Dataset Information

Optogenetic versus Electrical Stimulation of Human Cardiomyocytes: Modeling Insights.

ABSTRACT: Optogenetics provides an alternative to electrical stimulation to manipulate membrane voltage, and trigger or modify action potentials (APs) in excitable cells. We compare biophysically and energetically the cellular responses to direct electrical current injection versus optical stimulation mediated by genetically expressed light-sensitive ion channels, e.g., Channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2). Using a computational model of ChR2(H134R mutant), we show that both stimulation modalities produce similar-in-morphology APs in human cardiomyocytes, and that electrical and optical excitability vary with cell type in a similar fashion. However, whereas the strength-duration curves for electrical excitation in ventricular and atrial cardiomyocytes closely follow the theoretical exponential relationship for an equivalent RC circuit, the respective optical strength-duration curves significantly deviate, exhibiting higher nonlinearity. We trace the origin of this deviation to the waveform of the excitatory current-a nonrectangular self-terminating inward current produced in optical stimulation due to ChR2 kinetics and voltage-dependent rectification. Using a unifying charge measure to compare energy needed for electrical and optical stimulation, we reveal that direct electrical current injection (rectangular pulse) is more efficient at short pulses, whereas voltage-mediated negative feedback leads to self-termination of ChR2 current and renders optical stimulation more efficient for long low-intensity pulses. This applies to cardiomyocytes but not to neuronal cells (with much shorter APs). Furthermore, we demonstrate the cell-specific use of ChR2 current as a unique modulator of intrinsic activity, allowing for optical control of AP duration in atrial and, to a lesser degree, in ventricular myocytes. For self-oscillatory cells, such as Purkinje, constant light at extremely low irradiance can be used for fine control of oscillatory frequency, whereas constant electrical stimulation is not feasible due to electrochemical limitations. Our analysis offers insights for designing future new energy-efficient stimulation strategies in heart or brain.

SUBMITTER: Williams JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4407252 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optogenetic versus Electrical Stimulation of Human Cardiomyocytes: Modeling Insights.

Williams John C JC Entcheva Emilia E

Biophysical journal 20150401 8

Optogenetics provides an alternative to electrical stimulation to manipulate membrane voltage, and trigger or modify action potentials (APs) in excitable cells. We compare biophysically and energetically the cellular responses to direct electrical current injection versus optical stimulation mediated by genetically expressed light-sensitive ion channels, e.g., Channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2). Using a computational model of ChR2(H134R mutant), we show that both stimulation modalities produce similar-in ...[more]

PMID: 25902433

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current cardiac drug safety assessments focus on hERG channel block and QT prolongation for evaluating arrhythmic risks, whereas the optogenetic approach focuses on the action potential (AP) waveform generated by a monolayer of human cardiomyocytes beating synchronously, thus assessing the contribution of several ion channels on the overall drug effect. This novel tool provides arrhythmogenic sensitizing by light-induced pacing in combination with non-invasive, all-optical measurements of cardiomyocyte APs and will improve assessment of drug-induced electrophysiological aberrancies. With the help of patch clamp electrophysiology measurements, we aimed to investigate whether the optogenetic modifications alter human cardiomyocytes' electrophysiology and how well the optogenetic analyses perform against this gold standard. Patch clamp electrophysiology measurements of non-transduced stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes compared to cells expressing the commercially available optogenetic constructs Optopatch and CaViar revealed no significant changes in action potential duration (APD) parameters. Thus, inserting the optogenetic constructs into cardiomyocytes does not significantly affect the cardiomyocyte's electrophysiological properties. When comparing the two methods against each other (patch clamp vs. optogenetic imaging) we found no significant differences in APD parameters for the Optopatch transduced cells, whereas the CaViar transduced cells exhibited modest increases in APD-values measured with optogenetic imaging. Thus, to broaden the screen, we combined optogenetic measurements of membrane potential and calcium transients with contractile motion measured by video motion tracking. Furthermore, to assess how optogenetic measurements can predict changes in membrane potential, or early afterdepolarizations (EADs), cells were exposed to cumulating doses of E-4031, a hERG potassium channel blocker, and drug effects were measured at both spontaneous and paced beating rates (1, 2 Hz). Cumulating doses of E-4031 produced prolonged APDs, followed by EADs and drug-induced quiescence. These observations were corroborated by patch clamp and contractility measurements. Similar responses, although more modest were seen with the IKs potassium channel blocker JNJ-303. In conclusion, optogenetic measurements of AP waveforms combined with optical pacing compare well with the patch clamp gold standard. Combined with video motion contractile measurements, optogenetic imaging provides an appealing alternative for electrophysiological screening of human cardiomyocyte responses in pharmacological efficacy and safety testings.

Dataset Information

Optogenetic versus Electrical Stimulation of Human Cardiomyocytes: Modeling Insights.

Publications

Optogenetic versus Electrical Stimulation of Human Cardiomyocytes: Modeling Insights.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure