Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42334117›Full record

ReviewJACC. Basic to translational science2026

Cardiac Impulse Propagation: An Integrated View.

Zhilin Qu, Kalyanam Shivkumar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JACC. Basic to translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Zhilin QuDepartment of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Computational Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. Electronic address: zqu@mednet.ucla.edu.
Kalyanam ShivkumarDepartment of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Bioengineering, Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two principal mechanisms have been proposed to explain impulse propagation in cardiac tissue. The first is low-resistance gap-junctional coupling, which explains many experimental observations but does not fully account for all findings, such as those in connexin 43-knockout mouse experiments. The second is ephaptic coupling, in which myocytes interact via electric fields in the narrow extracellular cleft between cells and that can, in principle, support conduction even when effective gap-junctional conductance is low or absent. In this review, we summarize the theoretical insights from computational modeling studies and experimental evidence supporting ephaptic coupling. Although experimental evidence for ephaptic coupling remains indirect and limited, we argue that, as with all biological systems, the heart may utilize redundant coupling mechanisms to ensure the robustness of conduction and normal cardiac function. In other words, gap junction coupling and ephaptic coupling are not mutually exclusive but instead function in a synergistic and complementary way to optimize cardiac function across a large physiological range.

Indexed as

conductionephaptic couplinggap junction couplingintercalated disc, perinexus

Identifiers

PMID42334117
PMCPMC13332653

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.