1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{a4wide}

3: \usepackage{amsfonts}          % |

4: \usepackage{amssymb}           % | AmS-LaTeX packages

5: \usepackage{amsmath}           % |

6: \usepackage{color}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \usepackage{psfrag}

9: \usepackage[numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}

10: 

11: \allowdisplaybreaks

12: 

13: % Keystroke saving macros

14: \input{abbr.tex}

15: 

16: % Define the notations

17: \newcommand{\+}[5]{\def#1{{#3}}}

18: \input{nots.tex}

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: \title{Asymptotic analysis and analytical solutions of a  model of cardiac excitation}

22: \author{

23:   V.~N.~Biktashev$^{1}$,

24:   R.~Suckley$^{1}$,

25:   Y.~E.~Elkin$^{2}$ and

26:   R.~D.~Simitev$^{1,3}$

27: }

28: \maketitle

29: 

30: $^1$ Department of Mathematical Sciences,

31:      University of Liverpool, 

32:      Liverpool L69 7ZL, UK 

33: 

34: $^2$ Deceased 25/03/2007. Last affiliation: Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology 

35:      of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino,

36:      and the Pushchino branch of the Moscow State University, Russia

37: 

38: $^3$ Current address: 

39:      Department of Mathematics,

40:      University of Glasgow, 

41:      Glasgow G12 8QW, UK

42: 

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: %

46:   We describe an asymptotic approach to gated ionic  models of

47:   single-cell cardiac excitability. It has a form  essentially  

48:   different from the Tikhonov fast-slow form assumed in standard asymptotic

49:   reductions of excitable systems. This is of

50:   interest since the standard approaches have been previously found

51:   inadequate to describe phenomena such as the dissipation of cardiac

52:   wave fronts and the shape of action potential at repolarization. The

53:   proposed asymptotic description overcomes these deficiencies by

54:   allowing, among other non-Tikhonov features, that a dynamical

55:   variable may change its character from fast to slow within a single

56:   solution. The general asymptotic approach is best demonstrated on an

57:   example which should be both simple and generic. 

58:   The classical model of Purkinje fibers (Noble, 1962) has the

59:   simplest functional form of all cardiac models but according to the current

60:   understanding it assigns a physiologically incorrect role to the Na

61:   current. This leads us to suggest an ``Archetypal Model'' with the simplicity of the Noble

62:   model but with a  structure more typical to contemporary cardiac

63:   models. We demonstrate that 

64:   the Archetypal Model admits a complete asymptotic solution in quadratures.

65:   To validate our asymptotic approach, we proceed  to consider an

66:   exactly solvable ``caricature'' of the Archetypal Model and 

67:   demonstrate that the asymptotic of its exact solution

68:   coincides with the solutions obtained by substituting the ``caricature''

69:   right-hand sides

70:   into the asymptotic solution of the generic Archetypal Model.

71:   This is necessary, because, unlike in standard asymptotic

72:   descriptions, no general results exist which can guarantee the

73:   proximity of the non-Tikhonov asymptotic solutions to the solutions

74:   of the corresponding detailed ionic model.   

75: % 258 words

76: \end{abstract}

77: 

78: \textbf{Keywords} 

79: excitability,

80: action potential,

81: asymptotic methods,

82: singular perturbations.

83: 

84: \pagestyle{myheadings}

85: \thispagestyle{plain}

86: \markboth%

87:   {V.~N.~BIKTASHEV \etal{} (2007/04/04)}%

88:   {Asymptotic analysis of cardiac excitation (2007/04/04)}

89: 

90: 

91: \tableofcontents

92: 

93: \section{Introduction}

94: \label{S:Intro}

95: 

96: \subsection{Physiological and mathematical motivation}

97: \label{S:Intro:Motivation}

98: 

99: Mechanical activity of the heart is controlled by electrical

100: excitation of cardiac cells, characterized by

101: ``action potentials'' (APs) across their membranes.

102: Abnormalities of cardiac rhythm are a major public health hazard

103: \cite{Zipes-Wellens-1998}, and great efforts are directed to the

104: mathematical modelling of APs. Investigations at various levels of

105: membrane, cellular and myocardial organisation have lead to the

106: development of a large number of detailed ionic

107: cardiac models (for reviews, see \eg{}~\cite{%

108:   Glass-etal-1991,%

109:   Holden-Panfilov-1997,%

110:   Kohl-etal-2000,%

111:   Winslow-etal-2000,%

112:   Clayton-2001%

113: }) for  various types of cardiac cells. These detailed models are

114: realistic in the sense that they demonstrate good agreement

115: with experimental data available to their authors at the time 

116: of creating the model. There even exists an

117: optimistic view that with the help of detailed cardiac computational

118: models ``it will soon be possible to do \textit{in silico} experiments that

119: would be impossible, difficult or unethical in animals or patients''

120: \cite{Clayton-2001}.   

121: 

122: In reality however, detailed ionic models of cardiac excitation

123: are immensely complicated. Their

124: analytical solution is impossible while their simulations are expensive

125: especially in three dimensions. Thus, numerous attempts have been made

126: to construct simplified mathematical models of cardiac action potentials (APs); for

127: examples, see \cite{%

128:   vanCapelle-Durrer-1980,%

129:   Karma-1993,%

130:   Aliev-Panfilov-1996,%

131:   Fenton-Karma-1998,%

132:   Rogers-2000,%

133:   Duckett-Barkley-2000,%

134:   Hinch-2002,%

135:   Echebarria-Karma-2002,%

136:   Bernus-etal-2002%

137: }.

138: Detailed ionic cardiac models were initially constructed as variations

139: of the spectacularly successful Hodgkin-Huxley model of nerve

140: excitability \cite{Hodgkin-Huxley-1952}. In a similar way the most

141: simplified cardiac models are often based on the elegant

142: FitzHugh-Nagumo two-variable reduction

143: \cite{FitzHugh-1961,Nagumo-etal-1962} of the Hodgkin-Huxley model.  A

144: typical way to create a simplified model is either to make an

145: appropriate functional generalization of the FitzHugh-Nagumo system,

146: or truncate a detailed ionic models. Then the modellers proceed to fit

147: the parameters of their simplified models to reproduce the AP shape or

148: other selected properties of the chosen detailed ionic model. 

149: 

150: This modelling approach has an obvious flaw, as such simplified models

151: are not reliable outside the range of phenomena which they have been

152: fitted to reproduce. So it would be desirable to \emph{derive} a

153: simplified model from a detailed model, based on a well defined set of

154: verifiable assumptions. One possible way to do that is via asymptotic

155: methods, which would utilize small parameters available in the

156: detailed model.

157: 

158: More importantly, reducing the \emph{number of equations} in the model often

159: delivers only minor reduction of its computational complexity.

160: Paradoxically, the better a simplified model is, the better it

161: reproduces another difficult feature of realistic models, their

162: \emph{stiffness}. 

163: That is,

164: detailed ionic models typically

165: have small parameters which considerably complicate their simulation.

166: However it would be natural to try and eliminate those parameters by

167: asymptotic methods, and resulting problems without small parameters

168: should be much easier for computational study.

169: 

170: Yet another paradoxical property of ionic models is that increasing

171: the number of physiological details does not necessarily make the

172: models more reliable, as experimental data are not always sufficient

173: for unequivocal identification of model parameters.  As argued by

174: Cherry and Fenton~\cite{Cherry-Fenton-2006}, detailed ionic models of

175: the same types of cells in the same species, but developed by

176: different authors, may disagree significantly. Thus there is a demand

177: in modelling practice for models that would be realistic

178: physiologically but independent on experimentally unreliable details,

179: i.e. depend on fewer parameters. Again, one possible way to create

180: such a model is to simplify a ``too detailed'' model by eliminating

181: exceeding details by some sort of asymptotic procedure.

182: 

183: So there is more than one serious reason to look more carefully into

184: the small parameters in detailed ionic models. The progress in

185: this direction was hampered for some time by implicit assumption,

186: induced by the success of the FitzHugh-Nagumo system, 

187: that

188: the essential properties of cardiac APs can be captured by dynamical

189: systems of the type

190: \begin{gather}

191: \label{tikhonov}

192:   \eps \Df{\x}{\t} = \f(\x,\y), \quad  \Df{\y}{\t} = \g(\x,\y), \qquad

193:    \x \in\Real^k, \;

194:    \y \in \Real^l, \;

195:   \eps \ll 1,

196: \end{gather}

197: in which some of the dynamic variables are fast ($\x$) while others are

198: slow ($\y$) and where $\eps>0$ is a small parameter.  The asymptotic

199: structure of \eqref{tikhonov} is mathematically very

200: convenient. Indeed, the presence of the small parameter $\eps$ at the

201: derivatives  allows to ``dissect'' equations 

202: \eqref{tikhonov}, in the leading order in $\eps$, into a slow-time (degenerate) subsystem

203: \begin{gather}

204: \label{tikhonovslow}

205:   0=\f(\x,\y), \quad   \Df{\y}{\t}=\g(\x,\y),

206: \end{gather}

207: and a fast-time subsystem 

208: \begin{gather}

209: \label{tikhonovfast}

210:   \Df{\x}{\T}=\f(\x,\y), \quad   \Df{\y}{\T}=0,

211: \end{gather}

212: with  $\T=\eps\,\t$, which are much easier to study. 

213: It is assumed that the fast subsystem \eqref{tikhonovfast} has, for all relevant values of $v$,

214: no attractors but isolated, asymptotically stable equilibria. 

215: There exist a classical theory stating the general conditions

216: which guarantee that, in the limit of $\eps\to0$, 

217: any finite segment of the graph of solution

218: of the full equations \eqref{tikhonov} 

219: approaches uniformly to that of the degenerate subsystem

220: \eqref{tikhonovslow} which, in turn, consists of slow-motion parts and

221: fast-motion parts separated by junction points. The slow-motion parts

222: are on the $l$-dimensional ``slow manifold'' determined by the first $k$

223: equations in \eqref{tikhonovslow} and the fast-motion parts

224: are arcs of trajectories of \eqref{tikhonovfast} within leaves

225: of the ``fast foliation'' $\y=\const$ \cite[p.173]{Mishchenko-Rozov}.

226: A central result of the theory of slow-fast systems is the Tikhonov

227: theorem \cite{Tikhonov-1952}. 

228: 

229: A paradigm for applying the theory of fast-slow systems to biological

230: excitability has been laid down by Zeeman \cite{Zeeman-1972}. His

231: fundamental idea is a generalization of the FitzHugh-Nagumo view and

232: states that the resting state is the unique and globally stable

233: equilibrium of the full system, but in the fast subsystem, it is only

234: one of three equilibria. There is another stable equilibria

235: corresponding to the excited state, and the two stable equilibria are

236: separated by an unstable equilibrium which thereby represents the

237: threshold of excitation. The repolarization from the excited state, which is

238: an equilibrium in the fast subsystem but not in the full system, to

239: the resting state which is the true equilibrium, happens via the slow

240: system, and its details, i.e. the shape of the action potential,

241: depends on the structure of the slow manifold.

242: 

243: Thus, we refer to excitable systems with the asymptotic structure of

244: equations \eqref{tikhonov} as FitzHugh-Nagumo type or Tikhonov-Zeeman

245: systems.

246: 

247: Extension of this ideology to spatially-extended excitable systems

248: produces a very attractive and promising asymptotic theory, see

249: e.g. \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988} for a review.  In this theory,

250: description of excitation waves is decoupled into description of fast

251: motion of their sharp ``fronts'' and ``backs'', and description of slow parts of

252: APs outside fronts and backs. After appropriate rescaling, both the

253: fast and the slow subsystems do not have the small parameter in them,

254: so their numerical simulation could be implemented efficiently.

255: 

256: However, this attractive theory was never really applied to cardiac

257: ionic models. It appears that FitzHugh-Nagumo type systems fail, in

258: principle, to reproduce some \emph{qualitative} features of ionic models.

259: Here are some examples.

260: 

261: \subsubsection*{Features of cardiac excitability:}

262: 

263: \begin{enumerate} 

264: %

265: \item \label{slow-repolarization} \textbf{Slow repolarization.}

266: Cardiac APs tend to have very fast upstrokes and much slower

267: other phases, including repolarization (``downstroke'').  In the

268: asymptotic limit $\eps\to0$, a FitzHugh-Nagumo system of the form

269: \eqref{tikhonov} with $l=1$ will have a fast, i.e. duration

270: $\t\sim \eps$, upstroke of the action potential will have

271: also fast, $\sim\eps$ downstroke. In principle, this can be avoided

272: if the slow manifold, defined by $\f(\x,\y)=0$, has a cusp singularity

273: with respect to foliation $\y=\const$, which is theoretically possible

274: if $l\geq2$ \cite{Zeeman-1972}. However, our attempts to identify such

275: a cusp singularity in cardiac equations have not been successful

276: \cite{Suckley-Biktashev-2003b,Biktasheva-etal-2006}

277: %

278: \item \label{slow-subthreshold} \textbf{Slow subthreshold response.}

279: An excitable system reacts to a subthreshold stimulus by an

280: immediate return to the resting state. In the asymptotic limit

281: $\eps\to0$, a FitzHugh-Nagumo system of the form

282: \eqref{tikhonov} will have both subthreshold return and super-threshold

283: upstroke very fast, $\t\sim\eps$. However, subthreshold

284: return in real cells and realistic models has speed comparable to the

285: slow stages of the AP, i.e. much slower than the upstroke.

286: %

287: \item \label{accommodation} \textbf{Fast accommodation.}

288: If the stimulus is applied not instantly but gradually, then the

289: threshold of excitation may increase, and if the perturbation is too

290: slow, the system may fail to generate AP altogether (phenomenon known

291: as accommodation). FitzHugh-Nagumo systems demonstrate accommodation

292: but only if the time scale of the stimulus is comparable to the

293: duration of the AP. In real cells and realistic models, accommodation

294: is observed for much faster stimuli, comparable more to the upstroke

295: duration than to the AP duration.

296: %

297: \item \label{variable-peak} \textbf{Variable peak voltage.}

298: The maximum of the AP in a single cell does not, in the first

299: approximation, depend on the way the AP has been elicited. Moreover,

300: the asymptotic theory of \cite{Tyson-Keener-1988} predicts that the

301: maximum of the AP in a propagating wave will be the same as in a

302: single cell.  However, in real cells and in realistic models the

303: maximum of AP does depend on the mode of excitation, and in the

304: propagating AP it could be significantly different than in a single

305: cell.

306: %

307: \item \label{front-dissipation} \textbf{Front dissipation.}

308: The fast accommodation of realistic models has an interesting

309: consequence for propagating waves. If excitability ahead of the wave

310: is temporarily blocked by a transient process, the wave will expire if

311: the block lasts too long. In a FitzHugh-Nagumo type system, this will

312: happen if the duration of the block equals the duration of the wave;

313: that is, the wave will cease when its 

314: ``length'', understood as the spatial size of the excited zone, has

315: decreased to zero \cite{Weiss-etal-2000}.  In contrast, in ionic models the

316: front looses its sharpness, ``dissipates'', much sooner than AP finishes,

317: and after that fails to propagate even though AP continues in

318: many cells and the excitability of the tissue ahead of the wave has

319: fully recovered 

320: \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktasheva-2003,Biktashev-Biktasheva-2005}.

321: %

322: \end{enumerate}

323: 

324: In this article, we describe a non-Tikhonov asymptotic approach to

325: cardiac excitation. Its purpose is to overcome the limitations of

326: simplified models of FitzHugh-Nagumo type discussed above. The

327: approach has already been used in some form in

328: \cite{Simitev-Biktashev-2006} to achieve numerically accurate

329: prediction of the front propagation velocity (within 16\,\%) and its

330: profile (within $0.7$\,mV) for a realistic model of human atrial

331: tissue \cite{CRN}. The asymptotic reduction was sufficiently simple to

332: allow the derivation of an analytical condition for propagation block

333: in a re-entrant wave which was in an excellent agreement with results

334: of direct numerical simulations of the realistic atrial ionic

335: model. This has been achieved by considering only the ``fast

336: subsystem'' of the full model. 

337: 

338: 

339: Here we take a further step and present a complete asymptotic

340: description of a simple cardiac excitation model, including both fast

341: subsystem and slow subsystem, i.e. describing the whole AP rather than

342: the upstroke only. A brief sketch of this description has been

343: outlined in \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}. That sketch has left

344: several questions unanswered, and the purpose of the present article

345: is to fill in the gaps.

346: The asymptotic reductions we propose are based on a well-defined and

347: verifiable set of assumptions and in this sense they are ``derived''

348: from a detailed ionic model.  We do not include arbitrary fitting

349: parameters which limit the model to the reproduction of few

350: hand-picked AP properties. All arbitrariness is restricted to choice

351: of small parameters in the model, which is the key stage in any

352: asymptotic approach. In our approach, the main small parameter

353: occurs in an essentially different way from \eqref{tikhonov}.

354: Consequently, the results of the classical

355: theory of slow-fast systems \cite{Mishchenko-Rozov} are not

356: applicable. In other words, there is no existing rigorous theory which can

357: guarantee that the asymptotic solutions are close to the true

358: solutions of the corresponding detailed ionic model. 

359: To deal with this issue, we formulate a caricature model which exactly

360: duplicates the asymptotic structure of a detailed ionic model but

361: allows exact analytical solution. We proceed to apply the asymptotic

362: procedure to this caricature and to compare the exact and the

363: asymptotic solutions in order to validate our approach.

364: 

365: To demonstrate our approach, we need to chose an appropriate gated

366: ionic model. Such a selected model must satisfy two criteria. Firstly

367: it should be as simple as possible. Secondly, it should have the

368: generic structure similar to all or most of contemporary ionic

369: models. The first requirement is best satisfied by the classical Noble

370: model of excitability of cardiac Purkinje fibers \cite{N62}. This

371: model has spawned generations of models of increasing accuracy and

372: complexity up to modern models with more than sixty differential

373: equations per single cell~\cite{Iyer-etal-2004}. The Noble model,

374: however, does not satisfy the second requirement. Indeed, while that

375: model reproduces the AP of Purkinje fibers in detail, it does not

376: correctly reflect their physiology.  As the model was constructed

377: before sufficient experimental data on the ionic currents became

378: available \cite{Noble-Rudy-2001}, the inward sodium current was given

379: the dual role of generating the upstroke and maintaining the

380: plateau. To avoid this peculiarity and to ensure that our asymptotic

381: procedure is sufficiently general, we propose an ``Archetypal Model'' (AM) which has

382: the generic structure of modern cardiac models but keeps the

383: functional simplicity of the the Noble model and is identical to it in

384: the asymptotic limit.  The asymptotic procedure is then demonstrated

385: on the example of this Archetypal Model.

386: 

387: The structure of the paper is as follows. We conclude the

388: Introduction with a short discussion of the procedure of parametric

389: embedding which is an important instrument in our work.  In

390: section~\ref{S:Noble}, we use a set of numerical observations to

391: postulate a system of axioms for a non-Tikhonov parametric embedding

392: of the Noble model.  In section~\ref{S:AM}, we describe the AM and

393: discuss its similarities with contemporary ionic models

394: and then study the asymptotic limits of the AM and obtain analytical

395: solutions in quadratures in these limits.

396: In section~\ref{S:Caricature}, we formulate the exactly solvable

397: ``caricature'' simplification of the AM.  In

398: section~\ref{S:Validation}, we validate our general asymptotic results

399: by a comparison of the limits of the exact solution of the caricature

400: model to its solution in the asymptotic limit. We conclude by

401: outlining the most essential features of our approach and discussing

402: possibilities for its application.

403: 

404: In all asymptotics, we restrict consideration to the leading order,

405: with the exception of Appendix~\ref{S:Accurate} which is about a

406: first-order correction.

407: 

408: Some parts of this work (subsections %

409:   \ref{S:Intro:Embedding},

410:   \ref{S:Noble:Formulation},

411:   \ref{S:Noble:Axiomatic},

412:   \ref{S:AM:Formulation},

413:   \ref{S:AM:Asymptotics}%

414: )

415: appeared in a very brief form in

416: \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004} 

417: and are reproduced here in the full form, with additional details, for completeness

418: and convenience of reference in the rest of the article;

419: other parts (subsections %

420:   \ref{S:Noble:Naive},

421:   \ref{S:Noble:Explicit},

422: sections

423:   \ref{S:Caricature}

424: and

425:   \ref{S:Validation}

426: and appendices A, B and C

427: ) are entirely new.

428: 

429: 

430: \subsection{The procedure of parametric embedding}

431: \label{S:Intro:Embedding} % BS04: yes

432: 

433: The nonlinear problems of physical, 

434: chemical and biological applications do not normally have 

435: parameters which are literally approaching zero within their normal

436: range relevant to the application. Hence, a typical practical approach

437: to asymptotic reduction is to identify a ``small constant'', say $a$,

438: in the model and to replace it by a parameter $\epsilon$, so that the

439: original problem corresponds to $\epsilon=a$, whereas the asymptotic

440: formulae are obtained in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. A

441: mathematically equivalent modification of this procedure is based on

442: the following

443: 

444: \begin{definition}

445: A \emph{parametric embedding} 

446: with parameter $\epsilon$ of a function $f(x)$

447: is any function $\emb{f}(x;\epsilon)$ such that

448: $\emb{f}(x,1)= f(x)$ for all $x\in \dom(f)$. A parametric embedding in

449: the context of $\epsilon\rightarrow0$ is called \emph{asymptotic

450: embedding}. An embedding of a dynamical system corresponds to an

451: embedding of its generating vector field or map.

452: \end{definition}

453: 

454: 

455: Thus, the ``small constant'' $a$ is replaced by $\epsilon a$, and

456: then the original problem corresponds to $\epsilon=1$ while the

457: asymptotic analysis is performed in the limit

458: $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. As long as $a$ is a nonzero constant, the

459: limits $\epsilon\to$ and $\epsilon a\to$ are

460: mathematically equivalent. The purpose of the above definition is

461: uniformity, especially when the small parameters appear in more than

462: one place in the equations.   

463: From this perspective, the algorithm of obtaining an approximation

464: using, say, a partial sum of an asymptotic series is: the power

465: series in $\epsilon$ is truncated to a selected number of terms, and

466: then $\epsilon=1$ substituted in the result. When applied formally,

467: this may look counter-intuitive, and yet for reasons explained above,

468: this is precisely equivalent to what is always done when ``small

469: quantities up to a certain order'' are taken into account in any

470: asymptotic approach.

471: 

472: So, asymptotic analysis of a mathematical model by

473: necessity implies introduction of artificial small parameters, which

474: is  equivalent to drawing a curve in functional space,

475: $\emb{f}(x;\epsilon)$, with the only condition that at $\epsilon=1$

476: this curve passes through the given point $f(x)$. There are

477: infinitely many ways to do  this, and the question arises, which

478: of these embeddings is ``the correct'' or ``the better'' one. Unless

479: the resulting asymptotic series for the solutions are converging and

480: the error terms can be estimated, there is no obvious answer to this

481: question within a purely mathematical context. So the choice should be

482: based on practical considerations. 

483: The embedding should be such as to allow efficient asymptotic analysis. 

484: A better embedding should also

485: provide a better quantitative approximation for a selected

486: class of solutions to the original problem, and/or preserve better

487: their qualitative features of interest. For a given embedding, these aspects

488: can be verified by comparing solutions at $\epsilon=1$ with solutions at smaller

489: $\epsilon$. In terms of the more conventional ``small constant'' $a$

490: approach, the procedure is to verify if $a$ is indeed small enough to be

491: used for asymptotics and try to reduce it further and see how the

492: solutions behave. Note this can be done numerically, prior to any

493: analytical work.   

494: 

495: In this paper, we are interested in AP solutions. Typically, we will propose an embedding

496: and assess its quality by comparing the numerical AP solutions at

497: $\epsilon=1$ and $\epsilon=10^{-3}$. If the embedding is found

498: reasonable, we proceed to study the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$

499: analytically.   

500: 

501: \section{The Noble model}

502: \label{S:Noble}

503: 

504: \subsection{Formulation}

505: \label{S:Noble:Formulation} % BS04: yes

506: 

507: The original Noble \cite{N62} model may be simplified by an

508: adiabatic elimination of the super-fast $\m$-gate,  

509: \begin{subequations}

510: \label{N62}

511: \begin{align}

512: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \gone(\E)\,\mbarcub(\E)\,\h + \gtwo(\E)\,\n^4 + \gthree(\E),\\

513: & \Df{\h}{\t} = \fone(\E)\,\left(\hbar(\E) - \h \right), \\

514: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\,\left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right),  

515: \end{align}

516: \end{subequations}

517: %

518: where

519: \begin{equation}

520: \begin{split}

521: & \gone(\E) = \CM^{-1} \gNa\left(\ENa-\E\right), \quad \gtwo(\E) = \CM^{-1} \gK\left(\EK-\E\right), \\

522: & \gthree(\E) = \CM^{-1} \left[\gNap\left(\ENa-\E\right) + \gKp(\E)\left(\EK-\E\right) \right], \\

523: & \gKp(\E)=1.2\exp\left((-\E-90)/50\right)+0.015\,\exp\left((\E+90)/60\right), \\

524: & \ybar(\E)=\alpha_y(\E)/\left(\alpha_y(\E)+\beta_y(\E)\right), \quad y=\h,\n,\m, \\

525: & f_y(\E) = \alpha_y(\E)+\beta_y(\E), \quad y=\h,\n, \\

526: & \alpha_m(\E)=\frac{0.1\,\left(-\E-48\right)}{\exp\left((-\E-48)/15\right)-1} ,  \quad

527:   \beta_m(\E) =\frac{0.12\,\left(\E+8\right)}{\exp\left((\E+8)/5\right)-1}, \\

528: & \alpha_h(\E)=0.17\,\exp\left((-\E-90)/20\right), \quad

529:   \beta_h(\E) =\frac{1}{\exp\left((-\E-42)/10\right)+1}, \\

530: & \alpha_n(\E)=\frac{0.0001\,\left(-\E-50\right)}{\exp\left((-\E-50)/10\right)-1}, \quad

531:   \beta_n(\E) =0.002\,\exp\left((-\E-90)/80\right),

532: \end{split}

533: \label{N62-funs}

534: \end{equation}

535: %

536: and 

537: \begin{equation}

538: \CM=12, \quad \gNa=400, \quad \gK=1.2, \quad \gNap=0.14, \quad \EK=-110 

539:         \quad \textrm{and} \quad \ENa=40.

540:                                                         \label{N62-consts}

541: \end{equation}

542: %

543: Here $\E$ is the transmembrane voltage with values $\E\in[\EK,\ENa]$,

544: and $\h$ and $\n$ are ``gating variables'' with ranges $\h\in[0,1]$,

545: $\n\in[0,1]$; more specifically, $\h$ is the inactivation gate of the fast sodium current $\INa$

546: (the first term in the equation for $\d\E/\d\t$)

547: and $\n$ is the activation gate of the slow potassium current $\IK$

548: (the second term in the equation for $\d\E/\d\t$).

549: Notice that $\gone(\E)\ge0$ (this represents an ``inward current'') 

550: and $\gtwo\le0$ (this represents an ``outward'' current).

551: Our choice for the value of the parameter $\EK$ differs from

552: the original value of $\EK=-100$ used in \cite{N62}. This transforms the

553: Noble system  \cite{N62} from a self-oscillatory to an excitable one.

554: Another possibility to achieve this effect is to increase the value of the 

555: coefficient at the first exponent in $\gKp$, as suggested  in

556: \cite{N62,Krinsky-Kokoz-1973}, which leads to similar

557: results \cite{Biktashev-Suckley-2004}.

558: Equations \eqref{N62} represent a good simplification of the Noble

559: model \cite{N62} as can be seen by the insignificant difference in the

560: solutions plotted in \fig{01}(a).  

561: \input{fig1.tex}

562: 

563: \subsection{Naive embedding}

564: \label{S:Noble:Naive} % BS04: no

565: 

566: Seeking further simplification, we note that the functions

567: $\mbarcub(\E)$ and $\hbar(\E)$ are approximately  

568: stepwise as illustrated in \fig{02}(a). Thus, as suggested in

569: \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003}, 

570: the crudest approximation of \eqref{N62} is given by 

571: % 

572: \begin{equation}

573: \mbarcub(\E) \approx \Heav(\E-\Em), \qquad \hbar(\E) \approx \Heav(\Eh-\E),

574:                 \label{PureHeaviside}

575: \end{equation}

576: %

577: where $\Em$, $\Eh$ satisfy $\mbarcub(\Em)=1/2$ and $\hbar(\Eh)=1/2$,

578: respectively and $\Heav(\cdot)$ is the Heaviside step function.

579: A similar approximation was done in several earlier simplified models,

580: e.g.~\cite{Fenton-Karma-1998,Echebarria-Karma-2002,Hinch-2002}.

581: They typically took, for simplicity, that $\Eh=\Em$. 

582: This however leads to unsatisfactory description of the 

583: front dissipation phenomenon~\cite{Biktashev-2003}.

584: 

585: The naive approximation \eqref{PureHeaviside} turns out to be unsuccessful as

586: shown in \fig{01}(a). The AP produced when \eqref{PureHeaviside}

587: is used does not have a plateau but returns immediately to the resting

588: state. The reason for this behaviour is revealed by an analysis of the

589: individual currents which are illustrated in \fig{01}(b) both for

590: the detailed system \eqref{N62} and for the approximation

591: \eqref{PureHeaviside}. In the detailed model, the sodium current

592: remains significant during the plateau phase, successfully

593: counteracting the potassium current for some time. In the 

594: approximated model, this current is virtually absent after the

595: initial upstroke. This is due to the fact that during the slow

596: decrease of the voltage, both the $\m$ and $\h$ gates remain close to

597: their quasi-stationary values $\mbar$, $\hbar$, and their product

598: $\W(\E)\equiv \mbarcub\hbar$ is exactly zero in the approximated model. In

599: contrast, in the detailed model, this product remains

600: significant and although it is much smaller than unity, when

601: multiplied by the large factor $\gNa$, produces a sodium current which

602: is comparable to the potassium and the leakage currents. The current

603: $\W(\E)$ is called the ``window'' sodium current, because it runs in the region of

604: voltages between $\Eh$ and $\Em$ where the gates are supposed to be

605: ``almost closed''~\cite{Attwell-etal-1979}. 

606: 

607: \subsection{Axiomatic embedding}

608: \label{S:Noble:Axiomatic} % BS04: yes

609: 

610: In this section we consider a more elaborate parametric embedding, 

611: the asymptotic limit of which dissects equations \eqref{N62} into simpler

612: subsystems.

613: It 

614: is based on a number of  observations  of the properties of

615: the Noble model, which will be discussed below, and may be formalized

616: in the following

617: 

618: \begin{axioms}

619: The functions $\gNa$, $\fone(\E)$, $\hbar(\E)$ and $\mbarcub(\E)$ are

620: parametrically embedded in the functions $\emb{\gNa}(\eps)$,

621: $\emb{\fone}(\E;\eps)$, $\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)$ and

622: $\emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)$, $\eps>0$,  such that  

623: % 

624: \begin{axiomlist}{\rule{5em}{0mm}}

625:   \item[Axiom I.] $\emb{\gNa}(\epsilon)=\eps^{-1}\gNa$,

626:   \item[Axiom II.] $\emb{\fone}(\E;\eps)=\eps^{-1}\fone(\E)$,

627:   \item[Axiom III.] $\lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow0} \; \emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)

628:  =\M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em)$, \\

629: where  the function $\M(\E)$ is close to $\mbarcub(\E)$ for $\E>\Em$, 

630:   \item[Axiom IV.] $\lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow0} \;

631:     \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)=\H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$  \\

632:     where the function $\H(\E)$ is close to $\hbar(\E)$ for $\E<\Eh$,

633:   \item[Axiom V.] $\Em>\Eh$,

634:   \item[Axiom VI.] $\lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow 0} \;

635: \left(\eps^{-1}\emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)\,\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)\right)

636: \equiv\Wtilde(\E) > 0$, \\

637: where  $\Wtilde(\E)$ is close to 

638: the window current $\W(\E)\equiv\mbarcub(\E)\hbar(\E)$,

639:   \item[Axiom VII.]  $\displaystyle \lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow0}

640:     \emb{\S}(\E;\eps) \equiv

641: \lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow0}

642:     \left(\emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps) \df{}{\E}\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)\right) =0$.

643: \end{axiomlist}

644: \end{axioms}

645: 

646: Indeed, the permittivity of the Na current $\gNa=400$ is large compared to

647: those of the other currents  $\gK=1.2$, $\max(\gKp)=1.8$ and

648: $\gNap=0.14$ and thus the values of associated small 

649: constants $g_x/\gNa$, $g_x=\gK, \gKp,\gNap$ are of the order of

650: $10^{-2}$. This observation is formalized in Axiom I by an introduction of

651: a small parameter $\eps$ which divides $\gNa$. 

652: %

653: Axiom II is postulated on the basis of the observation that

654: the function $\fone(\E)$ is large compared to $\ftwo(\E)$ as

655: illustrated in \fig{02}(b). These functions are reciprocal to the

656: time-scale functions of the gates $\h$ and $\n$ and therefore $\h$ is

657: a fast variable while $n$ is slow. The speed of $\h$ is even comparable to

658: $\E$ during the upstroke. These observations are justified in

659: \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003}, where we argued that although in healthy tissue  $\E$

660: can be, or at least seems, faster than $\h$, there are important

661: applications where the two variables should be considered of

662: comparable speed. 

663: %

664: Axioms III (IV) are suggested by the fact that functions

665: $\mbarcub(\E)$ ($\hbar(\E)$) are close to $1$ above (below) some

666: switch voltages $\Em$ ($\Eh$), and almost vanish

667: otherwise as seen in \fig{02}(a). The two Axioms do 

668: not give a precise definition of the functions $\H(\E)$ and $\M(\E)$, they

669: only  require that these are reasonably close to $\hbar(\E)$ and

670: $\mbarcub(\E)$ for those values of $\E$ where these functions are not

671: small. Here ``reasonably close'' means that replacement of  

672: $\hbar(\E)$ with $\H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$ and

673: $\mbarcub(\E)$ with $\M(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Em)$ should not change

674: significantly the properties of the solution.

675: A possible choice for $\Em$ and $\Eh$ is so that they satisfy

676: $\mbarcub(\Em)=1/2$ and $\hbar(\Eh)=1/2$.

677: %

678: Axiom V is clearly satisfied for equations \eqref{N62} as shown in

679: \fig{02}(a). Some simplified models take $\Em=\Eh$ in similar situations~\cite{%

680:   Fenton-Karma-1998,%

681:   Hinch-2002,%

682:   Echebarria-Karma-2002%

683: }, however we already know that such simplification affects the

684: ``front dissipation'' feature of realistic models \cite{Biktashev-2003}.

685: Axioms III--V have a corollary that

686: \begin{equation}

687:   \lim\limits_{\eps\rightarrow0}\left(\emb{\mbarcub}(\E;

688:   \eps)\,\emb{\hbar}(\E; \eps)\right)=0.

689:   \label{Wsmall}  

690: \end{equation}

691: %

692: This indicates that the permittivity of the window current $\W(\E)$

693: is small of the order $\eps$. However,

694: as discussed in subsection~\ref{S:Noble:Naive},

695: it is a particular property

696: of the Noble model that the window current is finite since

697: it is multiplied by the large factor $\gNa$ which is of order

698: $\eps^{-1}$. To ensure this we postulate Axiom VI.

699: %

700: Finally, \fig{02}(b) demonstrates the plausibility of Axiom VII

701: where the graph of the function $\S(\E)\equiv\emb{\S}(\E;1)$ is shown.

702: \input{fig2.tex}

703: 

704: Thus, according to Axioms I--VII the parametric embedding of the model

705: \eqref{N62} is 

706: %

707: \begin{subequations} 

708: \begin{align}       

709: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \eps^{-1} \gone(\E)\, \emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)\, \h + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E),	\label{embed01} \\

710: & \Df{\h}{\t} = \eps^{-1} \fone(\E)\, \left( \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) - \h \right), 			\label{embed02} \\

711: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right).  						\label{embed03}

712: \end{align}												\label{embed0}

713: \end{subequations}

714: %

715: First, we consider this system in the fast time $\T=\t/\eps$. Changing

716: the independent variable from $\t$ to  $\T$, taking the limit

717: $\eps\rightarrow0$ and using Axioms III and IV, we obtain the fast-time system,\footnote{

718:   Technically, the dynamic variables $\E$, $\h$ and $\n$ as

719:   functions of $\T$ ought to be denoted by different letters than the

720:   same variables as functions of $\t$. 

721:   We follow the tradition, however, and

722:   neglect this subtlety. 

723:   Later we comment on some cases to avoid

724:   ambiguity caused by this compromise.

725: }

726: %

727: \begin{equation}

728: \begin{split}

729: & \Df{\E}{\T} = \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h, \\

730: & \Df{\h}{\T} = \fone(\E)\, \left(\H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\h) - \h \right),  \\

731: & \Df{\n}{\T} = 0. 							

732: \end{split}												\label{embed0fast} 

733: \end{equation}

734: %

735: As intended, the right-hand sides of the first two equations are

736: nonzero, thus we have two fast variables, $\E$ and $\h$.  The slow

737: manifold is the set of equilibria of this system and it is defined by

738: the finite equations 

739: %

740: \begin{align}

741: & \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h = 0, \label{Econdition} \\

742: & \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h = 0, \label{hcondition} 

743: \end{align}

744: %

745: since $\gone(\E)>0$, $\fone(\E)>0$ in the physiological range of the voltage,

746: $\E\in[\EK,\ENa]$.  Substitution of \eqref{hcondition} into

747: \eqref{Econdition} with account of Axiom V turns \eqref{Econdition}

748: into an identity as the product of the two Heaviside functions

749: vanishes. Thus, we have a codimension-1 slow manifold, defined by

750: equation \eqref{hcondition}. This is a non-Tikhonov feature since in

751: Tikhonov systems \cite{Mishchenko-Rozov}

752: the

753: codimension of  the slow manifold is equal to the number of fast variables. This 

754: peculiar feature results from \eqref{Econdition} becoming an identity if

755: \eqref{hcondition} is satisfied, which, in turn, is due to a near-perfect

756: switch behaviour of $\hbar(\E)$ and $\mbarcub(\E)$, becoming 

757: perfect switches in the limit $\eps\rightarrow0$. A consequence of this

758: feature is that the equilibria of the fast system are not

759: isolated. Therefore, Tikhonov's theorem \cite{Tikhonov-1952} is not

760: applicable as it requires asymptotic stability of equilibria of the

761: fast system which does take place here.

762: The fact that our parametric embedding is a non-Tikhonov one was 

763: already obvious from the dependence of \eqref{embed0} on the 

764: small parameter which is not of the form allowed by Tikhonov's

765: theorem, namely the large parameter  $\eps^{-1}$ in the first equation

766: multiplies only one of the terms in the right-hand side, rather than

767: the whole right-hand side.

768: 

769: Since Tikhonov's theorem cannot be used to describe the slow motion in

770: the standard way, we discuss it in more detail, however without

771: attempts of rigorous treatment. We consider system \eqref{embed0} in

772: the original (slow) time, and restrict our attention to trajectories

773: near the slow manifold, \ie{} ones for which $\h\approx\emb{\hbar}(\E;0)$.  

774: By re-arranging equation \eqref{embed02}, and assuming that when moving

775: along the slow manifold the derivative $\d{\h}/\d{\t}$ is of order

776: unity (this assumption is confirmed by the following result), we obtain

777: %

778: \begin{equation}

779:   \h = \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) - \frac{\eps}{\fone(\E)} \Df{\h}{\t} =

780:   \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) + O(\eps).

781: \label{h-mfd}

782: \end{equation}

783: From here we deduce that $\h=\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) + O(\eps)$.

784: Differentiating this with respect to time and substituting the result

785: back into the right-hand side of \eqref{h-mfd}, we obtain

786: %

787: \begin{equation}

788:   \h = \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) - \frac{\eps}{\fone(\E)}\,

789:   \df{\emb{\hbar}}{\E} \Df{\E}{\t} + O(\eps^2),

790: \label{h-mfd-2}

791: \end{equation}

792: which substituted in equation \eqref{embed01} yields

793: %

794: \begin{gather}

795:   \Df{\E}{\t} =

796:   \eps^{-1} \gone(\E)\, \emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)\, \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) 

797:   -  \frac{\gone(\E)}{\fone(\E)}\, \emb{\S}(\E;\eps)\,\Df{\E}{\t}

798:   + O(\eps) 

799: %\nonumber\\

800: %  \mbox{} 

801: + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E),

802: \label{h-mfd-subs}

803: \end{gather}

804: %

805: where the function $\emb{\S}(\E;\eps)$ is defined in Axiom VII. 

806: Using Axiom VI for the first term and Axiom VII for the second term

807: and taking the limit $\eps\rightarrow0$ we obtain the slow-time system,

808: %

809: \begin{equation}

810: \begin{split}

811: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \gone(\E)\, \Wtilde(\E) + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E), \\

812: & \h = \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E), \\

813: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right).

814: \end{split} 										\label{embed0slow}

815: \end{equation}

816: %

817: This is a system of two differential equations for the slow variables

818: $\E$ and $\n$ plus a finite equation for $\h$ defining the slow

819: manifold. Note that we have two slow variables in agreement with the

820: two dimensions of the slow manifold. Thus, $\E$ is both a fast and a

821: slow variable which is yet another non-Tikhonov feature.   

822: \input{fig3.tex}

823: 

824: \subsection{Explicit embedding}

825: \label{S:Noble:Explicit} % BS04: no

826: 

827: To show that Axioms I--VII are consistent and usable we need to

828: demonstrate that there exist embedding functions $\emb{\gNa}$, 

829: $\emb{\fone}$, $\emb{\hbar}$ and $\emb{\mbarcub}$ which satisfy these

830: axioms. The first two functions are already 

831: defined by Axioms I and II. Thus, in this section we suggest an explicit

832: dependence of $\emb{\mbarcub}$ and $\emb{\hbar}$ on $\eps$ which

833: satisfies Axioms III--VI, namely

834: %

835: \begin{subequations}

836: \begin{align}

837: & \emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps) \equiv \M(\E)\; \left(

838:    \eps^\p\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) + \eps^\r\, \Heav(\E-\Eh)\,\Heav(\Em-\E) + \Heav(\E-\Em)

839:   \right), 										\label{m-emb} \\

840: & \emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps) \equiv \H(\E)\; \left(

841:     \Heav(\Eh-\E) + \eps^{1-\r}\, \Heav(\E-\Eh)\,\Heav(\Em-\E) + \eps^\q\,\Heav(\E-\Em)

842:   \right), 										\label{h-emb} 

843: \end{align}										\label{mh-emb}

844: \end{subequations}

845: %

846: where $\p\in[1,+\infty)$, $\q\in[1,+\infty)$, $\r\in(0,1)$ and, of

847: course, we must have $\M(\E)=\mbarcub(\E)$, $\H(\E)=\hbar(\E)$ to

848: ensure these functions coincide with $\mbarcub(\E)$ and $\hbar(\E)$ at

849: $\eps=1$. It straightforward to verify, that Axioms III--VI are then

850: satisfied. To verify Axiom VII is more complicated: obviously, the above

851: derivation of the slow system \eqref{embed0slow} is not technically

852: valid for discontinuous $\emb{\hbar}$ as defined by \eqref{h-emb}, and

853: Axiom VII does not make sense literally. Still, it will be

854: satisfied if we assume that $\delta(\E-\Eh)\Heav(\E-\Em)=0$,

855: i.e. infinity times zero at $\E=\Eh$ equals zero. If $\p=\q=1$, we

856: have the asymptotic window current exactly equal to the window current

857: of the Noble model, $\Wtilde(\E)=\W(\E)$; if $\p>1$ and $\q>1$,

858: then the asymptotic window current is a cut-off version of the original,

859: $\Wtilde(\E)=\W(\E)\,\Heav(\E-\Eh)\,\Heav(\Em-\E)$. The adequacy of this

860: embedding for $\p=\q=1$, $\r=0.5$ is demonstrated in \fig{03}.

861: 

862: The explicit embedding \eqref{mh-emb} is rather

863: complicated. Formally, there are infinitely many embeddings;

864: \eg{}~equations \eqref{m-emb} and \eqref{h-emb} define a 

865: three-parameter family of embeddings, all satisfying the Axioms and

866: all leading to the same fast and slow systems and having the

867: same asymptotic properties.  And it is not possible to infer from the

868: original problem, which of the embeddings is ``correct''. The

869: discontinuity of $\emb{\hbar}$ and $\emb{\mbarcub}$ is also a cause for

870: concern. It is true that their limits in $\eps\rightarrow0$ have

871: to be discontinuous, or at least non-analytical, according to Axioms III

872: and IV, but with \eqref{m-emb} and \eqref{h-emb} they are discontinuous

873: already for any $\eps\ne1$, which is inconvenient even in this heuristic

874: treatment. Moreover, this is likely to cause serious technical difficulties in

875: any attempt of rigorous treatment of the problem. This difficulty can be

876: overcome, for instance, by using in \eqref{m-emb} and \eqref{h-emb},

877: instead of Heaviside functions, functions which are

878: smooth for all $\eps>0$ and only tend to Heaviside functions in the limit

879: $\eps=0$, \eg{}

880: %

881: \begin{equation}

882:   \emb{\Heav}(x;\eps)=1/(1+e^{-x/\eps}).

883: \end{equation}

884: %

885: Indeed, in that case the peak value of

886: $\left|\@\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)/\@\E\right|$ is attained at $\E=\Eh$

887: and is $(4\eps)^{-1}\hbar(\Eh)$ in the leading order, whereas the

888: value of $\emb{\mbarcub}(\Eh;\eps)$ is exponentially small in

889: $\eps$, thus their product is uniformly small and Axiom VII is

890: satisfied. 

891: 

892: \section{The Archetypal Model}

893: \label{S:AM}

894: 

895: \subsection{Formulation and parametric embedding}

896: \label{S:AM:Formulation} % BS04: yes

897: 

898: \input{fig4.tex}

899: 

900: The complications arising in the construction of a possible embedding

901: of the Noble model \eqref{N62}, as discussed in the preceding section,

902: are not essential. In fact, they arise only due to the fact that

903: insufficient experimental data was available at the time of the

904: construction of the Noble model and in particular the existence of a

905: Ca current was not yet discovered. Thus, the Na current was given a

906: dual role to produce  the upstroke and to keep voltage elevated during

907: the long plateau stage leading to the large Na window illustrated in \fig{01}(b).

908: Such a large window current is not present in other 

909: cardiac models. This is demonstrated in \fig{04}(b) in the

910: case of the  currently-accepted detailed ionic model of human atrial

911: cells of Courtemanche \etal{}~\cite{CRN}. 

912: Bearing in mind the possibility of extending our present analysis and results to

913: models of other types of cardiac cells, we propose a modified version

914: of the Noble model \eqref{N62}. It is similar in many aspects to

915: \eqref{N62} in but has a more ``generic cardiac'' structure and admits a

916: straightforward asymptotic embedding:

917: %

918: \begin{equation}

919: \begin{split}

920:  \Df{\E}{\t} & = \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h + \gone(\E)\,\W(\E) + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E) \\

921:              & = \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \G(\E),\\

922:  \Df{\h}{\t} & = \fone(\E)\, \left(\H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h\right),\\

923:  \Df{\n}{\t} & = \ftwo(\E)\, \left(\nbar(\E) - \n\right),

924: \end{split}

925: \label{N62mod}

926: \end{equation}

927: %

928: where the functions $\mbar$, $\hbar$, $\fone$, $\ftwo$, $\gone$, $\gtwo$,

929: $\gthree$ are defined as in equations \eqref{N62}, and

930: \(

931:   \M(\E) = \mbarcub(\E), 

932: \) \(

933:   \H(\E) = \hbar(\E), 

934: \) \(

935:   \G(\E) = \gone(\E)\W(\E) + \gthree(\E),

936: \) \(

937:   \W(\E) = \mbarcub(\E) \hbar(\E).

938: \)

939: In this formulation, the perfect-switch behaviour of the Na gates is

940: represented by the Heaviside functions multiplying $\M$ and $\H$.

941: The deviation from the perfect-switch behaviour, due to the

942: window current component $\W=\mbarcub\hbar$, is separated from the fast

943: Na dynamics and appears as an additional ``time-independent'' current with a

944: role similar to $\gthree(\E)$. 

945: 

946: We shall call \eqref{N62mod} the ``Archetypal Model'' (AM).

947: The AP of this model is very similar

948: to the AP of the Noble model \eqref{N62} as shown in 

949: \fig{04}(a). Its simplest asymptotic embedding consistent with

950: Axioms I--VII can be done with $\eps$ introduced linearly and only in

951: two places, 

952: %

953: \begin{equation}

954: \begin{split}

955: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \eps^{-1} \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h + \gone(\E)\,\W(\E) + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E), \\

956: & \Df{\h}{\t} = \eps^{-1} \fone(\E)\, \left(\H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h\right),\\

957: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right).

958: \end{split}										\label{N62mod-emb}

959: \end{equation}

960: %

961: The quality of this embedding is illustrated in \fig{05}. 

962: The limit of the fast-time system is 

963: %

964: \begin{equation}

965: \begin{split}

966: & \Df{\E}{\T} = \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h, \\

967: & \Df{\h}{\T} = \fone(\E)\, \left( \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h \right),\\

968: & \Df{\n}{\T} = 0,

969: \end{split}									\label{N62mod-embfast}

970: \end{equation}

971: %

972: and the limit of the slow-time system is 

973: %

974: \begin{subequations}

975: \label{N62mod-embslow}

976: \begin{align}

977: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \gone(\E)\, \W(\E) + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + \gthree(\E),			\label{N62mod-embslow1}\\

978: & \h = \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E), 								\label{N62mod-embslow2}\\

979: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right). 				\label{N62mod-embslow3}

980: \end{align}

981: \end{subequations}

982: %

983: These systems coincide with \eqref{embed0fast} and \eqref{embed0slow}, if

984: $\Wtilde(\E)=\W(\E)$. Their solutions and phase portraits are shown in

985: \fig{05} and \fig{06}, respectively.

986: 

987: \input{fig5.tex}

988: 

989: The AM \eqref{N62mod} produces an AP similar to

990: the Noble model \eqref{N62}. In fact, the agreement between the two

991: can be improved further as demonstrated in Appendix~\ref{S:Accurate}.

992: Moreover, the AM and the Noble model have the same asymptotic

993: limits. The AM has two advantages. Firstly, the relevant 

994: asymptotic embedding is much simpler: the right-hand sides of \eqref{N62mod-emb} 

995: linearly depend on $\eps^{-1}$, 

996: and it appears only in two places. Secondly and more importantly,

997: judging from \fig{04}(b), the asymptotic properties of the fast Na

998: current in modern detailed models 

999: are likely to be similar to those of the AM

1000: \eqref{N62mod} rather than to those of the Noble model

1001: \eqref{N62}. Therefore, we adopt the AM \eqref{N62mod} as the

1002: example on which the non-Tikhonov asymptotic procedure is demonstrated.

1003: 

1004: \subsection{Asymptotic analysis}

1005: \label{S:AM:Asymptotics} % BS04: yes

1006: 

1007: \input{fig6.tex}

1008: 

1009: \subsubsection{The fast-time subsystem}

1010: \label{S:AM:Asymptotics:Fast}

1011: 

1012: The fast-time subsystem \eqref{N62mod-embfast} of the AM

1013: governs the evolution of the two fast variables $\E$ and $\h$ on 

1014: a time scale $\t \sim \eps$ or equivalently $\T\sim 1$.

1015: Its solution does not depend on the third variable $\n$, which is slow

1016: and thus stays close to its initial value $\nini$ on this time scale. 

1017: 

1018: System \eqref{N62mod-embfast} admits exact analytical solution.

1019: If $\Eini<\Em$ the solution of the

1020: initial-value problem with $\E(0)=\Eini$, $\h(0)=\hini$ is  

1021: %

1022: \begin{equation}

1023: \begin{split}

1024: & \E = \Eini,\\

1025: & \h = \H(\Eini)\, \Heav(\Eh-\Eini) + \left(\hini - \H(\Eini)\, \Heav(\Eh-\Eini)\right)\, \exp\left(-\fone(\Eini)\, \T\right).

1026: \end{split}										\label{N62mod-fastsubthr}

1027: \end{equation}

1028: %

1029: If $\Eini>\Em$

1030: the solution of the same initial-value problem is given in quadratures by 

1031: \begin{subequations}

1032: \begin{align}

1033: & \h = \hini + \J(\Eini)-\J(\E),					\label{N62mod-fastupstrokesol1}\\

1034: & \T = \int\limits_{\Eini}^{\E} \frac{\d\Emute}{

1035:     \gone(\Emute)\, \M(\Emute)\, \left(\hini+\J(\Eini)-\J(\Emute)\right)

1036:   },

1037: 									\label{N62mod-fastupstrokesol2}

1038: \end{align}								\label{N62mod-fastupstrokesol}

1039: \end{subequations} 

1040: %

1041: where

1042: %

1043: \begin{equation}

1044: \J(\Emute) = \int\frac{\fone(\Emute)}{\gone(\Emute)\, \M(\Emute)} \,\d{\Emute}.

1045: \label{N62mod-Q}

1046: \end{equation}

1047: 

1048: Note that each trajectory of the fast-time subsystem

1049: \eqref{N62mod-embfast} crosses the slow manifold

1050: \eqref{N62mod-embslow2} only once as shown in \fig{06}(a). Thus,

1051: singularity of the slow manifold with respect to the trajectories of

1052: the fast system, which in Zeeman's \cite{Zeeman-1972} interpretation of Tikhonov systems

1053: determines the threshold of excitation, does not exist in the AM.

1054: To shed light on the threshold properties of our

1055: fast-time subsystem, let us consider  the maximal overshoot voltage 

1056: $\Einf\equiv\E(+\infty)$ in the system as a function of the initial 

1057: conditions. Taking into account that $\h(+\infty)=0$ we can use

1058: \eqref{N62mod-fastupstrokesol1} to find $\Einf$ as a

1059: solution of the finite equation $\J\left(\Einf\right)

1060: =\J(\Eini)+\hini$, provided that $\Eini>\Em$ and, of course, 

1061: $  \Einf = \Eini$, otherwise.

1062: Thus, the function $\Einf(\Eini,\hini)$ has a

1063: discontinuity along the line $\{(\Eini,\hini)\}=\{\Em\}\times(0,1]$ as

1064: shown in \fig{06}(a). This

1065: discontinuity is the mathematical equivalent of the physiological

1066: notion of excitability: the

1067: upstroke does take place if and only if $\Eini$ is above the threshold,

1068: $\Em$. Note that excitability in Tikhonov-Zeeman systems has this

1069: property, too, but is related to unstable branches of the slow

1070: manifold, rather than discontinuities in the fast flow.  

1071: 

1072: The numerical values of parameters of the Noble model from which our

1073: Archetypal Model descends, are such that $\fone(\E)/\gone(\E)$ is a

1074: uniformly small function of $\E$ in the physiological range. That is,

1075: condition $\hini=\J(\Einf)-\J(\Eini)\sim1$ requires

1076: relatively large values of the quadrature \eqref{N62mod-Q}, the

1077: integrand of which is generally a relatively small quantity. This is

1078: achievable if the integration interval goes close to the pole of the

1079: integrand, i.e. zero of $\M(\Emute)$. In other words, the noted smallness

1080: of $\fone/\gone$ necessitates that $\Einf\approx\ENa$ for typical 

1081: $\Eini$ and $\hini$. A more detailed and formal analysis of this aspect

1082: is given in Appendix~\ref{S:HighExc}.

1083: 

1084: \subsubsection{The slow-time subsystem}

1085: \label{S:AM:Asymptotics:Slow}

1086: 

1087: The slow-time subsystem \eqref{N62mod-embslow} of the AM

1088: governs the evolution of the two slow variables $\E$ and $\n$ on a

1089: time scale $\t\sim 1$ or $\T \sim \eps^{-1}$. In fact, 

1090: equations \eqref{N62mod-embslow1} and \eqref{N62mod-embslow3} form a

1091: closed subsystem. Gate $\h$ described by \eqref{N62mod-embslow2} can

1092: be evaluated if $\E(\t)$ is known but does not affect the dynamics of other variables.

1093: The slow-time system has been studied by Krinsky and Kokoz

1094: \cite{Krinsky-Kokoz-1973-3}. The slow-time subsystem \eqref{N62mod-embslow} is, in turn,

1095: a fast-slow system, this time in the classical Tikhonov sense.

1096: This is illustrated by \fig{07}(a) which compares the characteristic

1097: time-scale functions of the dynamical variables $\E$ and $\n$, defined

1098: as $\tau_y=\left|\@\dot{y}/\@y\right|^{-1}$ for $y=\E,\n$. It can be seen

1099: that $\E$ is a fast variable and $\n$ is a slow variable, which 

1100: motivates the introduction of a second small parameter $\epstwo>0$ in

1101: the following standard Tikhonov way, 

1102: %

1103: \begin{subequations}

1104: \begin{align}

1105: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \G(\E)+ \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4,  				\label{N62mod-slowsubemb-fast}\\

1106: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \epstwo \ftwo(\E)\, \left(\nbar(\E) - \n \right). 	\label{N62mod-slowsubemb-slow}

1107: \end{align}								\label{N62mod-slowsubemb}

1108: \end{subequations}

1109: 

1110: \input{fig7.tex}

1111: 

1112: System \eqref{N62mod-slowsubemb} is a fast-time system. In the limit

1113: $\epstwo \rightarrow 0$ the lines $\n=\n(\tini)=\const$ form the leaves

1114: of the fast foliation. On every such leaf the solution for the voltage

1115: is given by

1116: \begin{equation}

1117:   \t - \tini  = \int\limits_{\E(\tini)}^{\E(\t)}

1118:   \frac{\d{\Emute}}{\G(\Emute)+ \gtwo(\Emute)\, \n(\tini)^4}.

1119: \label{N62mod-slowfastsol}

1120: \end{equation}

1121: The corresponding slow-time system is obtained by the change of variable

1122: $\tslow=\epstwo \t$ and in the limit $\epstwo\rightarrow 0$ becomes

1123: %

1124: \begin{subequations}

1125: \begin{align}

1126: & 0 = \G(\E)+ \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4, 					\label{N62mod-slowslow1}\\

1127: & \Df{\n}{\tslow} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right).		\label{N62mod-slowslow2}

1128: \end{align}								\label{N62mod-slowslow}

1129: \end{subequations}

1130: %

1131: Equation \eqref{N62mod-slowslow1} defines the super-slow

1132: manifold,

1133: %

1134: \begin{equation}

1135:   \n = \Nss(\E) = \left( - \G(\E)/\gtwo(\E) \right)^{1/4},  		\label{N62mod-slowslowmfd}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: and equation \eqref{N62mod-slowslow2} describes the motion along this manifold.

1138: As illustrated in \fig{06}(b) the super-slow manifold is split into two

1139: parts by the condition $\n^4\ge0$: the 

1140: ``diastolic'' branch $\E\in(-\infty,\Eone]$ and the ``systolic'' branch for

1141: $\E\in[\Etwo,\Ethree]$, where $\Eone\approx-95.75$, $\Etwo\approx-61.81$

1142: and $\Ethree\approx1.86$ are roots of the equation $\G(\E)=0$. 

1143: The stability of the fast equilibria is determined by the sign of

1144: $\@\dot{\E}/\@\E$ which coincides with the sign of

1145: $\Nss'(\E)=\d{\Nss}/\d{\E}$: the stable branches of the super-slow

1146: manifold correspond to regions in $(\n,\E)$ plane where its graph has

1147: a negative slope, \ie{}~$\Nss'(\E)<0$. These are the regions of the

1148: entire diastolic branch and the upper part of the systolic branch,

1149: corresponding to $\E\in(\East,\Ethree]$, where $\East\approx-17.05$ is

1150: the root of the equation  $\Nss'(\East)=0$. These considerations

1151: determine the excitability properties  in terms of the super-slow subsystem

1152: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow}. As seen in \fig{06}(b) the

1153: threshold of excitability is 

1154: $\Etwo$ since a trajectory starting from $E(\tini)> \Etwo$ will be repelled  by the

1155: lower systolic branch and attracted by the upper one, thus making a

1156: relatively large excursion. This will be followed by a slow movement

1157: along the upper systolic branch and a jump to the diastolic branch at $\East$.

1158: On every monotonic branch of the super-slow manifold the equation

1159: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow1} can, in principle, be resolved with respect

1160: to $\E$ to give $\E=\Nss^{-1}(\n)$ and the result can be substituted

1161: into \eqref{N62mod-slowslow2} leading to the following quadrature

1162: solution of equations \eqref{N62mod-slowslow},

1163: %

1164: \begin{equation}

1165: \begin{split}

1166: & \tslow-\tslowC = \int\limits_{\nC=0}^{\n} \frac{\d\nmute}{

1167:     \ftwo\left(\Nss^{-1}(\nmute)\right)\,\left(\nbar\left(\Nss^{-1}(\nmute)\right)-\nmute\right)

1168:   }, \\

1169: & \E=\Nss^{-1}\left(\n(\tslow)\right),

1170: \end{split}						\label{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}

1171: \end{equation}

1172: %

1173: where $\tslowC$ is the slow time of the beginning of this asymptotic

1174: stage. Alternatively, we may use, as suggested in \cite{N62},  $\E$

1175: rather than $\n$ as a coordinate on the super-slow manifold. To do that we substitute

1176: $\n=\Nss(\E)$ into the second equation 

1177: \[

1178:   \Df{\E}{\tslow}=\frac{\ftwo(\E)\,\left(\nbar(\E)-\Nss(\E)\right)}{\Nss'(\E)}, 

1179: \]

1180: where from solution of the slow-time system in quadratures follows

1181: without the need to invert the function $\Nss(\E)$.

1182: In particular, the

1183: time between the points $(\E,\h)=(\Ethree,0)$ and $(\East,\Nast)$,

1184: \ie{}~the duration of the plateau of an AP starting from

1185: $\n=0$, is

1186: \begin{equation}

1187: \tslow(\East)-\tslow(\Ethree)  

1188: = \int\limits_{\Ethree}^{\East} \frac{ \Nss'(\E)\,

1189:     \d{\E}}{\ftwo(\E)\,\left( \nbar(\E)-\Nss(\E)\right)},

1190: \label{N62-slowslowsol}

1191: \end{equation}

1192: where   $\Nast=\Nss(\East)\approx 0.6512$ for the standard  parameter values.

1193: 

1194: This completes a brief overview of the leading-order asymptotics of the

1195: Archetypal Model.  An inventory of resulting formulas describing all the stages of

1196: typical solutions corresponding to various sorts of initial conditions,

1197: is given in Appendix~\ref{S:Synthesis}.

1198: 

1199: 

1200: \section{The caricature model}

1201: \label{S:Caricature} % BS04: no

1202: 

1203: \subsection{Motivation}

1204: \label{S:Caricature:Motivation}

1205: 

1206: As pointed out in the Introduction and throughout the article, the

1207: asymptotic structure of the embeddings of both the Noble and the

1208: Archetypal Model is non-Tikhonov and the results of the

1209: classical theory of slow-fast systems are not applicable. 

1210: The fact that we are able to demonstrate a good numerical agreement in

1211: \figs{03}, \figref{05} and \figref{07} is

1212: reassuring but far from reliable since the numerical solutions are, by their

1213: nature, only approximate. Developing an alternative to the classical

1214: slow-fast asymptotic theory is beyond the scope ot this paper.

1215: Instead, in this section we propose and study a simple caricature model of cardiac

1216: excitation. One can think of the caricature model as a detailed ionic model which

1217: allows an exact solution and which has been embedded in a non-Tikhonov

1218: system. Once exact solutions are available, their the proximity

1219: to asymptotic solutions can be proved in this particular

1220: case. We have to emphasize that, the caricature is not ``derived''

1221: from the Noble or from the Archetypal Model. They are,

1222: once again, used only as starting point for their simple functional forms.

1223: The caricature is constructed so that it has an asymptotic structure

1224: identical to that of 

1225: the AM of section \ref{S:AM} and differs from it in that the

1226: functions in its the right-hand side are chosen so as to make

1227: possible to {\bf(a)} evaluate the  quadratures of section

1228: \ref{S:AM:Asymptotics} and thus obtain explicit asymptotic solutions and

1229: {\bf(b)} to go a step further and find an exact analytical solution of

1230: the simple model. We then proceed to to demonstrate that the

1231: appropriate limits of the exact analytical solution of this caricature

1232: model coincide with  its solution in the asymptotic limits as given by

1233: quadratures 

1234: \eqref{N62mod-fastsubthr}, \eqref{N62mod-fastupstrokesol},

1235: \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol},

1236: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}.  Such an effort is still not a proof of

1237: our asymptotic analysis in general, but makes a good

1238: justification. 

1239: 

1240: \subsection{Formulation} 

1241: \label{S:Caricature:Formulation}

1242: 

1243: In order to formulate a caricature of the AM

1244: \eqref{N62mod-emb} we keep the asymptotic structure of the

1245: latter and replace (``approximate'') the functions forming its right-hand

1246: side with simpler ones. We make the following simplifications.

1247: \begin{enumerate}

1248:  \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\alph{enumi})}

1249: %

1250: \item We replace the functions $\M(\E)$ and $\H(\E)$ by unity. Thus,

1251: the function $\mbarcub(\E)$ is replaced by $\Heav(\E-\Em)$ and the

1252: function $\hbar(\E)$ by

1253: $\Heav(\Eh-\E)$.  Analogously, we replace the function $\nbar(\E)$ by

1254: $\Heav(\E-\En)$. The values of the constants $\Em$, $\Eh$ and $\En$

1255: will be discussed in item (e) below.

1256: \item We replace the function $\fone(\E)$ by the constant

1257: $\Fone\equiv1/2$. Analogously,  we replace the

1258: function $\ftwo(\E)$ by the constant $\Ftwo\equiv 1/270$.

1259: %

1260: \item We replace the function $\G(\E)$ by the continuous

1261: piecewise linear function, 

1262: \begin{equation}

1263:   \Gtilde(\E) = \left\{\begin{array}{lll}

1264:   \kone (\Eone-\E), &  \E\in(-\infty,\Edagger), \\

1265:   \ktwo (\E-\Etwo), &  \E\in[\Edagger,\East), \\

1266:   \kthree (\Ethree-\E), &  \E\in[\East,+\infty),

1267:   \end{array}\right.                             

1268: \label{Gtilde}

1269: \end{equation}

1270: where the constants $\kone\equiv0.075$, $\ktwo\equiv1/25$,

1271: $\kthree\equiv1/10$ while the constants $\Eone\equiv-280/3$, $\Etwo\equiv-55$ and

1272: $\Ethree\equiv1$ are close

1273: to the roots of $\G(\E)$ (%

1274:   which are $\approx-95.75$, $-61.81$ and   $1.86$ respectively; we prefer

1275:   to avoid multi-digit decimal values%

1276: ). 

1277: The constants

1278: $\East\equiv-15$ and $\Edagger\equiv-80$ are determined by the

1279: intersection points of the three linear pieces of $\Gtilde(\E)$.

1280: Note that at $\East$ the function $\Gtilde(\E)$ reaches its local

1281: maximum and thus  $\East$ corresponds to the point on the systolic branch of the

1282: super-slow manifold  which forms the boundary between its stable and

1283: unstable parts. 

1284: %

1285: \item We replace the function $\gtwo(\E)$ by

1286:   $\Gtwoh\Heav(\E-\Edagger)$, where $\Gtwoh=-9$.

1287: %

1288: \item Finally, we set $\Em\equiv\East$,

1289: $\Eh=\En\equiv\Edagger$.  A more accurate approximation would be to choose

1290: these constants as the solutions of the equations

1291: $\mbarcub(\Em)=1/2$, $\hbar(\Eh)=1/2$, and $\nbar(\En)=1/2$,

1292: respectively. However, this would lead to a caricature model, the

1293: right-hand side of which would consist of six pieces instead of only

1294: three as with the present choice. Obviously, this is not a principal

1295: difficulty but would be rather technically inconvenient. Moreover, the

1296: present choice preserves the relatively good quantitative agreement

1297: with the original models without the additional complications.

1298: %

1299: \end{enumerate}

1300: A justification for the simplifications of the functions $\mbarcub(\E)$ and

1301: $\hbar(\E)$ can be found in \fig{02}(a) while the rest of the

1302: replacements are illustrated in  \fig{08}.

1303: 

1304: \input{fig8.tex}

1305: 

1306: On these grounds, we postulate the following caricature of the AM

1307: \eqref{N62mod},

1308: %

1309: \begin{subequations}

1310: \begin{align}

1311: & \Df{\E}{\t} =

1312:   \eps^{-1} \GNa\,(\ENa-\E)\,\Heav(\E-\East)\,\h+\Gtwoh\Heav(\E-\Edagger)\,\n^4+\tilde{\G}(\E), \label{caric-lin-eq.E}\\

1313: & \Df{\h}{\t} = \eps^{-1}\Fone\,\left(\Heav(\Edagger-\E)-\h\right),				\label{caric-lin-eq.h}\\

1314: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \epstwo\,\Ftwo\,\left(\Heav(\E-\Edagger)-\n\right),				\label{caric-lin-eq.n}

1315: \end{align}											\label{caric-lin-eq}

1316: \end{subequations}

1317: %

1318: where we have included the artificial small parameters $\eps$ and

1319: $\epstwo$ to ensure the correct asymptotic structure of the system.

1320: 

1321: 

1322: \subsection{Exact solution} 

1323: \label{S:Caricature:Exact}

1324: 

1325: It is possible to obtain an exact analytical solution of the caricature model

1326: \eqref{caric-lin-eq}. Indeed, equations \eqref{caric-lin-eq.h} and 

1327: \eqref{caric-lin-eq.n} are separable and simple enough to be easily solvable. 

1328: After their solutions are substituted in equation \eqref{caric-lin-eq.E} 

1329: it, too, becomes a readily-solvable first-order linear ODE. 

1330: Therefore, assuming the initial conditions,

1331: %

1332: \begin{equation}

1333:  \E(0)=\Eini>\East,\quad \h(0)=1,\quad \n(0)=0,

1334: \label{IC}

1335: \end{equation}

1336: %

1337: of a fast-upstroke AP and natural continuity conditions 

1338: at the ends of the three intervals separated by  $\Edagger$ and $\East$ 

1339: or, equivalently, at the ends of the corresponding time intervals $\t\in[0,\tast]$,

1340: $\t\in[\tast,\tdagger]$ and $\t\in[\tdagger,\infty)$,

1341: system \eqref{caric-lin-eq} has the following exact analytical solution,

1342: \begin{subequations}

1343: \begin{align}

1344: &

1345: \n(\t) = \begin{cases}

1346:     1-\exp(-\epstwo \Ftwo\t),  &       \t\in[0,\tdagger]\\[1ex]

1347:     \left(\exp(\epstwo \Ftwo \tdagger)-1 \right) \exp(-\epstwo \Ftwo\t), &      \t\in[\tdagger,\infty]

1348: \end{cases} 											\label{exactsol.n}\\[0.5ex]

1349: &

1350: \h(\t) = \begin{cases}

1351:     \exp(-\Fone\t/\eps), & \t\in[0,\tdagger]\\[1ex]

1352:     1 - \left(1+\exp(\Fone\tdagger/\eps) \right) \exp(-\Fone\t/\eps), &

1353:     \t\in[\tdagger,\infty]

1354: \end{cases} 											\label{exactsol.h}\\[0.5ex]

1355: &

1356: \E(\t) = \begin{cases}

1357: \displaystyle 

1358: 	\Eeins(\t)=\exp\Bigg(\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\,\exp\bigg(-\frac{\Fone\t}{\eps}\bigg)-\kthree\t\Bigg)\,\times	& \\

1359: \displaystyle \hspace*{2em} 

1360: 	 \Bigg[

1361:            \Eini \exp\bigg(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\bigg)

1362:           -\kthree\Ethree\, \u(-\kthree,\t) 			& \\

1363: \displaystyle \hspace*{2em}

1364:            -\Gtwoh\sum\limits_{\l=0}^4

1365:            (-1)^{\l}\,\dbinom{4}{\l}\,\u\left((4-\l)\,\epstwo \Ftwo-\kthree,\t\right) & \\

1366: \displaystyle \hspace*{2em}

1367:           -\frac{\GNa\ENa}{\eps}\,\u\bigg(\frac{\Fone}{\eps}-\kthree,\t\bigg)

1368:           \Bigg], 								& \t\in[0,\t_*]\\[0.5ex]

1369:   \Ezwei(\t) = \left(\East-\w(\tast)\right)\,\exp\left(\ktwo\,(\t-\tast)\right)+

1370:    \w(\t), 									& \t\in[\t_*,\tdagger]\\[1ex] 

1371:   \Edrei(\t)=    (\Edagger-\Eone)\exp\left(-\kone(\t-\tdagger)\right)+\Eone,	& \t\in[\tdagger,\infty]

1372: \end{cases} 											\label{exactsol.E}

1373: \end{align}											\label{exactsol}

1374: \end{subequations}

1375: %

1376: where

1377: %

1378: \begin{subequations}

1379: \begin{align}

1380: &

1381:   \u(\qq,\t)\equiv\frac{\eps}{\Fone}\bigg(\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\bigg)^{-\frac{\qq\eps}{\Fone}} 

1382:             \Bigg[

1383:           \Gamma\Bigg(\frac{\qq\eps}{\Fone},\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\Bigg)-

1384:           \Gamma\Bigg(\frac{\qq\eps}{\Fone},\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\,\exp\bigg({-\frac{\Fone\t}{\eps}}\bigg)\Bigg)

1385:             \Bigg],										\label{exactsolfun:u}\\

1386: &

1387:  \w(\t)\equiv \Etwo -\Gtwoh \sum\limits_{\l=0}^{4}(-1)^{\l} \dbinom{4}{\l}

1388:  \frac{\exp\left(-\l\,\epstwo \Ftwo \t\right)}{\ktwo+\l\,\epstwo \Ftwo},			\label{exactsolfun:w}

1389: \end{align}											\label{exactsolfun}

1390: \end{subequations}

1391: and 

1392: $\Gamma(a,x)$ is the upper incomplete gamma function,

1393: $\Gamma(a,x)\equiv\int_x^{\infty} z^{a-1}e^{-z}\,\d{z}$ for $\Re{a}>0$ and

1394: $\Gamma(a+1,x)=a\Gamma(a,x)+x^a\,e^{-x}$

1395: as defined in \cite{Abramowitz-Stegun}.

1396: The exact analytical solution is plotted in \fig{09} where it is

1397: compared with the numerical solutions of the AM

1398: \eqref{N62mod} and the internal boundary points $\Edagger$ and $\East$

1399: are also indicated.  

1400: The parameters $\tast$ and $\tdagger$ can be found

1401: as solutions  of

1402: \begin{gather}

1403: \label{ee:0005}

1404: \Eeins(\tast)=\East, \qquad

1405: \Ezwei(\tdagger)=\Edagger.

1406: \end{gather}

1407: Both equations are transcendental and not solvable analytically. 

1408: It is possible to solve them by using perturbation expansions 

1409: about the small parameters $\eps$ and $\epstwo$. This, however, 

1410: will contribute little beyond its value as a technical exercise 

1411: and will lead us away from the main point of this part, which is to

1412: validate the asymptotic solutions for $\E(\t)$, $\h(\t)$ and

1413: $\n(\t)$. So here we omit these formulae, assuming that $\tast$ and

1414: $\tdagger$ are known where they are needed. Numerically, for

1415: the standard values of parameters and $\Eini=-10$, we obtain

1416: $\tast\approx292.815$  and $\tdagger\approx345.241$.  

1417: \input{fig9.tex}

1418: 

1419: \section{Validation of the general asymptotic analysis}

1420: \label{S:Validation} % BS04: no

1421: 

1422: In the following we consider the stages of a normal fast-upstroke

1423: AP. For each stage we {\bf(a)}

1424: evaluate the appropriate 

1425: quadratures of section \ref{S:AM:Asymptotics} to obtain explicit

1426: asymptotic solutions for this stage and {\bf(b)} evaluate the

1427: limit of the exact analytical solution \eqref{exactsol} as the small

1428: parameters tend to zero as appropriate for the same stage. The

1429: asymptotic theory will be validated if the results from these two

1430: steps are identical. 

1431: 

1432: \subsection[Fast upstroke]{Fast upstroke, stage A--B}

1433: Here and below, letters A--F refer to the labels in \fig{05}(a).

1434: The fast upstroke occurs during the interval

1435: $\t\in[0,\tB]\subset[0,\tast]$, where $\tB\to0$ but

1436: $\tB/\eps\to\infty$ as $\eps\to0$. During this stage $\E$

1437: and the $h$-gate change together on a time scale 

1438: $\sim\eps$ from the point $(\E,\h)=(\Eini,1)$ to $(\EB,0)$ while $\n$

1439: is a slow variable and remains approximately at its initial

1440: value $\n\approx\nini=0$. 

1441: 

1442: \noindent{\bf (a) Asymptotic solution}.

1443: Asymptotically, this stage is described by quadratures

1444: \eqtwo(N62mod-fastupstrokesol,N62mod-Q).

1445: Substituting there the functions defined in section \ref{S:Caricature:Formulation}, we obtain

1446: %

1447: \begin{subequations}

1448: \begin{align}

1449: & \h(\E)= 1+\frac{\Fone}{\GNa}\,\ln\left(\frac{\ENa-\E}{\ENa-\Eini}\right),		\label{ee:0010.1}\\

1450: & \T(\E)= -\frac{1}{\Fone}\,

1451:   \ln\Bigg(1+\frac{\Fone}{\GNa}\,\ln\left(\frac{\ENa-\E}{\ENa-\Eini}\right)\Bigg). 	\label{ee:0010.2}

1452: \end{align}										\label{ee:0010}

1453: \end{subequations}

1454: %

1455: Solving \eqref{ee:0010.2} for the voltage $\E$ and substituting

1456: the result  in \eqref{ee:0010.1}, we arrive at an explicit

1457: asymptotic solution,

1458: %

1459: \begin{equation}

1460: \begin{split}

1461: & \E=\ENa-(\ENa-\Eini)\, \exp\left(\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\left(e^{-\Fone\T}-1\right)\right),\\

1462: & \h=e^{-\Fone \T}.

1463: \end{split}						\label{ee:0020}

1464: \end{equation}

1465: %

1466: The maximal overshoot voltage $\EB$ is obtained as the fast time $\T$

1467: tends to infinity,

1468: \begin{gather}

1469: \EB=\Einf=\lim\limits_{\T\rightarrow+\infty} \E(\T)

1470: 	= \ENa-(\ENa-\Eini)\, \exp\left(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\right). \label{EB}

1471: \end{gather}

1472: Since $\exp(-\GNa/\Fone) \approx 10^{-29}$, the  maximal overshoot

1473: voltage $\EB$ is extremely close to $\ENa$ and $\h(\tB)=\h(\T\to\infty)=0$ as expected.

1474: 

1475: \noindent{\bf (b) Limit of the exact solution.}

1476: We change to fast time, $\T=\t/\eps$, and

1477: take the limit of \eqref{exactsol.h} and \eqref{exactsol.E} as 

1478: $\eps$ tends to  zero, for fixed $\T$.

1479: Since $\lim\limits_{a\to1}\Gamma(a,x)=\exp(-x)$, it follows that 

1480: $\lim\limits_{\eps\to0}\u(\qq,\eps\T)=0$, for $\qq \sim 1$ and therefore 

1481: %

1482: \begin{align*}

1483: & \lim_{\eps\to0} \u(-\kthree,\eps\T)=0, \\

1484: & \lim_{\eps\to0} \u\left((4-\l)\,\epstwo \Ftwo-\kthree,\eps\T\right)=0.

1485: \end{align*}

1486: %

1487: Further,

1488: \[

1489: \u\left(\frac{\Fone}{\eps}-\kthree,\eps\T\right) \approx

1490:    \frac{\eps}{\GNa}\left[\exp\left(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\right)-  

1491:   \exp\left(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}e^{-\Fone\T}\right)\right]. 

1492: \]

1493: Therefore, taking the limit

1494: $\eps\to0$ of expression $\Eeins$ in \eqref{exactsol.E} we obtain,\footnote{

1495:   Here we stress

1496:   that $\E$ and $\h$ are considered as  functions of $\t$ rather than $\T$.

1497: }

1498: %

1499: \begin{equation}

1500: \begin{split}

1501: & \lim\limits_{\eps\to0}\E(\eps\T)=\ENa-(\ENa-\Eini)\, \exp\left(\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\left(e^{-\Fone \T}-1\right)\right),\\

1502: & \lim\limits_{\eps\to0}\h(\eps\T)=e^{-\Fone \T}.

1503: \end{split}									\label{ee:0030}

1504: \end{equation}

1505: %

1506: Since equations \eqref{ee:0020} and \eqref{ee:0030} are identical, the

1507: asymptotic theory of the fast upstroke of the AP is validated.

1508: 

1509: \subsection[Post-overshoot drop]{Post-overshoot drop of the voltage, stage B--C}

1510: This corresponds to the time interval $\t\in[\tB,\tC]\subset[0,\tast]$,

1511: where $\tC\to+\infty$ but $\epstwo\tC\to0$ as $\epstwo\to0$.

1512: We keep $\tB$ in some of the formulae rather than replacing it with its limit,

1513: $\lim_{\eps\to0}\tB=0$,

1514: as a symbolic reminder of the beginning of this asymptotic stage.

1515: The voltage $\E$ decreases on a time scale $\sim 1$ towards

1516: the stable systolic branch, the $\h$-gate remains at $\h\approx 0$ and

1517: the slow $\n$-gate also remains approximately unchanged at $\n\approx \nini=0$.

1518: 

1519: \noindent{\bf (a) Asymptotic solution}.

1520: The asymptotics of this stage are given by quadrature

1521: \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} which, with account of the approximations of 

1522: section \ref{S:Caricature:Formulation} and of the fact that asymptotically $\n=0$,

1523: evaluates to

1524: \begin{equation}

1525: \label{ee:0040}

1526: \t-\tB = \frac{1}{\kthree}\,\ln\left(\frac{\Ethree-\EB}{\Ethree-\E}\right).

1527: \end{equation}

1528: Solving for $\E(\t)$, the explicit asymptotic solution for this stage is, 

1529: \begin{equation}

1530: \label{ee:0050}

1531: \E(\t) = \Ethree+(\EB-\Ethree) e^{-\kthree(\t-\tB)}.

1532: \end{equation}

1533: 

1534: \noindent{\bf (b) Limit of the exact solution.}

1535: We are still within the interval $\t\in[\tB,\tC]\subset[0,\tast]$ and so use

1536: $\Eeins(\t)$ of \eqref{exactsol.E}. Taking the limit of \eqref{exactsol.n} and

1537: \eqref{exactsol.h} as $\eps$ and $\epstwo$  tend to  zero, we obtain

1538: %

1539: \begin{subequations}

1540: \begin{align}

1541: & \lim\limits_{\epstwo\to0}\n(\t)=0,					\label{ee:0061}\\

1542: & \lim\limits_{\eps\to0}\h(\t)=0,					\label{ee:0062}

1543: \end{align}								\label{ee:0060}

1544: \end{subequations}

1545: %

1546: in agreement with the asymptotic analysis.

1547: 

1548: Now we consider the limit of $\Eeins(\t)$ given by \eqref{exactsol.E}

1549: for $\eps\to0$ and $\epstwo\to0$ at a fixed $\t\in(0,\tast)$. 

1550: In the limit $\epstwo\to0$ the terms $\u\left((4-\l)\,\epstwo

1551: \Ftwo-\kthree,\t\right)$ become independent of the index $\l$ and the

1552: sum over $\l$ in the expression for $\Eeins(\t)$ vanishes since the

1553: binomial coefficients cancel each other. 

1554: For the remaining upper incomplete gamma functions, we use the

1555: recurrence relation, 

1556: %

1557: \[

1558: \Gamma(a+1,x)=a\,\Gamma(a,x)+x^a\,e^{-x} \nonumber

1559: \]

1560: %

1561: and the  following asymptotics in the limit $a\searrow0$, 

1562: %

1563: \begin{equation}

1564: \begin{split}

1565: & \Gamma(-a,x) = \Ei(1,x) + O(a), \\

1566: & \Gamma\left(-a,A\exp(-B/a)\right) = -a^{-1}\left(1-e^{B}\right)+O(1),

1567: \end{split}								\label{aux.BC}

1568: \end{equation}

1569: %

1570: for fixed $x, A, B>0$ and where $\Ei(\nu, x) =\int_1^\infty

1571: z^{-\nu}\exp(-xz)\, \d{z}$, $\Re{x} > 0$  is the exponential  integral.

1572: Hence, as $\eps\to0$, we have

1573: %

1574: \begin{align}  

1575: & \u(-\kthree,\t) \approx \kthree^{-1}\left(1-e^{\kthree\t}\right), \\

1576: & \u\left(\frac{\Fone}{\eps}-\kthree,\t\right) \approx

1577:   \frac{\eps}{\GNa}\Bigg(\exp\bigg(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\bigg)-1\Bigg).

1578: \end{align}

1579: %

1580:   Substituting these results into the expression for

1581: $\Eeins$ in \eqref{exactsol.E} and taking the limits $\eps\to0$ and $\epstwo\to0$, we get 

1582: %

1583: \begin{equation}  

1584: \lim_{\epstwo,\eps\to0} \Eeins(t) =

1585: \Ethree+\Bigg(\ENa-(\ENa-\Eini)\exp\bigg(-\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\bigg)-\Ethree\Bigg) e^{-\kthree\t},

1586: 									\label{stageB-C}

1587: \end{equation}

1588: %

1589: which with account of \eqref{EB}, coincides with the asymptotic

1590: expression  \eqref{ee:0050} where $\tB$ is taken at its limit,

1591: $\tB=0$. Thus the asymptotic

1592: procedure is validated in this stage as well.

1593: 

1594: \subsection[Plateau]{Plateau, stage C--D}

1595: This corresponds to the time interval $\t\in[\tC,\tD]\subset[0,\tast]$.

1596: Again, we keep $\tC$ in some formulae as a symbolic reminder of the

1597: beginning of this asymptotic stage, $1\ll\tC\ll\epstwo^{-1}$, 

1598: and we define $\tD=\tast$ precisely.

1599: The voltage $\E$ and the $\n$-gate change on a time scale of

1600: the order $\tD-\tC=O(\epstwo^{-1})$ along the upper  systolic  branch of the

1601: super-slow manifold  until $\E(\tast)=\East$ and $\n(\tast)\approx\Nast$.

1602: The $\h$-gate remains close to its quasi-stationary value at $\h\approx  0$.  

1603: 

1604: \noindent{\bf (a) Asymptotic solution}.

1605: The general asymptotic results describing this stage are given by

1606: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}. Since the functions of the caricature

1607: model in the time interval $\t\in[0,\tast]$ are

1608: $\Gtilde(\E)=\kthree(\Ethree-\E)$, $\nbar(\E)=1$, $\gtwo(\E)=\Gtwoh$, 

1609: $\ftwo(\E)=\Ftwo$, the quadrature \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}

1610: evaluates to 

1611: \begin{subequations}

1612: \begin{align}

1613: & \n = 1-\exp\left(-\Ftwo(\tslow-\tslowC)\right), 						\label{ee:0091}\\

1614: & \E = \Ethree+ \frac{\Gtwoh}{\kthree}\left(1-\exp\left(-\Ftwo(\tslow-\tslowC)\right)\right)^4,	\label{ee:0092}

1615: \end{align}											\label{ee:0090}

1616: \end{subequations}

1617: where $\tslowC=\epstwo\tC$ and $\lim\limits_{\epstwo\to0}\tslowC=0$. 

1618: 

1619: \noindent{\bf (b) Limit of the exact solution.}

1620: The plateau stage occurs during the time interval

1621: $\t\in[0,\tast]$. In order to compare the limit of the exact

1622: solution \eqref{exactsol} to equations \eqref{ee:0090} we need to

1623: change to the super-slow time, $\tslow=\epstwo \t$. Then the

1624: solution \eqref{exactsol.n} for $\n(\tslow)$ does not contain a small

1625: parameter and is readily comparable with the asymptotics,

1626: \begin{gather}

1627: \label{ee:0100}

1628: \lim\limits_{\epstwo\to0}\n(\tslow) = 1-\exp\left(-\Ftwo(\tslow-\tslowC)\right),

1629: \end{gather}

1630: where 

1631: we have taken into account that the initial value of $\n$ according to \eqref{ee:0061} is

1632: $\n(\tslowC)=0$.

1633: 

1634: For the voltage during this stage, we consider $\Eeins$ from 

1635: \eqref{exactsol.E} with a change to the super-slow time $\tslow=\epstwo\t$,   

1636: \footnote{

1637:   Here and in similar cases further on, we imply that $\Eeins$ and

1638:   $\EBC$ are defined as functions of $\t$, rather than $\tslow$ 

1639:   or any other stage-specific time variable.

1640: }

1641: \begin{equation}

1642: \begin{split}

1643: \displaystyle \Eeins(\epstwo^{-1}\tslow)= & \EBC(\epstwo^{-1}\tslow)  \\

1644: \displaystyle

1645:   &+ \exp\Bigg(\frac{\GNa}{\Fone}\,\exp\bigg(-\frac{\Fone\tslow}{\eps\,\epstwo}\bigg)

1646: 	-\frac{\kthree\tslow}{\epstwo}\Bigg)\,

1647:            \Gtwoh\sum\limits_{\l=0}^4 

1648:            (-1)^\l\,\dbinom{4}{\l}\,\u\left((4-\l)\,\epstwo

1649: 	   \Ftwo-\kthree,\frac{\tslow}{\epstwo}\right),

1650: \end{split}								\label{stage.CD}

1651: \end{equation}

1652: and look for the limit $\eps\to0$, $\epstwo\to0$ at a fixed $\tslow$.

1653: The terms denoted here by $\EBC(\epstwo^{-1}\tslow)$ are precisely those discussed

1654: in connection with the limit of the exact solution during stage B--C

1655: with the only difference that now we consider them in the super-slow

1656: time $\tslow$. For a fixed $\tslow$, and small $\epstwo$, expression

1657: \eqref{stageB-C}  evaluates to

1658: \begin{gather}  

1659: \label{stageCD.01}

1660: \lim_{\epstwo\to0} \EBC(\epstwo^{-1}\tslow) = \Ethree.

1661: \end{gather}

1662: Using expressions \eqref{aux.BC} derived in the previous stage the

1663: remaining $\u(\cdot,\cdot)$-function in \eqref{stage.CD} in the limit

1664: $\eps\to0$ becomes 

1665: \begin{gather}

1666: \label{stageCD.02}

1667: \lim_{\eps\to0}\u\left((4-\l)\,\epstwo \Ftwo-\kthree,\frac{\tslow}{\epstwo}\right)=

1668: -\frac{1-\exp\left( \kthree \tslow\right)\,\exp\left(-(4-\l)\Ftwo\tslow\right)}{(4-\l)\,\epstwo\Ftwo-\kthree}.

1669: \end{gather}

1670: The exponentially growing term is cancelled by

1671: $\exp(-\kthree\tslow/\epstwo)$  in \eqref{stage.CD} and therefore

1672: substituting the above expressions in \eqref{stage.CD} and taking the

1673: limit $\epstwo\to0$ ultimately gives

1674: \begin{gather}

1675: \label{stageCD.03}

1676: \displaystyle \lim_{\epstwo,\eps\to0} \Eeins(\tslow) =

1677: \Ethree+ \frac{\Gtwoh}{\kthree}\left(1-\exp(-\Ftwo\tslow)\right)^4,

1678: \end{gather}

1679: in full accord with the asymptotic result \eqref{ee:0092} for the plateau stage of the

1680: AP, if we replace $\tslowC$ with its limit $\lim\limits_{\epstwo\to0}\tslowC=0$.

1681: 

1682:   Before proceeding to the next stage, we comment on the position of the point D

1683:   on the $(\n,\E)$ plane, which is close to the end of the systolic 

1684:   branch of the super-slow manifold, the point $(\Nast,\East)$. 

1685:   As stated earlier, we define point D by the exact

1686:   condition $\E(\tast)=\East$, hence the condition 

1687:   $\n(\tast)\approx\Nast$ is only approximate, since the AP trajectory

1688:   follows the super-slow manifold only approximately, with precision $O(\epstwo)$.

1689:   We shall see shortly that for the next

1690:   stage it is important that $\n(\tast)\ne\Nast$. 

1691:   The sense of this inequality can be easily seen from

1692:   \eqref{N62mod-slowsubemb-fast}: we know that during the C--D stage

1693:   $\E(\t)$ decreases, $\G(\E)>0$ and 

1694:   $\gtwo(\E)<0$, hence $\n>\left(-\G(\E)/\gtwo(\E) \right)^{1/4}=\Nss(\E)$ 

1695:   during the whole of that stage, which for $\t=\tast$, $\E=\East$ gives

1696:   $\n>\Nss(\East)=\Nast$.

1697:   More accurately the value of $\n(\tast)$ can be estimated using perturbation 

1698:   theory in $\epstwo$ around the super-slow manifold $\n=\Nss(\E)$;

1699:   this would be a further distraction from our main goal, and we omit

1700:   these formulae, like in the problem of determining $\tast$ and $\tdagger$. 

1701: 

1702: \subsection[Repolarization]{Repolarization, stage D--E}

1703: During this stage the voltage $\E$ jumps on a time scale  $\sim 1$

1704: from the systolic to the diastolic branch of the super-slow manifold.

1705: The $\h$-gate changes swiftly on a time scale $\sim \eps$

1706: from its lower quasi-stationary value close to zero to its upper

1707: quasi-stationary value close to unity due to the

1708: discontinuity in the right-hand side of equation \eqref{caric-lin-eq.h}.

1709: The slow $\n$-gate remains approximately unchanged at $\n\approx

1710: \Nast$.

1711: The associated time interval is

1712: $\t\in[\tD,\tE]=[\tast,\tdagger]\cup[\tdagger,\tE]$

1713: where $\tD=\tast$ is the beginning of this stage, 

1714: $\tdagger$ is the time of the inflexion point defined by $\E(\tdagger)=\Edagger$ and

1715: $\tE$ is the time of the end of the stage constrained by

1716: $1\ll\tE-\tdagger\ll\epstwo^{-1}$.

1717: 

1718: \noindent{\bf (a) Asymptotic solution}.

1719: The asymptotics at this stage are given by quadrature

1720: \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol}. During this stage of the AP, the form of

1721: the caricature equations changes as the solution $\E(\t)$ moves 

1722: through the point $\Edagger$.  

1723: 

1724: In the time interval $\t\in[\tast,\tdagger]$ the relevant functions of the 

1725: caricature model are $\Gtilde(\E)=\ktwo(\E-\Etwo)$ and $\gtwo(\E)=

1726: \Gtwoh$ and therefore quadrature \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} evaluates to

1727: %

1728: \begin{subequations}

1729: \begin{align}

1730: & \E = \left(\Etwo-\frac{\Gtwoh \n(\tast)^4}{\ktwo}\right) +

1731: 	\Bigg(\East - \left(\Etwo-\frac{\Gtwoh \n(\tast)^4}{\ktwo}\right)

1732: 	\Bigg)\exp\left(\ktwo(\t-\tast)\right),				\label{ee:0132}\\

1733: & \n = \n(\tast) = 

1734: 	1-\exp{\left(-\Ftwo (\tslowast - \tslowC)\right)} = \const,	\label{ee:0131}

1735: \end{align}								\label{ee:0130}

1736: \end{subequations}

1737: %

1738: with initial conditions $\n(\tast)$ and $\E(\tast)\equiv\East$. 

1739: The function $\E(\t)$ given by expression \eqref{ee:0132}

1740: monotonically decreases since

1741: $\n(\tast)>\Nast=(\ktwo(\East-\Etwo)/\Gtwoh)^{1/4}$.

1742: In the second time interval, $\t\geq\tdagger$, the relevant functions of the

1743: caricature model are $\Gtilde(\E)=\kone(\Eone-\E)$ and $\gtwo(\E)=0$,

1744: and quadrature \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} gives 

1745: %

1746: \begin{equation}

1747: \begin{split}

1748: & \E(\t) = (\Edagger-\Eone)\exp\left(-\kone(\t-\tdagger)\right)+\Eone,\\

1749: & \n(\t) = \n(\tast) = \const, 

1750: \end{split}							\label{ee:0150}

1751: \end{equation}

1752: %

1753: with initial conditions $\n(\tast)$ and  $\E(\tdagger)=\Edagger$.

1754: 

1755: Finally, we note that the dynamics of $\h$ gate during this stage have a peculiarity

1756: due to the discontinuity of the right-hand side of \eqref{caric-lin-eq.h}.

1757: The finite constraint $\h=\Heav(\Edagger-\E)$ which according to 

1758: \eqref{N62mod-embslow2}

1759: is supposed to be approximately

1760: observed outside the AP upstroke, cannot be observed when $\E$ crosses

1761: the level $\Edagger$, as this would mean a discontinuity in $\h(\t)$. 

1762: In fact, the jump of $\h(\t)$ from 1 to 0 happens gradually, of course.

1763: We can see from \eqref{caric-lin-eq.h} that 

1764: this jump takes time $\sim\eps$.

1765: This violation of \eqref{N62mod-embslow2}

1766: does not, however, in any way affect the dynamics of $\E$ and $\n$,

1767: as $\Eh=\Edagger<\Em=\East$ and therefore the factor $\h\,\Heav(\E-\East)$

1768: in \eqref{caric-lin-eq.E} remains identically zero throughout this stage.

1769: 

1770: \noindent{\bf (b) Limit of the exact solution.} In order to compare

1771: the asymptotic and the exact solutions in a given AP stage we need to

1772: align them in time.  The beginning of the present stage is

1773: $\tD=\tast=\tslowast/\epstwo$, so we set 

1774: \begin{gather}

1775: \label{timealign1}

1776: \t=\epstwo^{-1}\tslowast+\tDE

1777: \end{gather}

1778: and then consider the limit $\eps,\epstwo\to0$ at a fixed $\tDE$.

1779: As discussed earlier, we assume here that the limit of $\tslowast$ is known (and finite).

1780: With this the  exact solution in the interval $\t\in[\tast,\tdagger]$ becomes

1781: %

1782: \begin{subequations}

1783: \begin{align}

1784: & \n(\epstwo^{-1}\tslowast+\tDE) =  1-\exp(-\Ftwo\tslowast-\epstwo \Ftwo \tDE), \label{DEexact.n}\\

1785: & \Ezwei(\epstwo^{-1}\tslowast+\tDE) =

1786: 	\left(\East-\w(\epstwo^{-1}\tslowast)\right)\,\exp\left(\ktwo\,\tDE\right)

1787: 	+ \w(\epstwo^{-1}\tslowast+\tDE).					\label{DEexact.E}

1788: \end{align}

1789: \end{subequations}

1790: %

1791: We have immediately that in the limit $\epstwo\to0$, expression \eqref{DEexact.n}

1792: coincides with \eqref{ee:0131}, since $\lim\tslowC=0$. Then, we have from

1793: \eqref{exactsolfun:w}

1794: \begin{gather}

1795: \lim\limits_{\epstwo\to0}\w\left(\frac{\tslowast}{\epstwo}+\tDE\right)

1796: =\Etwo-\frac{\Gtwoh}{\ktwo}\,\sum\limits_{\l=0}^{4}(-1)^{\l}\,\dbinom{4}{\l}\,e^{-\l\Ftwo\tslowast}

1797: =\Etwo-\frac{\Gtwoh}{\ktwo}\left(1-\exp(-\Ftwo\tslowast)\right).

1798: \end{gather}

1799: According to \eqref{exactsol.n}, $\n(\tast)=1-\exp(-\Ftwo\epstwo\tast)=1-\exp(-\Ftwo\tslowast)$.

1800: Hence we have that the limit of \eqref{DEexact.E} coincides with \eqref{ee:0132}

1801: since $\tDE=\t-\tast$.

1802: Analogously, substituting \eqref{timealign1} in the exact solution

1803: \eqref{exactsol} for the interval $\t>\tdagger$ and taking the limit

1804: $\epstwo\to0$  we reproduce the asymptotic solution \eqref{ee:0150}

1805: identically. 

1806: 

1807: Finally, the limit of the exact solution \eqref{exactsol.h} for the

1808: $h$-gate as $\eps\to0$ results in 

1809: $h=0$ for $\t\in[\tast,\tdagger]$ and $\h=1$ for

1810: $\t\in[\tdagger,\t_E]$, in accordance with the asymptotic theory. 

1811: 

1812: \subsection[Recovery]{Recovery, stage E--F}

1813: The voltage $\E$ and the $\n$-gate move on a time scale

1814: $\sim\epstwo^{-1}$ close to the diastolic branch of the

1815: super-slow manifold. This continues forever as the system approaches it

1816: stable equilibrium.

1817: The associated time interval is $\t\in[\tE,+\infty)$ with $\tE$ as

1818: defined above. Since $\tE\sim\epstwo^{-1}$, we define 

1819: $\tslowE=\epstwo\tE$ which has a finite limit, coinciding with

1820: that of $\epstwo\tdagger$ and $\epstwo\tast$.

1821: 

1822: 

1823: \noindent{\bf (a) Asymptotic solution}.

1824: The asymptotic solution in the the recovery stage is given by quadrature

1825: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}. With the approximations of section

1826: \ref{S:Caricature:Formulation}, the functions of the caricature model in

1827: \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1} are  $\nbar(\E)=0$, $\ftwo(\E)=\Ftwo$

1828: and $\Nss^{-1}(\n)=\Eone$ and so the asymptotic solution is

1829: %

1830: \begin{subequations}

1831: \begin{align}

1832: & \n = \n(\tE) \,\exp\left(-\Ftwo(\tslow-\tslowE)\right),		\label{ee:0191}\\

1833: & \E=\Eone,							\label{ee:0192}\\

1834: & \h=1.								\label{ee:0193}

1835: \end{align}							\label{ee:0190}

1836: \end{subequations}

1837: 

1838: \noindent{\bf (b) Limit of the exact solution.} At a fixed super-slow time

1839: $\tslow=\epstwo\t$, the limit $\epstwo,\eps\to0$ of the exact solution

1840: \eqref{exactsol} is

1841: %

1842: \begin{subequations}

1843: \begin{align}

1844: & \lim_{\epstwo\to0} \n(\tslow/\epstwo)  

1845:   = \left(\exp(\Ftwo \tslowdagger)-1 \right) \exp(-\Ftwo\tslow),\label{ee:0201}\\

1846: & \lim_{\epstwo\to0}\Edrei(\tslow/\epstwo)

1847:   =\lim_{\epstwo\to0}(\Edagger-\Eone)\exp\left(-\kone(\tslow-\tslowdagger)/\epstwo \right)+\Eone 

1848:   = \Eone,							\label{ee:0202}\\

1849: & \lim_{\epstwo,\eps\to0}\h(\tslow/\epstwo)

1850:   = \lim_{\epstwo,\eps\to0} \left( 1 - \left(1+\exp(\Fone\t_{2,\dagger}/(\eps \epstwo)) \right)

1851:   \exp(-\Fone\tslow/(\eps\epstwo))\Eone \right)

1852:   =1.								\label{ee:0203}

1853: \end{align}							\label{ee:0200}

1854: \end{subequations}

1855: %

1856: Finally, we notice that according to \eqref{ee:0201},

1857: $\n(\tdagger)=1-\exp(-\Ftwo\tslowdagger)$. Using this fact 

1858: equation \eqref{ee:0201} can be shown to be identical to equation \eqref{ee:0191},

1859: so there is full agreement between \eqref{ee:0190} and \eqref{ee:0200}.

1860: 

1861: \subsubsection*{}

1862: 

1863: We have demonstrated that at every stage of the AP the explicit

1864: asymptotic solution coincides with the appropriate limit of the exact

1865: analytical solution of the caricature model \eqref{caric-lin-eq}.

1866: We conclude that the asymptotic theory is validated. 

1867: 

1868: \section{Discussion}

1869: 

1870: \subsection{Summary of results}

1871: 

1872: We have started from the classical Noble model \cite{N62} of cardiac Purkinje fibres,

1873: arguing that it is the simplest ionic model based on cardiac

1874: electrophysiology. Using numerical observations, we have postulated a system

1875: of axioms which allowed us to propose a reasonable parametric

1876: embedding \eqref{embed0} of the Noble model. We have also noted that some of the features

1877: of the Noble model are rather peculiar in comparison with other

1878: cardiac models. This have lead us to propose the Archetypal Model

1879: \eqref{N62mod} with the ``generic'' structure of modern cardiac

1880: models, which allows a simple parametric embedding \eqref{N62mod-emb} 

1881: and which, in addition, is still a very accurate approximation of

1882: the Noble model and whose asymptotic limit coincides with that of the Noble model.

1883: Finally, we have obtained analytical

1884: solutions in quadratures, given by formulae

1885: \eqref{N62mod-fastsubthr}, \eqref{N62mod-fastupstrokesol},

1886: \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} and \eqref{N62mod-slowslow.sol1}, 

1887: corresponding to the asymptotic limits in the embedded small

1888: parameters in the Archetypal Model.

1889: 

1890: In that sense, we have achieved a fully analytical description of an

1891: action potential in a detailed ionic model of cardiac excitability.

1892: 

1893: The accurate reproduction of the properties of the authentic ionic

1894: model necessitated a number of mathematical features of the parametric

1895: embedding used which made the standard singular perturbation

1896: approaches based on Tikhonov theorem inapplicable:

1897: %

1898: \begin{itemize}

1899: \item a large factor in front of \textit{only} some terms in the

1900: right-hand side of the same equation;

1901: \item non-analytical, perhaps even discontinuous, asymptotic limit of

1902: some right-hand sides, even though the original system is analytical,

1903: \item  non-isolated equilibria in the fast subsystem;

1904: \item  dynamic variables which change their character from fast to slow 

1905: within one solution (remember in Tikhonov's theory, the roles

1906: of ``fast'' and ``slow'' variables are fixed);

1907: \item  the slow set may not even be a manifold, but may consist of

1908: pieces of different dimensionality (see Appendix \ref{S:HighExc}).

1909: \end{itemize}

1910: %

1911: All these features are related to each other and originate from the

1912: biophysics of excitable membranes, namely the fact that ionic gates

1913: work as nearly-perfect switches. Note that in some previous

1914: two-component simplified cardiac models,

1915: e.g. \cite{vanCapelle-Durrer-1980,Aliev-Panfilov,Rogers-2000}, there

1916: are segments where null-clines of both variables are very close to

1917: each other. Perhaps, in an appropriate asymptotic embedding, these

1918: segments would be near continua of non-isolated equilibria in the fast

1919: subsystem, which is one of the key features mentioned above and which

1920: might be related to the success of those models.

1921: 

1922: The asymptotic analysis we have done reproduces, in the limit

1923: $\eps\to0$, all five qualitative phenomenological features of cardiac

1924: excitability, listed in section~\ref{S:Intro:Motivation}, which are

1925: inconsistent with FitzHugh-Nagumo type systems.  Namely,

1926: %

1927: \begin{enumerate} 

1928: %

1929: \item % \label{slow-return} 

1930: \textbf{Slow repolarization.}  The only fast part of

1931: a typical AP is the upstroke A-B, which goes from the upper edge of

1932: the red cross-hatched rectangle on \fig{06}(a) towards dashed blue

1933: line along the vertical axis.  The other parts B-C-D-E-F all go along

1934: the dashed blue line there, which is a set of the equilibria of the

1935: fast subsystem.  In other words, all stages B-C-D-E-F are described in

1936: the slow subsystem \eqref{N62mod-slowsubemb}. As seen in \fig{06}(b),

1937: this includes relatively fast parts B-C and D-E as well as relatively

1938: slow ones C-D and E-F, but these have different speeds due to the

1939: secondary small parameter $\epstwo$. From the viewpoint of the main

1940: small parameter $\eps$ they are all slow, i.e. much slower than the

1941: upstroke.

1942: %

1943: \item % \label{slow-subthreshold} 

1944: \textbf{Slow subthreshold response.}

1945: This corresponds to a trajectory starting from an initial voltage $\Eini<\Em$. For

1946: $\Eini$ above (below) the line $\h=\H(\E)$, this corresponds to the leftward

1947: (rightward) going trajectory in the red cross-hatched region of

1948: \fig{06}(a). That is, the only fast process, if any, following a subthreshold

1949: initial perturbation, is the relaxation of the $\h$ gate. The fast

1950: dynamics of $\E$ are not engaged as $\INa$ channels remained closed.

1951: Thus, any dynamics of $\E$ after such initial perturbation occur only

1952: on the slow time scale.

1953: %

1954: \item % \label{accommodation} 

1955: \textbf{Fast accommodation.}  In

1956: voltage-clamped conditions, i.e. when $\E(\t)$ is prescribed, the fast

1957: subsystem \eqref{N62mod-embfast} gives that $\h(\t)$ tends towards

1958: $\H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$, i.e. towards the blue dashed line on

1959: \fig{06}(a), and of course for $\E$ staying above $\Em$ long enough,

1960: we have eventually $\h=0$.

1961: In other words, if $\E$ raises too slowly, the $\h$ gates have

1962: sufficient time to close, which prevents excitation. For this to

1963: happen, the (prescribed) dynamics of $\E$ should be slow compared to $\h$ dynamics,

1964: which are fast in terms of the $\eps$-embedding.

1965: %

1966: \item % \label{variable-peak} 

1967: \textbf{Variable peak voltage.}

1968: The peak voltage is the voltage at point B. From \fig{06}(a) it

1969: appears that this voltage is always very close to $\ENa$ as long as

1970: point A is above the line $\E=\Em$. However, according to the analysis

1971: of section~\ref{S:AM:Asymptotics:Fast}, the peak voltage $\Einf$

1972: is determined via equation $\hini=\J(\Einf)-\J(\Eini)$, that is

1973: it does depend on initial condition. This paradox is explained in

1974: the end of section~\ref{S:AM:Asymptotics:Fast} and in 

1975: Appendix~\ref{S:HighExc} as a consequence of presence, in the Noble model

1976: and its descendant Archetypal Model, of a yet another small parameter

1977: $\epshi$ which is a factor of $\fone/\gone$. Namely, $\ENa-\Einf$

1978: happens to be exponentially small in $\epshi$. A conclusion follows

1979: from there that if the parameters in the Archetypal Model are changed

1980: in such a way that $\fone/\gone$ is not so small --- e.g. by

1981: decreasing the value of $\GNa$, the peak voltage will demonstrate a

1982: noticeable dependence on $\hini$ and $\Eini$. 

1983: This in fact happens in other cardiac models that are not so stiff as Noble model,

1984: i.e. in Courtemanche \etal{}~\cite{CRN} model of human atrium:

1985: as we have shown in \cite{Biktasheva-etal-2006}, 

1986: the phase portrait of its fast subsystem

1987: is very similar to \fig{06}(a), but less stiff and the peak 

1988: voltage does indeed vary widely in the whole of $(\Em,\ENa)$ 

1989: range. 

1990: %

1991: \item % \label{front-dissipation} 

1992: \textbf{Front dissipation.}  This

1993: feature requires the analysis of the spatially distributed version of

1994: the models and is therefore beyond the scope of this paper.  However,

1995: the phenomenon of front dissipation has been a specific target of a

1996: number of our previous

1997: papers~\cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003,Simitev-Biktashev-2006,Biktasheva-etal-2006}.

1998: In~\cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003} we considered a piecewise

1999: linear ``caricature'' version of the fast subsystem which allowed an

2000: explanation of front dissipation via establishing existence of a lower

2001: limit for the propagation speed, as opposed to FitzHugh-Nagumo type

2002: system which do not have such

2003: limit. In~\cite{Biktasheva-etal-2006,Simitev-Biktashev-2006} we

2004: demonstrated that the spatially extended version of fast system

2005: in~\cite{CRN}, which as noted above is essentially identical to that

2006: of the AM, demonstrated the lower limit of the conduction velocity

2007: similar to that in the piecewiselinear caricature. Moreover, we have

2008: demonstrated that the understanding of conduction blocks based on this

2009: lower limit has a predictive ability for wavebreaks in complicated

2010: spatiotemporal regimes in the Courtemanche et al. model.

2011: %

2012: \end{enumerate}

2013: 

2014: As no rigorous theory of slow-fast

2015: systems of non-Tikhonov type exists at present, we have formulated a

2016: ``caricature''-style simplification of the AM, which is a less

2017: accurate approximation of the Noble model but has the same asymptotic

2018: structure as AM and admits exact solution. Using this exact solution we

2019: have been able to prove the asymptotic results in the particular case.

2020: 

2021: 

2022: \subsection{Further directions}

2023: 

2024: We believe that the described procedure is generic and can be

2025: applied to typical detailed cardiac models including the

2026: complicated contemporary models. For instance, part of the same procedure

2027: has already been successfully applied to the human atrial tissue

2028: model of Courtemanche \etal{}~\cite{CRN} for which an analytical

2029: condition for propagation block in a re-entrant wave has been derived

2030: and a satisfactory quantitative agreement with

2031: results of direct numerical simulations have been demonstrated

2032: \cite{Biktashev-2002,Biktashev-2003,Simitev-Biktashev-2006}. It is of

2033: even greater interest to investigate break-up and self-termination of

2034: AP fronts in models of ventricular myocytes such as 

2035: \cite{Beeler-Reuter-1977,Luo-Rudy-1991,tenTuscher-etal-2004,Iyer-etal-2004} 

2036: since cases of

2037: ventricular fibrillation have more serious health consequences than

2038: those of atrial fibrillation. Another direction in which the proposed

2039: asymptotic description might be useful is the derivation of action

2040: potential restitution curves and conduction velocity dispersion

2041: curves for realistic cardiac models. These two curves are the

2042: most popular and widely available experimental characteristics of cardiac tissue

2043: upon which various interpretations of cardiac dynamics are based

2044: \cite{Shiferaw-etal-2006}.

2045: 

2046: Finally, a simplified model, like the Archetypal Model or its

2047: caricature suggested here, can be a useful tool for large-scale

2048: numerics. Confidence in such a tool will increase if the simplified

2049: model has been derived by a controlled asymptotic procedure from a

2050: detailed model and preserves its predictive power.  Such a model can

2051: also be useful for theoretical studies.  For example, the difference

2052: between ``slow over-threshold response'' and ``normal fast upstroke'',

2053: discussed in Appendix~\ref{S:Synthesis} only appears in the

2054: asymptotic limit $\eps\to0$ and cannot be mathematically identified in

2055: the model at $\eps=1$, even if the exact analytical solution like

2056: \eqref{exactsol} is available.  This difference may be important

2057: physiologically. E.g.~it creates a possibility for ``slow'' and

2058: ``fast'' propagating waves in the system, a feature that has been

2059: observed in other models and in electro-physiological experiments as

2060: ``Na'' and ``Ca'' excitation

2061: waves~\cite{Romashko-Starmer-1995,Rohr-Kucera-1997}. We believe that

2062: asymptotic analysis is the most adequate tool for mathematical

2063: description of this sort of ``qualitative'' phenomena, and cannot be

2064: replaced with numerical or even exact analytical solutions.

2065: 

2066: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2067: \appendix

2068: 

2069: \section*{Appendices}

2070: 

2071: \section{A more accurate archetypal model}

2072: \label{S:Accurate}

2073: 

2074: As one can see from \fig{04}(a), the AP of the

2075: AM \eqref{N62mod} is a bit longer, and its repolarization is a bit

2076: slower than that of the Noble model \eqref{N62}. Although this

2077: difference may seem relatively minor, it is in fact surprisingly

2078: large, considering that the small parameter $\eps$ used to derive equations

2079: \eqref{N62mod} from equations \eqref{N62} is related to small quantities in

2080: \eqref{N62} of the order of $10^{-2}$. Thus, we would expect

2081: an accuracy of the order of $1\%$ in all results, which is clearly not

2082: the case in \fig{04}(a). The reason for this is that the asymptotic

2083: structure of Noble model \eqref{N62} is even more complicated than

2084: that summarized in the Axioms I--VII. Here we argue that the observed

2085: discrepancy is mainly due to a deficiency of Axiom VII. However, we believe that the

2086: complication in question is idiosyncratic for Noble model 

2087: and is not actually observed in later more realistic models.

2088: Still, in order to demonstrate the validity of our approach, we show

2089: here how the AM can be improved by an appropriate correction.

2090: 

2091: \input{fig10.tex}

2092: 

2093: \Fig{02}(b) shows that the function $\S(\E)$ is relatively

2094: small. However, it appears in \eqref{h-mfd-subs} multiplied by the

2095: large factor $\gone(\E)/\fone(\E)$ and thus the values of the product

2096: \begin{equation}

2097:   \Q(\E) \equiv \gone(\E)\, \S(\E)/ \fone(\E),

2098: \label{Q}

2099: \end{equation}

2100: are in fact of the order unity over a significant range of

2101: voltages as shown in \fig{10}(a). It is then clear that 

2102: neglecting this essentially non-zero term in equation

2103: \eqref{h-mfd-subs} leads to the low accuracy of the AM

2104: \eqref{N62mod}. 

2105: At first glance, this means that in the Noble model \eqref{N62},

2106: during the repolarization phase of the AP, gate $\h$ is, in fact, not

2107: fast compared to other two 

2108: variables. This would mean that reduction to a two-variable model in that

2109: region is not possible. However, as we have discussed in Introduction

2110: after the definition of embedding, a replacement of $1$ with a small

2111: parameter can, in fact, be a reasonable embedding, and its quality can be

2112: assessed by a comparison of the numerical solutions of the original and

2113: the embedded problem. Such comparison is provided in \fig{03} and

2114: shows that the embedding \eqref{N62mod} is indeed reasonable although

2115: of a not very high accuracy. 

2116: Thus we suppose that a higher accuracy can be achieved by 

2117: taking a first-order approximation of the term $\Q$ in the parameter

2118: $\eps$, rather than zero-order as in the other terms. Let us denote

2119: the small parameter associated with the function $\Q(\E)$ by

2120: $\epsQ$, $\epsQ>0$. Then the error term 

2121: after the first-order approximation in $\epsQ$ will be

2122: $O(\epsQ^2)$. The error term after the zero-order approximation in

2123: $\eps$ will be, of course $O(\eps)$. If we want these two kinds of

2124: error terms to be of the same order, we must therefore consider

2125: $\epsQ=\eps^{1/2}$.  

2126: These arguments are formalized by the following improved version of Axiom VII, 

2127: 

2128: \begin{axiomlist}{\rule{23mm}{0mm}}

2129:   \item[Axiom VIIa.] 

2130:   $\emb{\S}(\E;\eps) = \eps^{1/2} \Stilde(\E) + O(\eps)$, 

2131:  {\it where $\Stilde(\E)\approx\S(\E)$.}

2132: \end{axiomlist}

2133: Besides, for technical reasons the following, stronger version of Axiom VI will

2134: be more convenient for us:

2135: \begin{axiomlist}{\rule{23mm}{0mm}}

2136:   \item[Axiom VIa.] 

2137:   $\emb{\mbarcub}(\E;\eps)\,\emb{\hbar}(\E;\eps)=\eps\Wtilde(\E) +

2138:   O(\eps^2)$,   

2139:   {\it for the same $\Wtilde(\E)$ as in Axiom VI.} 

2140: \end{axiomlist}

2141: 

2142: Substituting Axioms VIa and VIIa into \eqref{h-mfd-subs}, we get

2143: %

2144: \begin{gather}

2145:   \Df{\E}{\t} = \gone\Wtilde(\E) 

2146:   - \eps^{1/2} \frac{\gone(\E)}{\fone(\E)}\, \Stilde(\E)\,\Df{\E}{\t}

2147:   + O(\eps) .				\label{embed0slow-implicit}

2148: \end{gather}

2149: %

2150: From here we deduce that $\d\E/\d\t=\gone\Wtilde+O(\eps^{1/2})$. Substituting

2151: this into the right-hand side of \eqref{embed0slow-implicit} we obtain 

2152: \begin{gather}

2153:   \Df{\E}{\t} = \gone\Wtilde(\E) 

2154:   - \eps^{1/2} \frac{\gone(\E)}{\fone(\E)}\, \Stilde(\E) \gone\Wtilde

2155:   + O(\eps).				\label{embed0slow-explicit}

2156: \end{gather}

2157: %

2158: Thus, after discarding $O(\eps)$ and putting $\eps=1$, we arrive at the

2159: following variant of \eqref{embed0slow},

2160: %

2161: \begin{subequations}

2162: \begin{align}

2163: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \left(\gone(\E)\, \Wtilde(\E) + \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 +

2164:   \gthree(\E)\right)\,\left(1-\Qtilde(\E)\right),		\label{embed0slowQ.1}\\

2165: & \h = \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E),					\label{embed0slowQ.2}\\

2166: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left(\nbar(\E) - \n \right),		\label{embed0slowQ.3}

2167: \end{align}							\label{embed0slowQ}

2168: \end{subequations}

2169: %

2170: where the first and third equations are satisfied with accuracy

2171: $O(\eps)$ and the second equation is satisfied only with accuracy

2172: $O(\eps^{1/2})$. Here $\Qtilde(\E)=\Stilde(\E)\, \gone(\E)/\fone(\E)$

2173: which according to Axiom VIIa should be close to $\Q(\E)$.  

2174: 

2175: 

2176: We see that in terms of the slow subsystem, the modification simply

2177: amounts to multiplying the right-hand side of equation \eqref{embed0slowQ.1} by a

2178: known function of $\E$. By analogy, it is straightforward to propose an

2179: improved version of the AM \eqref{N62mod},

2180: %

2181: \begin{equation}

2182: \begin{split}

2183: & \Df{\E}{\t} = \left(

2184:   \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h + 

2185:   \gone(\E)\,\W(\E) + 

2186:   \gtwo(\E)\, \n^4 + 

2187:   \gthree(\E)\right)\,

2188:   \left(1-\Q(\E)\right),\\

2189: & \Df{\h}{\t} = \fone(\E)\, \left( \H(\E)\, \Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h \right),\\

2190: & \Df{\n}{\t} = \ftwo(\E)\, \left( \nbar(\E) - \n \right).                 

2191: \end{split}								\label{N62modQ}

2192: \end{equation}

2193: %

2194: This improved AM gives solutions very close to those of

2195: the Noble system \eqref{N62}, as illustrated in \fig{10}(b).  

2196: 

2197: Notice that the asymptotic structure of the improved AM

2198: \eqref{N62modQ} is exactly the same as that of \eqref{N62mod}. Indeed,

2199: the difference amounts to redefining the functions $\gone(\E)$,

2200: $\gtwo(\E)$, $\gthree(\E)$ via a factor $1-\Q$, thus the asymptotic

2201: theory discussed in section~\ref{S:AM:Asymptotics} is equally

2202: applicable to both systems.

2203: 

2204: \section{The high-excitability embedding}

2205: \label{S:HighExc}

2206: 

2207: For the numerical values of the parameters corresponding to healthy

2208: tissue, the voltage upstroke at the beginning of the AP is, in

2209: fact, a much faster variable than the $\h$-gate. Indeed, the voltage speed

2210: constant $\gNa/\CM=33\frac13$ is large compared to the typical values of the

2211: $\h$-gate speed function,

2212: $\max\limits_{[\Em,\ENa]}\fone(\E)\approx1$.  

2213: This speed difference is unaccounted for by Axioms I--VII(a)

2214: where these two quantities have the same asymptotic order.

2215: However, some features of a typical AP solution depend on the ratio

2216: of these quantities in an exponential way. 

2217: 

2218: To take this feature into account, here we construct an improved embedding

2219: which takes the $\E$-vs.-$\h$ speed difference into 

2220: account.  We use an additional embedding with one more artificial

2221: small parameter $\epshi>0$. Formally, we replace Axiom I with a new

2222: Axiom,\\[2mm] 

2223: %

2224: \noindent\textsl{Axiom Ia.}\rule{10mm}{0mm} $

2225: \emb{\gNa}(\eps,\epshi)=\epshi^{-1}\eps^{-1}\gNa.$ \\[2mm]

2226: %

2227: This, of course, does not affect the slow-time subsystem

2228: \eqref{embed0slow}. The fast-time subsystem \eqref{embed0fast} now depends

2229: on the new parameter $\epshi$ and becomes

2230: %

2231: \begin{equation}

2232: \begin{split}

2233: & \Df{\E}{\T} = \epshi^{-1} \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\, \h,\\

2234: & \Df{\h}{\T} = \fone(\E)\, \left(\H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h \right),

2235: \end{split}							\label{embed0fast-hiex}

2236: \end{equation} 

2237: %

2238: where the trivial equation for $\n$ is omitted as the $\n$-gate neither

2239: changes nor matters on time scales of interest here. The equations

2240: \eqref{embed0fast-hiex} appear to be a standard fast-slow Tikhonov

2241: system. 

2242: However, this is deceptive since the specific properties of the right-hand

2243: sides lead to a number of nonstandard features. Let us consider the limit

2244: $\epshi\rightarrow0$ in this system. In the super-fast time $\thi=\T/\epshi$,

2245: the $\h$-gate is a first integral, $\d{\h}/\d{\thi}=0$, and $\E$

2246: satisfies the super-fast equation, 

2247: %

2248: \begin{equation}

2249: \Df{\E}{\thi} = \gone(\E)\, \M(\E)\, \Heav(\E-\Em)\,\h,

2250: \label{embed0fast-fast}

2251: \end{equation}

2252: %

2253: depending on $\h$ as a parameter.  The equilibria of this system for

2254: which the the right-hand side vanishes, form an unusual set consisting of

2255: the lines $\h=0$  and $\E=\ENa$ and the semi-stripe

2256: $\{(\E,\h)\}=(-\infty,\Em)\times[0,1]$. Hence, the slow set is not a

2257: manifold, but consists of pieces of different dimensionalities.  This

2258: feature is even ``more non-Tikhonov'' than the many non-standard

2259: properties observed in the main embedding.

2260: One consequence is that the slow-time subsystem of \eqref{embed0fast-hiex}

2261: changes form as the trajectory passes through the various pieces of the slow

2262: set. This dependence is substantial: even the dimensionality of the

2263: slow system changes. For instance, for a typical AP

2264: solution in the beginning of the plateau, the trajectory crosses the

2265: $\E=\ENa$ piece, which can be parameterized by $\h$. Then we have a

2266: one-dimensional slow subsystem of \eqref{embed0fast-fast} (which is in

2267: the ``fast time'' $\T$) in the form of an equation for $\h$, 

2268: %

2269: \begin{equation}

2270: \Df{\h}{\T} = - \fone(\ENa)\, \h.

2271: \label{embed0fast-slow1} 

2272: \end{equation}

2273: %

2274: Then, during the later part of the plateau, which proceeds along the

2275: one-dimensional piece $\h=0$, the slow subsystem becomes 

2276: ``zero-dimensional'' in the sense that all right-hand sides vanish and

2277: all trajectories are fixed points. This corresponds to the fact that the

2278: movement along this piece occurs slowly in terms of the parameter

2279: $\eps$, \ie{}~is infinitely slow not only in terms of time $\thi$ but

2280: in terms of time $\T$ too. Finally, during the repolarization phase of the AP

2281: when the voltage $\E$ drops below $\Em$, the slow subsystem is on the

2282: two-dimensional piece but is in fact foliated to

2283: one-dimensional pieces, as the right-hand side of the equation for

2284: $\E$ vanishes and the voltage $\E$ is a first integral,

2285: %

2286: \begin{equation}

2287: \begin{split}

2288: & \Df{\E}{\T} = 0,\\

2289: & \Df{\h}{\T} = \fone(\E)\, \left( \H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E) - \h \right).

2290: \end{split}							\label{embed0fast-slow3}

2291: \end{equation} 

2292: 

2293: Since the equations of this ``high-excitability'' embedding are at most

2294: one-dimensional systems, obviously all of them can be solved in quadratures. 

2295: This embedding is rather instructive since it demonstrates that a

2296: non-Tikhonov embedding might lead to rather untypical consequences.

2297: It might also be useful for a number of applications, especially when 

2298: healthy, well-excitable tissues are concerned. However, 

2299: the most important applications are those related to the failure of 

2300: excitation, or of excitation propagation in the case of

2301: spatially-extended systems. These processes are observed, however,

2302: exactly when the excitability, represented here by formal parameter

2303: $\epshi^{-1}$, is not so high. 

2304: 

2305: \section{Asymptotic synthesis}

2306: \label{S:Synthesis}

2307: 

2308: We assume, for simplicity, that the initial values of the gating

2309: variables are given by $\hini=1$, $\nini=0$. Then, depending on the

2310: initial trans-membrane voltage $\Eini$, there exist three

2311: types of solutions of \eqref{N62mod} as visualized by the phase

2312: portraits in \fig{06} and described below: 

2313: 

2314: \subsection{Sub-threshold response}

2315: If the initial value of $\E$ is less that the threshold value

2316: of the super-slow subsystem \eqref{N62mod-slowslow} \ie{}~$\Eini<\Etwo$,

2317: the voltage decays towards its global equilibrium  $\Eone$:

2318: \begin{nlist}{\rule{3mm}{0mm}} 

2319: %

2320: \item[Relaxation of the $\h$-gate.] The $\h$-gate relaxes on a time scale

2321:   $\sim\eps$ towards its quasi-stationary value $\h\approx

2322:   \H(\E)\,\Heav(\Eh-\E)$ according to \eqref{N62mod-fastsubthr}. The

2323:   variables $\E$ and $\n$  remain close to their original values of

2324:   $\E\approx \Eini$,  $\n\approx \nini=0$. 

2325: %

2326: \item[Relaxation of the voltage $\E$.] The voltage decays on a time scale

2327:   $\sim1$ towards its equilibrium value $\Eone$  according to

2328:   \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} (with $\n=0$).  The $\h$-gate remains close

2329:   to its quasi-stationary value except,  possibly, swiftly moving on

2330:   a time scale $\sim\eps$ along its  discontinuity as $\E$

2331:   passes through $\Eh$. The   slow $\n$-gate remains approximately

2332:   at $\n\approx \nini=0$.

2333: %

2334: \end{nlist}

2335: 

2336: \subsection{Slow over-threshold response}

2337: 

2338: If the initial value of the voltage is bigger than the threshold value

2339: of the super-slow subsystem \eqref{N62mod-slowslow} but smaller

2340: than $\Em$ \ie{}~$\Etwo<\Eini<\Em$ then  the  slow subsystem alone

2341: is sufficient to describe the AP evolution and the fast Na current is

2342: not involved. The voltage makes a relatively small excursion towards

2343: the upper systolic branch of the super-slow manifold and approaches it from 

2344: below:

2345: \begin{nlist}{\rule{3mm}{0mm}}

2346: \item[Relaxation of the $\h$-gate.] The $\h$-gate relaxes on a time

2347:   scale $\sim\eps$ in the same way as in the case of

2348:   sub-threshold response, except this time the quasi-stationary value

2349:   of $\h$ is zero since $\Etwo>\Eh$.  

2350: \item[Rise of the voltage $\E$.] The voltage increases on 

2351:   time scale $\sim1$ towards $\Ethree$ \ie{}~towards the

2352:   upper part of the systolic branch of the super-slow  manifold according to

2353:   \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol} (with $\n=0$). The slow $\n$-gate remains

2354:   approximately unchanged at   $\n\approx \nini=0$.   

2355: \item[Plateau.] The variables $\E$ and $\n$ move on a time scale

2356:   $\sim\epstwo^{-1}$ along the upper  systolic  branch of the

2357:   super-slow manifold $\n=\Nss(\E)$, according to \eqref{N62mod-slowslow}

2358:   until they reach the  point $(\East,\Nast)$. The $\h$-gate remains

2359:   close to its quasi-stationary value of $\h\approx  0$. 

2360: \item[Repolarization.] The voltage $\E$ jumps on a time scale

2361:   $\sim1$ according to \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol}, towards

2362:   the diastolic branch of the super-slow manifold.  The $\h$-gate remains

2363:   close to its quasi-stationary value except, possibly, for a swift movement

2364:   along the discontinuity of $\H(\E)\Heav(\Eh-\E)$ at $\E=\Eh$ on a

2365:   time scale $\sim\eps$. The slow $\n$-gate remains

2366:   approximately at $\n\approx \Nast$.

2367: \item[Recovery.] The variables $\E$ and $\n$ move on a time scale

2368:   $\sim\epstwo^{-1}$ along the

2369:   diastolic branch of the super-slow manifold $\n=\Nss(\E)$, according to

2370:   \eqref{N62mod-slowslow}. This continues forever, with $(\E,\n)$

2371:   asymptotically approaching the true equilibrium of the system

2372:   $(\Eone,0)$. Gate $\h$ stays close to its quasi-stationary

2373:   value $\h\approx 0$.

2374: \end{nlist}

2375: 

2376: \subsection{Normal fast-upstroke action potential}

2377: 

2378:   If the initial value of the voltage exceeds the threshold of the

2379:   primary fast-time system \eqref{N62mod-embfast} \ie{}~$\Eini>\Em$ the

2380:   fast Na current is activated and a normal fast-upstroke AP,

2381:   is initiated:

2382: \begin{nlist}{\rule{3mm}{0mm}}

2383: \item[Fast upstroke.] The variables $\h$ and $\E$ change together

2384:     on a time scale $\sim\eps$ according to

2385:     \eqref{N62mod-fastupstrokesol} from the point $(\E,\h)=(\Eini,1)$

2386:     asymptotically (in $\T\rightarrow\infty$) approaching the point

2387:     $(\E,\h)=\left(\Einf(\Eini,1),0\right)$. The slow $\n$-gate remains

2388:     approximately unchanged at $\n\approx \nini=0$. 

2389: \item[Post-overshoot drop of the voltage $\E$.] The voltage $\E$

2390:   descends, inasmuch as $\Einf(\Eini,1)>\Ethree$,

2391:   on a time scale $\sim1$ towards its  higher

2392:   equilibrium value $\Ethree$ according to  \eqref{N62mod-slowfastsol}

2393:   (with $\n=0$).  Variable $\h$ remains close to its  quasi-stationary

2394:   value of $\h\approx 0$. The slow $\n$-gate remains approximately

2395:   unchanged at $\n\approx \nini=0$.   

2396: \item[Plateau, repolarization and recovery] stages follow which are 

2397:    similar to the corresponding stages in the case of slow

2398:   over-threshold response. 

2399: \end{nlist}

2400: \vspace{2mm}

2401: 

2402: 

2403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2404: 

2405: \section*{Acknowledgement} 

2406:   We are saddened by the recent sudden death of Yury E. Elkin who has

2407:   made a decisive contribution to this work. This paper is dedicated

2408:   to his memory. This study has been supported in part by EPSRC grant

2409:   GR/S75314/01 (UK).

2410: 

2411: \bibliographystyle{agsm}

2412: \bibliography{mn}

2413: 

2414: \end{document}

2415: