions are
1299: \begin{align}
1300: \label{e:0150}
1301: & \E_1(0)=\E_h, \quad \E_2(0) =\E_h, \quad \E_3(0) =\E_m, \nonumber \\
1302: & \E_1'(0)=-p(0)\,\E_2'(0), \quad h_1(0)=h_2(0), \quad m_1(0)=m_2(0),\nonumber \\
1303: & \E_3'(0)=p(L)\,\E_2'(L), \quad h_3(0)=h_2(L), \quad
1304: m_3(0)=m_2(L), \nonumber\\
1305: & \E_1'(L)=-(c(L)-\curv)\,\big(\E_1(L)+\Ealpha\big), \quad \E_2(L)=\E_m, \\
1306: & \E_3(L) =-\big(\E_3(L)-\Eomega(L)\big)/\left(c(L)\,\tau_h\big(\E_3(L)\big)\right), \nonumber \\
1307: & h_1(L)=1, \quad m_1(L)=0, \nonumber\\
1308: & h_3(L) = \f{\E_3'(L)}{\gNa\,j\,\big(\ENa-\E_3(L)\big)}\,\left(
1309: \f{1}{c(L)\, \tau_h\big(\E_3(L)\big)} + (c(L)-\curv)\right).\nonumber
1310: \end{align}
1311: We use the boundary-value problem solver {\tt D02RAF} of the NAG
1312: numerical library which employs a finite-difference discretization
1313: coupled to a deferred correction
1314: technique and Newton iteration \cite{nag_fl_21}. The analytical
1315: solution given in \eqs{e:0050} is used as an initial approximation to start
1316: the correction process. The method proves to be very robust over a
1317: large range of parameters.
1318:
1319: The authors are grateful to I.V.~Biktasheva for sharing her experience of
1320: simulation of model \cite{CRN98}, to H.~Zhang and P.~Hunter for inspiring
1321: discussions related to this manuscript \oth{and to the anonimous
1322: referees for constructive criticism and helpful suggestions}. This work is supported by
1323: EPSRC grants
1324: GR/S43498/01 % Large-scale parallelization
1325: and
1326: GR/S75314/01. % Analytical approach
1327: }
1328:
1329: % The bibliopgraphy
1330:
1331: \begin{thebibliography}{52}
1332: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1333:
1334: \bibitem[{Krinsky(1966)}]{Krinsky-1966}
1335: Krinsky, V.~I. 1966.
1336: \newblock Spread of excitation in an inhomogeneous medium (state similar to
1337: cardiac fibrillation).
1338: \newblock \emph{Biofizika} 11:776--784.
1339:
1340: \bibitem[{Moe(1962)}]{Moe-1962}
1341: Moe, G.~K. 1962.
1342: \newblock On the multiple wavelet hypothesis of atrial fibrillation.
1343: \newblock \emph{Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther.} 140:183--188.
1344:
1345: \bibitem[{Weiss et~al.(2000)Weiss, Chen, Qu, Karagueuzian, and
1346: Garfinkel}]{Weiss-etal-2000}
1347: Weiss, J.~N., P.~S. Chen, Z.~Qu, H.~S. Karagueuzian, and A.~Garfinkel. 2000.
1348: \newblock Ventricular fibrillation: {How} do we stop the waves from breaking?
1349: \newblock \emph{Circ. Res.} 87:1103--1107.
1350:
1351: \bibitem[{Panfilov and Pertsov(2001)}]{Panfilov-Pertsov-2001}
1352: Panfilov, A., and A.~Pertsov. 2001.
1353: \newblock Ventricular fibrillation: evolution of the multiple-wavelet
1354: hypothesis.
1355: \newblock \emph{Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A} 359:1315--1325.
1356:
1357: \bibitem[{Kl{\'e}ber and Rudy(2004)}]{Kleber-Rudy-2004}
1358: Kl{\'e}ber, A.~G., and Y.~Rudy. 2004.
1359: \newblock Basic mechanisms of cardiac impulse propagation and associated
1360: arrhythmias.
1361: \newblock \emph{Physiol. Rev.} 84:431--488.
1362:
1363: \bibitem[{Courtemanche et~al.(1998)Courtemanche, Ramirez, and Nattel}]{CRN98}
1364: Courtemanche, M., R.~Ramirez, and S.~Nattel. 1998.
1365: \newblock Ionic mechanisms underlying human atrial action potential properties:
1366: insights from a mathematical model.
1367: \newblock \emph{Am. J. Physiol.} 275:H301--H321.
1368:
1369: \bibitem[{Kohl et~al.(2000)Kohl, Noble, Winslow, and Hunter}]{Kohl-etal-2000}
1370: Kohl, P., D.~Noble, R.~L. Winslow, and P.~J. Hunter. 2000.
1371: \newblock Computational modelling of biological systems: tools and visions.
1372: \newblock \emph{Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A} 358:579--610.
1373:
1374: \bibitem[{{van der Pol} and {van der Mark}(1928)}]{vanderPol-vanderMark-1928}
1375: {van der Pol}, B., and J.~{van der Mark}. 1928.
1376: \newblock The heartbeat considered as a relaxation oscillation, and an
1377: electrical model of the heart.
1378: \newblock \emph{Lond. Edinb. Dublin Phil. Mag. J. Sci.} 6:763--775.
1379:
1380: \bibitem[{Holden and Panfilov(1997)}]{Holden-Panfilov-1997}
1381: Holden, A.~V., and A.~V. Panfilov. 1997.
1382: \newblock Modelling propagation in excitable media.
1383: \newblock \emph{In} Computational Biology of the Heart, A.~V. Holden, and A.~V.
1384: Panfilov, editors. Wiley, 65--99.
1385:
1386: \bibitem[{FitzHugh(1961)}]{FitzHugh-1961}
1387: FitzHugh, R.~A. 1961.
1388: \newblock Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve
1389: membrane.
1390: \newblock \emph{Biophys. J.} 1:445--466.
1391:
1392: \bibitem[{Nagumo et~al.(1962)Nagumo, Arimoto, and Yoshizawa}]{Nagumo-etal-1962}
1393: Nagumo, J., S.~Arimoto, and S.~Yoshizawa. 1962.
1394: \newblock An active pulse transmission line simulating nerve axon.
1395: \newblock \emph{Proc. IRE} 50:2061--2070.
1396:
1397: \bibitem[{Pertsov and Panfilov(1981)}]{Pertsov-Panfilov-1981}
1398: Pertsov, A.~M., and A.~V. Panfilov. 1981.
1399: \newblock Spiral waves in active media. reverberator in the {FitzHugh}-{Nagumo}
1400: model.
1401: \newblock \emph{In} Autowave processes in systems with diffusion. IPF, Gorky,
1402: 77--84.
1403: \newblock In Russian.
1404:
1405: \bibitem[{Barkley(1991)}]{Barkley-1991}
1406: Barkley, D. 1991.
1407: \newblock A model for fast computer simulation of waves in excitable media.
1408: \newblock \emph{Physica D} 49:61--70.
1409:
1410: \bibitem[{Winfree(1991)}]{Winfree-1991}
1411: Winfree, A.~T. 1991.
1412: \newblock Varieties of spiral wave behavior in excitable media.
1413: \newblock \emph{Chaos} 1:303--334.
1414:
1415: \bibitem[{Aliev and Panfilov(1996)}]{Aliev-Panfilov-1996}
1416: Aliev, R.~R., and A.~V. Panfilov. 1996.
1417: \newblock A simple two-variable model of cardiac excitation.
1418: \newblock \emph{Chaos Solitons and Fractals} 7:293--301.
1419:
1420: \bibitem[{Hodgkin and Huxley(1952)}]{Hodgkin-Huxley-1952}
1421: Hodgkin, A., and A.~Huxley. 1952.
1422: \newblock A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to
1423: conduction and excitation in nerve.
1424: \newblock \emph{J. Physiol.} 117:500--544.
1425:
1426: \bibitem[{Noble(1960)}]{Noble-1960}
1427: Noble, D. 1960.
1428: \newblock Cardiac action and pacemaker potentials based on the
1429: {Hodgkin}--{Huxley} equations.
1430: \newblock \emph{Nature} 188:495--497.
1431:
1432: \bibitem[{Noble(1962)}]{Noble-1962}
1433: Noble, D. 1962.
1434: \newblock A modification of the {Hodgkin}-{Huxley} equations applicable to
1435: {Purkinje} fibre action and pace-maker potentials.
1436: \newblock \emph{J. Physiol.} 160:317--352.
1437:
1438: \bibitem[{Demir et~al.(1994)Demir, Clark, Murphey, and Giles}]{Demir}
1439: Demir, S.~S., J.~W. Clark, C.~R. Murphey, and W.~R. Giles. 1994.
1440: \newblock A mathematical model of a rabbit sinoatrial node cell.
1441: \newblock \emph{Am. J. Physiol.} 266:C832--C852.
1442:
1443: \bibitem[{Nygren et~al.(1998)Nygren, Fiset, Firek, Clark, Lindblad, Clark, and
1444: Giles}]{Nygren}
1445: Nygren, A., C.~Fiset, L.~Firek, J.~W. Clark, D.~S. Lindblad, R.~B. Clark, and
1446: W.~R. Giles. 1998.
1447: \newblock Mathematical model of an adult human atrial cell: the role of k+
1448: currents in repolarization.
1449: \newblock \emph{Circulation} 82:63--81.
1450:
1451: \bibitem[{Varghese and Winslow(1994)}]{Varghese}
1452: Varghese, A., and R.~L. Winslow. 1994.
1453: \newblock Dynamics of abnormal pacemaking activity in cardiac {P}urkinje
1454: fibers.
1455: \newblock \emph{J. Theor. Biol.} 168:407--420.
1456:
1457: \bibitem[{Beeler and Reuter(1977)}]{BeelerReuter}
1458: Beeler, G.~W., and H.~Reuter. 1977.
1459: \newblock Reconstruction of the action potential of ventricular myocardial
1460: fibres.
1461: \newblock \emph{J. Physiol.} 268:177--210.
1462:
1463: \bibitem[{Luo and Rudy(1994)}]{LuoRudy}
1464: Luo, C.-H., and Y.~Rudy. 1994.
1465: \newblock A dynamic model of the cardiac ventricular action potential. {I}.
1466: {S}imulations of ionic currents and concentration changes.
1467: \newblock \emph{Circulation Res.} 74:1071--1096.
1468:
1469: \bibitem[{Kohl and Noble(1996)}]{Kohl-Noble-1996}
1470: Kohl, P., and D.~Noble. 1996.
1471: \newblock Mechanosensitive connective tissue: potential influence on heart
1472: rhythm.
1473: \newblock \emph{Cardiovasc. Res.} 32:62--68.
1474:
1475: \bibitem[{Clayton(2001)}]{Clayton}
1476: Clayton, R.~H. 2001.
1477: \newblock Computational models of normal and abnormal action potential
1478: propagation in cardiac tissue: linking experimental and clinical cardiology.
1479: \newblock \emph{Physiol. Meas.} 22:R15--R34.
1480:
1481: \bibitem[{Fenton and Karma(1998)}]{Fenton-Karma-1998}
1482: Fenton, F., and A.~Karma. 1998.
1483: \newblock Vortex dynamics in three-dimensional continuous myocardium with fiber
1484: rotation: {F}ilament instability and fibrillation.
1485: \newblock \emph{Chaos} 8:20--47.
1486:
1487: \bibitem[{Bernus et~al.(2002)Bernus, Wilders, Zemlin, Verschelde, and
1488: Panfilov}]{Bernus-etal-2002}
1489: Bernus, O., R.~Wilders, W.~Zemlin, H.~Verschelde, and A.~V. Panfilov. 2002.
1490: \newblock A computationally efficient electrophysiological model of human
1491: ventricular cells.
1492: \newblock \emph{Am. J. Physiol.} 282:H2296--H2308.
1493:
1494: \bibitem[{Tyson and Keener(1988)}]{Tyson-Keener-1988}
1495: Tyson, J.~J., and J.~P. Keener. 1988.
1496: \newblock Singular perturbation theory of traveling waves in excitable media.
1497: \newblock \emph{Physica D} 32:327--361.
1498:
1499: \bibitem[{Fife(1976)}]{Fife-1976}
1500: Fife, P.~C. 1976.
1501: \newblock Pattern formation in reacting and diffusing systems.
1502: \newblock \emph{J. Chem. Phys.} 64:554--564.
1503:
1504: \bibitem[{Haken(1978)}]{Haken-1978}
1505: Haken, H. 1978.
1506: \newblock Synergetics. An Introduction.
1507: \newblock Springer, Berlin.
1508:
1509: \bibitem[{Biktashev(2002)}]{Biktashev-2002}
1510: Biktashev, V. 2002.
1511: \newblock Dissipation of the excitation wavefronts.
1512: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} 89:168102.
1513:
1514: \bibitem[{Suckley and Biktashev(2003)}]{Suckley-Biktashev-2003b}
1515: Suckley, R., and V.~Biktashev. 2003.
1516: \newblock Comparison of asymptotics of heart and nerve excitability.
1517: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. E} 68:011902.
1518:
1519: \bibitem[{Biktashev and Suckley(2004)}]{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}
1520: Biktashev, V., and R.~Suckley. 2004.
1521: \newblock {Non-Tikhonov} asymptotic properties of cardiac excitability.
1522: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Letters} 93(16):168103.
1523:
1524: \bibitem[{{Arnol'd ed.}(1994)}]{Arnold}
1525: {Arnol'd ed.}, V. 1994.
1526: \newblock {Dynamical Systems IV}.
1527: \newblock Springer, Berlin.
1528:
1529: \bibitem[{Biktasheva et~al.(2005)Biktasheva, Simitev, Suckley, and
1530: Biktashev}]{Biktasheva-etal-2005}
1531: Biktasheva, I.~V., R.~D. Simitev, R.~S. Suckley, and V.~N. Biktashev. 2005.
1532: \newblock Asymptotic properties of mathematical models of excitability.
1533: \newblock To appear in {\textit{Phil Trans Roy Soc A}};
1534: {http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin/0508020}.
1535:
1536: \bibitem[{Vinet and Roberge(1994{\natexlab{a}})}]{Vinet-Roberge-1994}
1537: Vinet, A., and F.~Roberge. 1994{\natexlab{a}}.
1538: \newblock Excitability and repolarization in an ionic model of the cardiac cell
1539: membrane.
1540: \newblock \emph{J. Theor. Biol.} 170:183--199.
1541:
1542: \bibitem[{Biktasheva et~al.(2003)Biktasheva, Biktashev, Dawes, Holden,
1543: Saumarez, and M.Savill}]{Biktasheva-etal-2003}
1544: Biktasheva, I.~V., V.~N. Biktashev, W.~N. Dawes, A.~V. Holden, R.~C. Saumarez,
1545: and A.~M.Savill. 2003.
1546: \newblock Dissipation of the excitation front as a mechanism of
1547: self-terminating arrhythmias.
1548: \newblock \emph{IJBC} 13(12):3645--3656.
1549:
1550: \bibitem[{Xie et~al.(2002)Xie, Qu, Garfinkel, and Weiss}]{Xie-etal-2002}
1551: Xie, F., Z.~Qu, A.~Garfinkel, and J.~N. Weiss. 2002.
1552: \newblock Electrical refractory period restitution and spiral wave reentry in
1553: simulated cardiac tissue.
1554: \newblock \emph{Am. J. Physiol. Heart. Circ. Physiol.} 283:H448--H460.
1555:
1556: \bibitem[{Matthews(2003)}]{Matthews-2003}
1557: Matthews, G.~G. 2003.
1558: \newblock Cellular physiology of nerve and muscle.
1559: \newblock Blackwell, Maiden, Oxford, Carlton, Berlin.
1560:
1561: \bibitem[{Antzelevitch et~al.(2005)Antzelevitch, Brugada, Borggrefe, Brugada,
1562: Brugada, Corrado, Gussak, LeMarec, Nademanee, Perez~Riera, Shimizu,
1563: Schulze-Bahr, Tan, and Wilde}]{Antzelevitch-etal-2005}
1564: Antzelevitch, C., P.~Brugada, M.~Borggrefe, J.~Brugada, R.~Brugada, D.~Corrado,
1565: I.~Gussak, H.~LeMarec, K.~Nademanee, A.~R. Perez~Riera, W.~Shimizu,
1566: E.~Schulze-Bahr, H.~Tan, and A.~Wilde. 2005.
1567: \newblock Brugada syndrome: report of the second consensus conference: endorsed
1568: by the {Heart} {Rhythm} {Society} and the {European} {Heart} {Rhythm}
1569: {Association}.
1570: \newblock \emph{Circulation} 111:659--670.
1571:
1572: \bibitem[{Krinsky and Kokoz(1973)}]{Krinsky-Kokoz-1973-3}
1573: Krinsky, V.~I., and Y.~M. Kokoz. 1973.
1574: \newblock Analysis of equations of excitable membranes --- {III.} membrane of
1575: the {Purkinje} fibre. reduction of the {Noble} equations to a second order
1576: system. analysis of automation by the graphs of zero isoclines.
1577: \newblock \emph{Biofizika} 18:1067--1073.
1578:
1579: \bibitem[{Biktashev(2003)}]{Biktashev-2003}
1580: Biktashev, V. 2003.
1581: \newblock A simplified model of propagation and dissipation of excitation
1582: fronts.
1583: \newblock \emph{Int. J. Bif. Chaos} 13(12):3605--3620.
1584:
1585: \bibitem[{Hinch(2004)}]{Hinch-2004}
1586: Hinch, R. 2004.
1587: \newblock Stability of cardiac waves.
1588: \newblock \emph{Bull. Math. Biol.} 66:1887--1908.
1589:
1590: \bibitem[{Nolasco and Dahlen(1968)}]{Nolasco-Dahlen-1968}
1591: Nolasco, J.~B., and R.~W. Dahlen. 1968.
1592: \newblock A graphic method for the study of alternation in cardiac action
1593: potentials.
1594: \newblock \emph{J. Appl. Physiol.} 25:191--196.
1595:
1596: \bibitem[{Courtemanche et~al.(1993)Courtemanche, Glass, and
1597: Keener}]{Courtemanche-etal-1993}
1598: Courtemanche, M., L.~Glass, and J.~P. Keener. 1993.
1599: \newblock Instabilities of a propagating pulse in a ring of excitable media.
1600: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} 70:2182--2185.
1601:
1602: \bibitem[{Vinet and Roberge(1994{\natexlab{b}})}]{Vinet-Roberge-1994a}
1603: Vinet, A., and F.~Roberge. 1994{\natexlab{b}}.
1604: \newblock The dynamics of sustained reentry in a ring model of cardiac tissue.
1605: \newblock \emph{Ann. Biomed. Eng.} 22:568--591.
1606:
1607: \bibitem[{Wellner and Pertsov(1997)}]{Wellner-Pertsov-1997}
1608: Wellner, M., and A.~Pertsov. 1997.
1609: \newblock Generalized eikonal equation in excitable media.
1610: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev E} 55(6):7656--7661.
1611:
1612: \bibitem[{Weiss et~al.(1999)Weiss, Garfinkel, Karagueuzian, Qu, and
1613: Chen}]{Weiss-etal-1999}
1614: Weiss, J., A.~Garfinkel, H.~Karagueuzian, Z.~Qu, and P.-S. Chen. 1999.
1615: \newblock Chaos and the transition to ventricular fibrilation. {A} new approach
1616: to antiarrythmic drug evaluation.
1617: \newblock \emph{Circulation} 99:2819--2826.
1618:
1619: \bibitem[{Comtois and Vinet(1999)}]{Comtois-Vinet-1999}
1620: Comtois, P., and A.~Vinet. 1999.
1621: \newblock Curvature effects on activation and repolarization in an ionic model
1622: of cardiac myocytes.
1623: \newblock \emph{Phys. Rev. E} 60(4):4619--4628.
1624:
1625: \bibitem[{Clancy and Rudy(2001)}]{Clancy-Rudy-2001}
1626: Clancy, C.~E., and Y.~Rudy. 2001.
1627: \newblock Cellular consequences of {HERG} mutations in the long {QT} syndrome:
1628: precursors to sudden cardiac death.
1629: \newblock \emph{Cardiovascular Research} 50:3019--313.
1630:
1631: \bibitem[{Shaw and Rudy(1997)}]{Shaw-Rudy-1997}
1632: Shaw, R.~M., and Y.~Rudy. 1997.
1633: \newblock Ionic mechanisms of propagation in cardiac tissue. roles of the
1634: sodium and {L}-type calcium currents during reduced excitability and
1635: decreased gap junction coupling.
1636: \newblock \emph{Circ. Res.} 81:727--741.
1637:
1638: \bibitem[{NAG()}]{nag_fl_21}
1639: NAG. 2005.
1640: \newblock {The {NAG} Fortran Library Manual --- Mark 21}.
1641: \newblock The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd., Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Rd,
1642: Oxford, OX2 8DR.
1643:
1644: \end{thebibliography}
1645:
1646:
1647:
1648: \clearpage
1649: \newcommand{\mytable}[3]{
1650: \begin{table}[p]
1651: #1
1652: \caption[]{#2}
1653: \label{#3}
1654: \end{table}
1655: } \typeout{tabs started}
1656: \mytable{
1657: \centerline{\begin{tabular}%
1658: {|l|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1659: {\bf Model} & {\bf Wave speed} & {\bf Rel. error} & {\bf Post-front} &
1660: \reva{{\bf Maximum rate}} \\
1661: & & & {\bf voltage} & {\bf of AP rise} \\
1662: & $C$, [mm/ms] & in $C$ & $\Eomega$, [mV]
1663: & $(\de V / \de t)_\mathrm{max}$ [V$/$s] \\[1mm]\hline
1664: The full model of & & & & \\[1mm]
1665: \citet{CRN98}
1666: & 0.2824 & -- & 3.60 & 173.83 \\[1mm]\hline
1667: Model \cite{CRN98} with replacements & & & & \\
1668: $\hbar(\E)\to\hbar(\E)\,\theta(\E_h - \E)$, & & & & \\[1mm]
1669: $\mbar(\E)\to\mbar(\E)\,\theta(\E - \E_m)$
1670: & 0.2130 & 24.5 \% & -0.99 & 173.83\\[1mm]\hline
1671: \Eqs{e:CRN0} with & & & & \\[1mm]
1672: $M(\E)=\mbar(\E)$, $H(\E)=\hbar(\E)$
1673: & 0.2095 & 25.8 \% & -1.06 & 183.82 \\[1mm]\hline
1674: \Eqs{e:CRN0} with & & & & \\[1mm]
1675: $M(\E)=1$, $H(\E)=1$, i.e.
1676: \eqs{e:0020} & 0.2372 & 16.0 \% & 2.89 & 193.66\\[1mm]\hline
1677: \Eqs{e:0020a}
1678: & 0.4422 & 57.3 \% & 18.26 &
1679: 643.97 \\\hline
1680: \end{tabular}}
1681: }{
1682: A comparison of the wave speed $C$ and post-front voltage amplitudes
1683: $\Eomega$ and the maximum rate of AP rise $(\de V / \de t)_\mathrm{max}$
1684: of various approximations to the \citet{CRN98} model. Prior
1685: to firing, the tissue in the models was set at rest at the standard
1686: values of the parameters, see \cite{CRN98}.
1687: In these and other numerical results $\Curv=0$ is assumed
1688: unless explicitly stated otherwise. Space-clamped versions of the
1689: models are used to compute $(\de V / \de t)_\mathrm{max}$.
1690: }{t:01}
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694: % Figures, one per page (fig_1.eps and fig_1.pdf files must be present
1695: % in the document directory)
1696: \renewcommand{\myfigure}[3]{
1697: \clearpage
1698: \begin{figure}
1699: \begin{center}
1700: #1
1701: \end{center}
1702: \caption{#2}
1703: \label{#3}
1704: \end{figure}
1705: }
1706:
1707: \myfigure{
1708: \includegraphics{Fig001.eps}
1709: }{Asymptotic properties of the atrial model of Courtemanche
1710: \etal{} \cite{CRN98}. (a) Time scale functions of dynamical
1711: variables vs.~time. (b) Quasistationary values of the gating
1712: variables $\mbar$ and $\hbar$. (c) Transmembrane voltage $\E$ as a
1713: function of time. (d) Main ionic currents vs.~time.
1714: $I_{\mathrm{in}} =
1715: I_{\mathrm{b,Na}}+I_{\mathrm{NaK}}+I_{\mathrm{Ca,L}}+I_{\mathrm{b,Ca}}+I_{\mathrm{NaCa}}$
1716: and $I_{\mathrm{out}} =
1717: I_{\mathrm{p,Ca}}+I_{\mathrm{K1}}+I_{\mathrm{to}}+I_{\mathrm{Kur}}+I_{\mathrm{Kr}}+I_{\mathrm{Ks}}+I_{\mathrm{b,K}}$
1718: are the sums of all inward and outward currents, respectively and
1719: the individual currents are described in \cite{CRN98}.
1720: The results are obtained
1721: for a space-clamped version of the model at values of the parameters
1722: as given in \cite{CRN98}. In (c) and (d) a
1723: typical AP is triggered by initialising the
1724: transmembrane voltage to a non-equilibrium value of $V=-20$~mV.
1725: }{f:0000}
1726:
1727:
1728:
1729: \myfigure{
1730: \includegraphics{Fig002.eps}
1731: }{
1732: Response to a temporary local block of
1733: excitability ($\Block$) in the models of (A) \citet{CRN98},
1734: (B) FitzHugh-Nagumo \eqs{FHN}
1735: and (C) in \eqs{e:0020}.
1736: The border of the blocked region is shown by broken
1737: lines. Solutions are represented by shades of gray: black is the
1738: smallest and white is the largest value of $\E$ within the
1739: solution. The parameters of the FitzHugh-Nagumo model are
1740: $\beta=0.75$, $\gamma=0.5$ and $\epsilon_\g=0.03$, while for the
1741: two other models the same parameter values as described in
1742: \cite{CRN98} are used, the block is described in the plots.
1743: The value of $j=0.28$ in the block in (c) is just below the
1744: propagation threshold, see \fig{f:0060}.
1745: The time and space ranges (in dimensionless units) are $70
1746: \times 70$ in (B) and $80\times 50$ in (A) and (C).
1747: %- In these and other numerical results, $\Curv=0$ is assumed
1748: %- unless explicitly stated otherwise.
1749: }{f:0010}
1750:
1751:
1752: \myfigure{
1753: \includegraphics{Fig003.eps}
1754: }{
1755: (A) The AP potential and (B) the gating variables $h$ and $m$ as
1756: functions of the travelling wave coordinate $Z=z\sqrt{D}$. The
1757: solution of the model of \citet{CRN98} is given by circles, of the
1758: full three-variable model of \eqs{e:0020} by thin lines, and the
1759: analytical solution given by \eqs{e:0050} for ${\INabar} =
1760: \INabar(\Em)=781.8$, ${\tau_h}= \tau_h(\Em)=1.077$, ${\tau_m}=
1761: \tau_m(\Em)=0.131$, $\Ealpha=-81.18$ mV and $j=0.956$ by thick
1762: lines. The gates $h$ and $m$ are indicated in the plot. The
1763: position of the internal boundary point $\Xi=\xi\sqrt{D}$ is indicated by a
1764: dash-dotted line.
1765: }{f:0020}
1766:
1767:
1768: \myfigure{
1769: \includegraphics{Fig004.eps}
1770: }{The wave speed $C$ as a function of the excitation
1771: parameter $j$. Thick lines: the numerical solution of
1772: \eqs{e:0030}. Thin lines: solution \eq{e:0070} for values
1773: of ${\tau_h}$ and ${\tau_m}$ corresponding to a
1774: selected voltage $\E=\E_*$ in \eqs{e:0030a}.
1775: From right to left:
1776: $\E_*=-28$, $-30$, $\Em$, $-34$, $-36$ $-38$~(mV).
1777: In both cases $\Ealpha=-81.18$~mV and $\Curv=0$~mm$^{-1}$.
1778: }{f:0030}
1779:
1780: \myfigure{
1781: \includegraphics{Fig005.eps}
1782: }{The wave speed $C$ as a function of the time-scale ratio
1783: $\tau_h/\tau_m$ in the caricature model~\eqtwo(e:0030,e:0040).
1784: The values of $\tau_h$
1785: and $\INabar$ are fixed to the values of the corresponding functions in
1786: \eqs{e:0030a} at a selected voltage $\E=\E_*$,
1787: the pre-front voltage is $\Ealpha=-81.18$ mV and curvature is $\Curv=0$~mm$^{-1}$.
1788: Left plot: left to right, $\E_*=-38$, $-36$, $-34$ and $-32.7=\Em$ (mV),
1789: and $j=0.9775$.
1790: Right plot: right to left, $j=0.2$ to $1.0$ and $\E_*=\Em$.
1791: }{f:0031}
1792:
1793: \myfigure{
1794: \includegraphics{Fig006.eps}
1795: }{
1796: The threshold value $\jmin$ above which propagation is
1797: possible,
1798: as a function of the
1799: pre-front voltage $\Ealpha$ for the same values of the
1800: parameters as in \fig{f:0020}, \ie{}
1801: ${\tau_h}= 1.077$, ${\tau_m}= 0.131$.
1802: Shown are different approximations to the perturbation expansion
1803: given by \eq{e:0090}:
1804: solid line, zeroth order, \eq{e:0100};
1805: dashed line, first-order, \eq{e:0101};
1806: dotted line: second-order.
1807: }{f:0040}
1808:
1809: \myfigure{
1810: \includegraphics{Fig007.eps}
1811: }{The wave speed $C$ as a function of $j$ and $\Ealpha$,
1812: for the model of \eqs{e:0030}. Rapid
1813: changes are indicated by a higher density of curves. The thick
1814: dotted line on the base represents the threshold value $\jmin$ and may be
1815: compared to the results in \fig{f:0040}.
1816: }{f:0050}
1817:
1818: \myfigure{
1819: \includegraphics{Fig008.eps}
1820: }{
1821: The thick solid line represents
1822: the threshold value $\jmin$ for excitation failure as a function of $\Ealpha$
1823: for the model given by \eqs{e:0030}.
1824: The dotted lines represent projections of AP trajectories
1825: in the space-clamped detailed model of \cite{CRN98}.
1826: }{f:0060}
1827:
1828: \myfigure{
1829: \includegraphics{Fig009.eps}
1830: }{
1831: Local propagation block, dissipation and break-up of the front of
1832: a re-entrant excitation wave. The density plots represent
1833: the distribution of the transmembrane voltage $\E$
1834: (red component) in regions of super-threshold (white) and of
1835: sub-threshold (blue) excitability $j$.
1836: The white arrow indicates the time and place the propagation block begins.
1837: The time increases from (A) to (F) with $\Delta t = 20$ ms;
1838: size of the simulation domain is $75\,\mathrm{mm}\times75\,\mathrm{mm}$.
1839: }{f:0070}
1840:
1841: \myfigure{
1842: \includegraphics{Fig010.eps}
1843: }{(A) and (B) The wave speed $C$ for the model of
1844: \eqs{e:0030}, \ref{e:0040} as a function of the curvature for values of $j=1 \dots
1845: 0.4$ (from top to bottom). Results for the detailed model
1846: \cite{CRN98} are denoted by thick solid lines. (C) The wave speed
1847: $C$ in the model given by
1848: \eqs{e:0030} as a function of $j$ for $\Curv = 0.1$, 0 and
1849: $-0.1$ mm$^{-1}$ (from top to bottom).
1850: }{f:0080}
1851:
1852:
1853: \end{document}
1854:
1855: