Advertisement

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 12, pp 2617–2627 | Cite as

Accuracy of electromagnetic models to estimate cardiomyocyte membrane polarization

  • Hugo F. M. MilanEmail author
  • Rosana A. Bassani
  • Luiz E. C. Santos
  • Antonio C. G. Almeida
  • José W. M. Bassani
Original Article

Abstract

External electric fields (E) induce a spatially heterogeneous variation in the membrane potential (ΔVm) of cardiomyocytes that, if sufficiently large, results in an action potential and contraction. Insights into the phenomenon of ΔVm induction by E have been classically gained with electromagnetic models due to the lack of adequate experimental approaches. However, it is not clear yet how reliable these models are. To assess the accuracy of commonly used models, a reference 3D numerical model for cardiomyocytes (NMReal) was developed, consisting of the cell membrane shell reconstructed from rendered confocal microscopy images of freshly isolated ventricular myocytes. NMReal was used to estimate the E-induced maximum ΔVm values (ΔVmax), which were compared with estimates from seven other electromagnetic models. Accurate ΔVmax estimates (average error < 2%) were obtained with a less complex 3D model (NM3D) based on the extruded 2D image of the cell longitudinal section. Acceptable ΔVmax estimates (average error < 5%) were obtained with the prolate spheroid analytical model (PSAM) when the angle of E incidence and the cell major axis was < 30°. In this case, PSAM, a much simpler model requiring only the measurement of the longitudinal and transversal cell dimensions, can be a suitable alternative for ΔVmax calculation.

Graphical abstract

(A) Confocal images of the cell were used to reconstruct the realistic geometry of cardiomyocytes (NMReal). (B) NMReal was used to estimate the maximum variation in the transmembrane potential (ΔVmax) induced by an external electric field (E) applied at different angles with respect to the cell major axis. Plus (anode) and minus (cathode) signs indicate electrode position (E direction is from minus to plus). (C) Relative error (vs. NMReal) of ΔVmax estimation with simplified electromagnetic models, presented in descending order of accuracy (left-to-right, top-to-bottom). NM2D: 2D numerical model based on the longitudinal cell image; NM3D: numerical model based on the z extrusion of NM2D; EAM, PSAM, and CAM: ellipsoidal, prolate spheroidal, and cylindrical analytical models, respectively; PNM and CNM: parallelepipedal and cylindrical numerical models, respectively.

Keywords

Finite element analysis Transmembrane electric potential Electric field Electric stimulation Myocardial cell 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Brazilian National Center for High Performance Computing in the São Paulo State (CENAPAD-SP) for providing computational resources (Proj587) and to Ms. Elizângela S. Oliveira and Mr. Renato S. Moura from the Center for Biomedical Engineering of University of Campinas for technical support.

Funding information

This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Proc. 2013/05441-5), Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Proc. 304010/2016-2, 203312/2014-7, 308092/2015-5), Minas Gerais Research Foundation (FAPEMIG, Proc. PPM-00666-16), and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

References

  1. 1.
    Bassani RA, Lima KA, Gomes PAP, Oliveira PX, Bassani JWM (2006) Combining stimulus direction and waveform for optimization of threshold stimulation of isolated ventricular myocytes. Physiol Meas 27:851–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bensley JG, Matteo RD, Harding R, Black MJ (2016) Three-dimensional direct measurement of cardiomyocyte volume, nuclearity, and ploidy in thick histological sections. Sci Rep 6:23756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernhardt J, Pauly H (1973) On the generation of potential difference across the membranes of ellipsoidal cells in an alternating electrical field. Biophysics 10:89–98Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bishop SP, Drummond JL (1979) Surface morphology and cell size measurement of isolated rat cardiac myocytes. J Mol Cell Cardiol 11:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartee LA, Plonsey R (1992) The transient subthreshold response of spherical and cylindrical cell models to extracellular stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 39:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coocklin M, Wallis WRJ, Sheridan DJ, Fry CH (1997) Changes in cell-to-cell electrical coupling associated with left ventricular hypertrophy. Circ Res 80:765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Connolly A, Kelly A, Campos FO, Myles R, Smith G, Bishop MJ (2018) Ventricular endocardial tissue geometry affects stimulus threshold and effective refractory period. Biophys J 115:2486–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishler MG, Sobie AE, Tung L, Thakor NV (1995) Cardiac responses to premature monophasic and biphasic field stimuli: results from cell and tissue modeling studies. J Electrocardiol 28:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freitas JANLF, Leomil FSC, Zoccoler M, Antoneli PC, Oliveira PX (2018) Cardiomyocyte lethality by multidirectional stimuli. Med Biol Eng Comput 56:2177–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fry CH, Salvage SC, Manazza A, Dupont E, Labeed FH, Hughes MP, Jabr RI (2012) Cytoplasm resistivity of mammalian atrial myocardium determined by dielectrophoresis and impedance methods. Biophys J 103:2287–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galappaththige S, Roth BJ (2015) Electrical pacing of cardiac tissue including potassium inward rectification. PLoS One 10:e0127837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geuzaine C, Remacle JF (2009) A three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79:1888–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gimsa J, Wachner D (2001) Analytical description of the transmembrane voltage induced on arbitrarily oriented ellipsoidal and cylindrical cells. Biophys J 81:1888–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomes PAP, Bassani RA, Bassani JWM (2001) Electric field stimulation of cardiac myocytes during postnatal development. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 48:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goulart JT, Oliveira PX, Bassani JWM, Bassani RA (2012) The influence of cell dimensions on the vulnerability of ventricular myocytes to lethal injury by high-intensity electrical fields. Braz J Biomed Eng 28:337–345Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IEEE Recommended Practices for Validation of Computational Electromagnetic Computer Modeling and Simulations (2011) IEEE Std 1597.2-2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jayasinghe ID, Clowsley AH, Munro M, Hou Y, Crossman DJ, Soeller C (2015) Revealing t-tubules in striated muscle with new optical super-resolution microscopy techniques. Eur J Transl Myol 25:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kishida H, Surawicz B, Fu LT (1979) Effect of K+ and K+-induced polarization on (dV/dt)max, threshold potential, and membrane input resistance in guinea pig and cat ventricular myocardium. Circ Res 44:800–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klee M, Plonsey R (1976) Stimulation of spheroidal cells: the role of cell shape. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 23:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kotnik T, Miklavcic D (2000) Analytical description of transmembrane voltage induced by electric fields in spheroidal cells. Biophys J 79:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krassowska W, Neu JC (1994) Response of a single cell to an external electric field. Biophys J 66:1768–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leon LJ, Roberge FA (1993) A model study of extracellular stimulation of cardiac cells. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 40:1307–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malmivuo J, Plonsey R (1995) Bioelectromagnetism: principles and applications of bioelectric and biomagnetic fields. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maswiwat K, Wachner D, Warnkoe R, Gimsa J (2007) Simplified equation for the transmembrane potential induced in ellipsoidal cells of rotational symmetry. J Phys D Appl Phys 40:914–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maswiwat K, Wachner D, Gimsa J (2008) Effects of cell orientation and electric field frequency on the transmembrane potential induced in ellipsoidal cells. Bioelectrochemistry 74:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Milan HFM, Bassani RA, Bassani JWM (2015) Testing electrode suitability for field stimulation of high-threshold biological preparations. Res Biomed Eng 31:273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oliveira PX, Bassani RA, Bassani JWM (2008) Lethal effect of electric field on isolated ventricular myocytes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55:2635–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oshiyama NF, Bassani JWM, Bassani RA (2013). Differences in excitability of ventricular myocytes from neonatal and adult rats. VIII Iberoamerican Congress of Biophysics. Valparaíso, Chile. Proceedings, p. 49. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Penna LB, Bassani RA (2010) Increased spontaneous activity and reduced inotropic response to catecholamines in ventricular myocytes from footshock-stressed rats. Stress 13:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pham P, Cauffet G, Bardou A, Olivares J, Novakov E (2000) Development of linear transient model for stimulation of isolated cardiac cells. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 12:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pucihar G, Kotnik T, Valic B, Miklavcic D (2006) Numerical determination of transmembrane voltage induced on irregularly shaped cells. Ann Biomed Eng 34:642–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available: https://www.R-project.org/
  33. 33.
    Ranjan R, Thakor NV (1995) Electrical stimulation of cardiac myocytes. Ann Biomed Eng 23:812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Satoh H, Delbridge LMD, Blatter LA, Bers DM (1996) Surface:volume relationship in cardiac myocytes studied with confocal microscopy and membrane capacitance measurements: species-dependence and development effects. Biophys J 70:1494–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sevgi L (2014) Electromagnetic modeling and simulation: challenges in validation, verification, and calibration. IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 56:750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharma V, Tung L (2002) Spatial heterogeneity of transmembrane potential responses of single guinea-pig cardiac cells during electric field simulation. J Physiol 542:477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soeller C, Cannell MB (1999) Examination of the transverse tubular system in living cardiac rat myocytes by 2-photon microscopy and digital image: processing techniques. Circ Res 84:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stubbe M, Gimsa J (2018) Furthering the state of knowledge on the electric properties of hemi-ellipsoidal single cells and cell patches on electrodes. Biosens Bioelectron 105:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trayanova NA, Chang KC (2016) How computer simulations of the human heart can improve anti-arrhythmia therapy. J Physiol 594:2483–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tung L, Borderies JR (1992) Analysis of electric field stimulation of single cardiac muscle cell. Biophys J 63:371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tung L, Sliz N, Mulligan MR (1991) Influence of electrical axis of stimulation on excitation of cardiac muscle cells. Circ Res 49:722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Viana MA, Bassani RA, Petrucci O, Marques DA, Bassani JWM (2014) Rapidly switching multidirectional defibrillation: reversal of ventricular fibrillation with lower energy shocks. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148:3213–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vigmond EJ, Hughes M, Plank G, Leon LJ (2003) Computational tools for modeling electrical activity in cardiac tissue. J Electrocardiol 36(suppl 1):69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Electrical and Computing EngineeringUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Center for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Biosystems EngineeringFederal University of São João del-ReiSão João del ReiBrazil

Personalised recommendations