Abstract

The health benefits of regular physical exercise are well known. Even so, there is increasing evidence that the exercise regimes of elite athletes can evoke cardiac arrhythmias including ventricular fibrillation and even sudden cardiac death (SCD). The mechanism of exercise-induced arrhythmia and SCD is poorly understood. Here, we show that chronic training in a canine model (12 sedentary and 12 trained dogs) that mimics the regime of elite athletes induces electrophysiological remodeling (measured by ECG, patch-clamp and immunocytochemical techniques) resulting in increases of both the trigger and the substrate for ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, 4 months sustained training lengthened ventricular repolarization (QTc: 237.1±3.4 ms vs. 213.6±2.8 ms, n=12; APD90: 472.8±29.6 ms vs. 370.1±32.7 ms, n=29 vs. 25), decreased transient outward potassium current (6.4±0.5 pA/pF vs. 8.8±0.9 pA/pF at 50 mV, n=54 vs. 42) and increased the short term variability of repolarization (29.5±3.8 ms vs. 17.5±4.0 ms, n=27 vs. 18). Left ventricular fibrosis and HCN4 protein expression were also enhanced. These changes were associated with enhanced ectopic activity (number of escape beats from 0/hour to 29.7±20.3/hour) in vivo and arrhythmia susceptibility (elicited ventricular fibrillation: 3 of 10 sedentary dogs vs. 6 of 10 trained dogs). Our findings provide in vivo, cellular electrophysiological and molecular biological evidence for the enhanced susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia in an experimental large animal model of endurance training.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1 - 7 and Table 1 and 2.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexandra Polyák

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Leila Topal

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Noémi Zombori-Tóth

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Noémi Tóth

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. János Prorok

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Zsófia Kohajda

    MTA-SZTE Research Group for Cardiovascular Pharmacology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Szilvia Déri

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Vivien Demeter-Haludka

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Péter Hegyi

    Department of Internal Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Viktória Venglovecz

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gergely Ágoston

    Institute of Family Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Zoltán Husti

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Péter Gazdag

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jozefina Szlovák

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Tamás Árpádffy-Lovas

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Muhammad Naveed

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Annamária Sarusi

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Norbert Jost

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. László Virág

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Norbert Nagy

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    For correspondence
    nagy.norbert@med.u-szeged.hu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. István Baczkó

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    For correspondence
    baczko.istvan@med.u-szeged.hu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9588-0797
  22. Attila S Farkas

    Department of Internal Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. András Varró

    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
    For correspondence
    varro.andras@med.u-szeged.hu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0745-3603

Funding

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH K 135464)

  • András Varró

Eötvös Loránd Research Network and Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School institutional grant (SZTE ÁOK-KKA 2021)

  • László Virág

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH PD-125402 and FK-129117)

  • Norbert Nagy

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH K 128851)

  • István Baczkó

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (SNN-134497)

  • Viktória Venglovecz

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (GINOP-2.3.2.-15-2016-00047)

  • Alexandra Polyák
  • Leila Topal
  • János Prorok
  • Péter Gazdag
  • Norbert Jost
  • László Virág
  • Norbert Nagy
  • István Baczkó
  • Attila S Farkas
  • András Varró

National Research, Development and Innovation Office (TKP2021-EGA-32)

  • Norbert Jost
  • László Virág
  • István Baczkó
  • András Varró

Ministry of Human Capacities Hungary (20391 3/2018/FEKUSTRAT)

  • László Virág
  • István Baczkó
  • András Varró

Ministry of Human Capacities Hungary (EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00006)

  • János Prorok
  • Péter Hegyi
  • Viktória Venglovecz
  • Zoltán Husti
  • Péter Gazdag
  • Norbert Jost
  • László Virág
  • Norbert Nagy
  • István Baczkó
  • Attila S Farkas
  • András Varró

Hungarian Academy of Sciences (János Bolyai Research Scholarship)

  • Norbert Nagy

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Olujimi A Ajijola, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal maintenance and research were conducted in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. All procedures using animals were approved by the Ethical Committee for the Protection of Animals in Research of the University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary (approval numbers: I-74-15-2017 and I-74-24-2017) and by the Department of Animal Health and Food Control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (authority approval numbers XIII/3330/2017 and XIII/3331/2017) and conformed to the rules and principles of the 2010/63/EU Directive.

Version history

  1. Received: May 31, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: July 14, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: February 16, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: February 23, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: March 14, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Polyák et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 775
    views
  • 140
    downloads
  • 2
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Alexandra Polyák
  2. Leila Topal
  3. Noémi Zombori-Tóth
  4. Noémi Tóth
  5. János Prorok
  6. Zsófia Kohajda
  7. Szilvia Déri
  8. Vivien Demeter-Haludka
  9. Péter Hegyi
  10. Viktória Venglovecz
  11. Gergely Ágoston
  12. Zoltán Husti
  13. Péter Gazdag
  14. Jozefina Szlovák
  15. Tamás Árpádffy-Lovas
  16. Muhammad Naveed
  17. Annamária Sarusi
  18. Norbert Jost
  19. László Virág
  20. Norbert Nagy
  21. István Baczkó
  22. Attila S Farkas
  23. András Varró
(2023)
Cardiac electrophysiological remodeling associated with enhanced arrhythmia susceptibility in a canine model of elite exercise
eLife 12:e80710.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80710

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80710

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    Jinjing Chen, Ruoyu Wang ... Jongsook Kemper
    Research Article

    The nuclear receptor, farnesoid X receptor (FXR/NR1H4), is increasingly recognized as a promising drug target for metabolic diseases, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Protein-coding genes regulated by FXR are well known, but whether FXR also acts through regulation of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), which vastly outnumber protein-coding genes, remains unknown. Utilizing RNA-seq and global run-on sequencing (GRO-seq) analyses in mouse liver, we found that FXR activation affects the expression of many RNA transcripts from chromatin regions bearing enhancer features. Among these we discovered a previously unannotated liver-enriched enhancer-derived lncRNA (eRNA), termed FXR-induced non-coding RNA (Fincor). We show that Fincor is specifically induced by the hammerhead-type FXR agonists, including GW4064 and tropifexor. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated liver-specific knockdown of Fincor in dietary NASH mice reduced the beneficial effects of tropifexor, an FXR agonist currently in clinical trials for NASH and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), indicating that amelioration of liver fibrosis and inflammation in NASH treatment by tropifexor is mediated in part by Fincor. Overall, our findings highlight that pharmacological activation of FXR by hammerhead-type agonists induces a novel eRNA, Fincor, contributing to the amelioration of NASH in mice. Fincor may represent a new drug target for addressing metabolic disorders, including NASH.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Medicine
    Chun Wang, Khushpreet Kaur ... Gabriel Mbalaviele
    Research Article

    Chemotherapy is a widely used treatment for a variety of solid and hematological malignancies. Despite its success in improving the survival rate of cancer patients, chemotherapy causes significant toxicity to multiple organs, including the skeleton, but the underlying mechanisms have yet to be elucidated. Using tumor-free mouse models, which are commonly used to assess direct off-target effects of anti-neoplastic therapies, we found that doxorubicin caused massive bone loss in wild-type mice, a phenotype associated with increased number of osteoclasts, leukopenia, elevated serum levels of danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs; e.g. cell-free DNA and ATP) and cytokines (e.g. IL-1β and IL-18). Accordingly, doxorubicin activated the absent in melanoma (AIM2) and NLR family pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasomes in macrophages and neutrophils, causing inflammatory cell death pyroptosis and NETosis, which correlated with its leukopenic effects. Moreover, the effects of this chemotherapeutic agent on cytokine secretion, cell demise, and bone loss were attenuated to various extent in conditions of AIM2 and/or NLRP3 insufficiency. Thus, we found that inflammasomes are key players in bone loss caused by doxorubicin, a finding that may inspire the development of a tailored adjuvant therapy that preserves the quality of this tissue in patients treated with this class of drugs.