Key result
Mammalian L-type calcium current models exhibit large predictive variability regardless of species or category.
Why the study?
New models of the cardiac L-type calcium current have lacked data-driven critical comparisons with previous work, leaving it unclear which model is best suited for a particular application.
This review highlights the significant variability among existing mathematical models of the cardiac L-type calcium current, emphasizing the need for a community consensus model.
Model variability may limit reliability of simulation predictions; leaves open the need for consensus L-type calcium current formulations.
The L-type calcium current (I CaL ) plays a critical role in cardiac electrophysiology, and models of I CaL are vital tools to predict arrhythmogenicity of drugs and mutations. Five decades of measuring and modelling I CaL have resulted in several competing theories (encoded in mathematical equations). However, the introduction of new models has not typically been accompanied by a data-driven critical comparison with previous work, so that it is unclear which model is best suited for any particular application. In this review, we describe and compare 73 published mammalian I CaL models, and use simulated experiments to show that there is a large variability in their predictions, which is not substantially diminished when grouping by species or other categories. We provide model code for 60 models, list major data sources, and discuss experimental and modelling work that will be required to reduce this huge list of competing theories and ultimately develop a community consensus model of I CaL .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agrawal et al. (2021) conducted a review in Cardiac L-type calcium current modelling. Mathematical models of ICaL vs. Previous models was evaluated on Variability in predictions. A quantitative review of 73 published mammalian L-type calcium current models revealed large variability in their predictions that is not substantially diminished when grouping by species or categories.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: