Transverse propagation of action potentials between parallel chains of cardiac muscle and smooth muscle cells in PSpice simulations.
BACKGROUND
We previously examined transverse propagation of action potentials between 2 and 3 parallel chain of cardiac muscle cells (CMC) simulated using the PSpice program. The present study was done to examine transverse propagation between 5 parallel chains in an expanded model of CMC and smooth muscle cells (SMC).


METHODS
Excitation was transmitted from cell to cell along a strand of 5 cells not connected by low-resistance tunnels (gap-junction connexons). The entire surface membrane of each cell fired nearly simultaneously, and nearly all the propagation time was spent at the cell junctions, the junctional delay time being about 0.3-0.5 ms (CMC) or 0.8-1.6 ms (SMC). A negative cleft potential (Vjc) develops in the narrow junctional clefts, whose magnitude depends on the radial cleft resistance (Rjc), which depolarizes the postjunctional membrane (post-JM) to threshold. Propagation velocity (theta) increased with amplitude of Vjc. Therefore, one mechanism for the transfer of excitation from one cell to the next is by the electric field (EF) that is generated in the junctional cleft when the pre-JM fires. In the present study, 5 parallel stands of 5 cells each (5 x 5 model) were used.


RESULTS
With electrical stimulation of the first cell of the first strand (cell A1), propagation rapidly spread down that chain and then jumped to the second strand (B chain), followed by jumping to the third, fourth, and fifth strands (C, D, E chains). The rapidity by which the parallel chains became activated depended on the longitudinal resistance of the narrow extracellular cleft between the parallel strands (Rol2); the higher the Rol2 resistance, the faster the theta. The transverse resistance of the cleft (Ror2) had almost no effect. Increasing Rjc decreases the total propagation time (TPT) over the 25-cell network. When the first cell of the third strand (cell C1) was stimulated, propagation spread down the C chain and jumped to the other two strands (B and D) nearly simultaneously.


CONCLUSIONS
Transverse propagation of excitation occurred at multiple points along the chain as longitudinal propagation was occurring, causing the APs in the contiguous chains to become bunched up. Transverse propagation was more erratic and labile in SMC compared to CMC. Transverse transmission of excitation did not require low-resistance connections between the chains, but instead depended on the value of Rol2. The tighter the packing of the chains facilitated transverse propagation.
Dept of Molecular & Cellular Physiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0576, USA. spereln@ucmail.uc.edu
Nicholas
N
Sperelakis
Bijoy
B
Kalloor
D000200:Action Potentials / Q000502:physiology*; D002450:Cell Communication / Q000502:physiology; D003198:Computer Simulation; D017097:Electric Impedance; D004560:Electricity; D005110:Extracellular Space / Q000502:physiology*; D007365:Intercellular Junctions / Q000502:physiology; D008954:Models, Biological; D032383:Myocytes, Cardiac / Q000502:physiology*; D032389:Myocytes, Smooth Muscle / Q000502:physiology*