Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31493859›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2019

Four Ways to Fit an Ion Channel Model.

Michael Clerx, Kylie A Beattie, David J Gavaghan, Gary R Mirams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Optimizing experimental designs for model selection of ion channel drug-binding mechanisms.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Parameter inference for stochastic reaction models of ion channel gating from whole-cell voltage-clamp data.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of ion-channel models using data from multiple experimental designs.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Computational Modeling of Cardiac Electrophysiology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Evolution of Consciousness.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Kv12-Encoded KbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Ion channel model reduction using manifold boundaries.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael ClerxComputational Biology & Health Informatics, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Kylie A BeattieComputational Biology & Health Informatics, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
David J GavaghanComputational Biology & Health Informatics, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gary R MiramsCentre for Mathematical Medicine & Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gary.mirams@nottingham.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P010008/1Wellcome Trust 101222/Z/13/ZWellcome Trust 212203/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical models of ionic currents are used to study the electrophysiology of the heart, brain, gut, and several other organs. Increasingly, these models are being used predictively in the clinic, for example, to predict the risks and results of genetic mutations, pharmacological treatments, or surgical procedures. These safety-critical applications depend on accurate characterization of the underlying ionic currents. Four different methods can be found in the literature to fit voltage-sensitive ion channel models to whole-cell current measurements: method 1, fitting model equations directly to time-constant, steady-state, and I-V summary curves; method 2, fitting by comparing simulated versions of these summary curves to their experimental counterparts; method 3, fitting to the current traces themselves from a range of protocols; and method 4, fitting to a single current trace from a short and rapidly fluctuating voltage-clamp protocol. We compare these methods using a set of experiments in which hERG1a current was measured in nine Chinese hamster ovary cells. In each cell, the same sequence of fitting protocols was applied, as well as an independent validation protocol. We show that methods 3 and 4 provide the best predictions on the independent validation set and that short, rapidly fluctuating protocols like that used in method 4 can replace much longer conventional protocols without loss of predictive ability. Although data for method 2 are most readily available from the literature, we find it performs poorly compared to methods 3 and 4 both in accuracy of predictions and computational efficiency. Our results demonstrate how novel experimental and computational approaches can improve the quality of model predictions in safety-critical applications.

Indexed as

Electrophysiological PhenomenaModels, BiologicalAlgorithmsHumansIon ChannelsSoftwareIon Channels

Identifiers

PMID31493859
PMCPMC6990153

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.