Dataset Information

Electrocardiographic Scaling Reveals Differences in Electrocardiogram Interval Durations Between Marine and Terrestrial Mammals.

ABSTRACT: Although the ability of marine mammals to lower heart rates for extended periods when diving is well documented, it is unclear whether marine mammals have electrophysiological adaptations that extend beyond overall bradycardia. We analyzed electrocardiographic data from 50 species of terrestrial mammals and 19 species of marine mammals to determine whether the electrical activity of the heart differs between these two groups of mammals. We also tested whether physiological state (i.e., anesthetized or conscious) affects electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. Analyses of ECG waveform morphology (heart rate, P-wave duration, and PQ, PR, QRS, and QT intervals) revealed allometric relationships between body mass and all ECG intervals (as well as heart rate) for both groups of mammals and specific differences in ECG parameters between marine mammals and their terrestrial counterparts. Model outputs indicated that marine mammals had 19% longer P-waves, 24% longer QRS intervals, and 21% shorter QT intervals. In other words, marine mammals had slower atrial and ventricular depolarization, and faster ventricular repolarization than terrestrial mammals. Heart rates and PR intervals were not significantly different between marine and terrestrial mammals, and physiological state did not significantly affect any ECG parameter. On average, ECG interval durations of marine and terrestrial mammals scaled with body mass to the power of 0.21 (range: 0.19-0.23) rather than the expected 0.25-while heart rate scaled with body mass to the power of -0.22 and was greater than the widely accepted -0.25 derived from fractal geometry. Our findings show clear differences between the hearts of terrestrial and marine mammals in terms of cardiac timing that extend beyond diving bradycardia. They also highlight the importance of considering special adaptations (such as breath-hold diving) when analyzing allometric relationships.

SUBMITTER: Storlund RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:As part of its response to a perturbation, an animal often needs to reposition its body. Inertia acts to oppose the corrective motion, delaying the completion of the movement-we refer to this elapsed time as inertial delay. As animal size increases, muscle moment arms also increase, but muscles are proportionally weaker, and limb inertia is proportionally larger. Consequently, the scaling of inertial delays is complex. Our intent is to determine how quickly different sized animals can produce corrective movements when their muscles act at their force capacity, relative to the time within which those movements need to be performed. Here, we quantify inertial delay using two biomechanical models representing common scenarios in animal locomotion: a distributed mass pendulum approximating swing limb repositioning (swing task), and an inverted pendulum approximating whole body posture recovery (posture task). We parameterized the anatomical, muscular, and inertial properties of these models using literature scaling relationships, then determined inertial delay for each task across a large range of movement magnitudes and the full range of terrestrial mammal sizes. We found that inertial delays scaled with an average of M0.28 in the swing task and M0.35 in the posture task across movement magnitudes-larger animals require more absolute time to perform the same movement as small animals. The time available to complete a movement also increases with animal size, but less steeply. Consequently, inertial delays comprise a greater fraction of swing duration and other characteristic movement times in larger animals. We also compared inertial delays to the other component delays within the stimulus-response pathway. As movement magnitude increased, inertial delays exceeded these sensorimotor delays, and this occurred for smaller movements in larger animals. Inertial delays appear to be a challenge for motor control, particularly for bigger movements in larger animals.

Project description:There are contradictory reports regarding the effects of protease inhibitors on the ECG measures of QT and PR interval durations. The effect of interrupting use of protease inhibitors on QT and PR progression is also unknown.This analysis included 3719 participants from the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (SMART) study, of whom 1879 were randomized to receive intermittent antiretroviral therapy (ART) (drug conservation group), whereas the rest received these drugs continuously (viral suppression group). Linear regression analysis was used to compare four ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (protease inhibitor/r) regimens [saquinavir (SQV/r), lopinavir (LPV/r), atazanavir (ATV/r), and other protease inhibitor/r], and nonboosted protease inhibitor regimens with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimens for Bazett's (QTcB) and Fredericia's (QTcF) heart rate corrected QT and PR. Changes in QTcB, QTcF, and PR after 12 and 24 months of randomization were compared in the drug conservation group and viral suppression group.Average levels of QTcB, QTcF, and PR duration at entry were 415, 406, and 158 ms. At study entry, 49% of participants were taking an NNRTI (no protease inhibitor)-based regimen and 31% were prescribed a boosted protease inhibitor, the most common being LPV/r. After adjustment for baseline factors, QTcB and QTcF levels did not vary by boosted protease inhibitor group (P = 0.26 and P = 0.34, respectively). For those given any of the boosted protease inhibitors, QTcB was 1.5 ms lower than the NNRTI group (P = 0.04). Both boosted and nonboosted protease inhibitor-containing regimens were significantly associated (P < 0.01 for each) with longer PR intervals compared to the NNRTI group. After adjustment, the difference between boosted protease inhibitors and the NNRTI group was 5.11 ms (P < 0.01); for nonboosted protease inhibitors, this difference was 3.00 ms (P < 0.01). Following ART interruption, PR duration declined for both the boosted and nonboosted protease inhibitor groups and compared to the viral suppression group, significant changes in PR interval were observed 24 months after ART interruption of boosted protease inhibitors (P < 0.01).Different protease inhibitor-based regimens have a similar, minimal effect on QT compared to NNRTI-based regimens. All protease inhibitor-based regimens (boosted and nonboosted) were associated with prolongation of PR, and interruption of protease inhibitor regimens reduced the prolonged PR duration. Further research is needed to confirm the findings of this study and assess the clinical relevance of the differences.

Dataset Information

Electrocardiographic Scaling Reveals Differences in Electrocardiogram Interval Durations Between Marine and Terrestrial Mammals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets