I am currently modifying a model, trying to get the calcium dynamics to work properly. (Unfortunately, calcium levels in many models are significantly higher than the experimental data. I have tried the Grunditz and Sterratt models so far.) I have noticed that in every model that I have seen so far, the author includes the baseline calcium concentration level (around 50-70nM) in the code. Isn't this simply cheating?
Without any stimulation (synaptic stimulation, current clamp etc.) the calcium concentration in the cell must stabilize around 50-70nM. BUT, this must happen simply because the calcium influx by NMDA receptors and calcium channels should be canceled out by the calcium efflux by the calcium pumps. NOT because the rate/strength of calcium pumps/channels/NMDAs depend directly on the desired equillibrium point. (that we have to read off a book and include in the code.)
Some examples:
Example 1:
Code: Select all
INITIAL {
P = (1-exp(-65*-0.0755))/(10*Area*14564*(50e-09-(2e-03*exp(-65*-0.0755))))*k :converting conductance to permaebility
}
Example 2:
Code: Select all
DERIVATIVE state {
drive_channel = - (10000) * ica / (2 * FARADAY * depth)
if (drive_channel <= 0.) { drive_channel = 0. } : cannot pump inward
:ca' = drive_channel + (cainf-ca)/taur
ca' = drive_channel/18 + (cainf -ca)/taur*7
cai = ca
}
Example 3:
Code: Select all
DERIVATIVE integrate {
cai' = -ica/depth/F/2 * (1e7) + (cai0 - cai)/tau
}
I see that this method is used everywhere, is it impossible (or very difficult, or unnecessary) to create a model that will reach equillibrium without including the desired equillibrium level in the code? I believe that this would be a perfect way to test a model's calcium dynamics, if it reaches an equillibrium and if the calcium concentration level agrees with the experimental data; this would be a good reason to pop a champagne and celebrate.
Sorry for the long post. I can provide the full files of these examples, if needed.
Mehmet