Table 1.
Parameter values for generating figures based on the thermodynamic model.
The values for ,
, and
were obtained from our previous publication [13].
Fig 1.
The effects of pressure on the reaction rate coefficient function of average sodium conductances.
(A) Reaction rate coefficient vs temperature at 1 atm (), average ocean depth
atm
, and Mariana trench
atm
. (B) The rate coefficient as a function of pressure and temperature. Parameters were:
,
,
, and
,
and
.
Fig 2.
Fitting the model to experimental measurements of the rate coefficient as a function of pressure.
Normalized experimental rate coefficient data [30–32,46,48,55] and model fits. See text for details.
Fig 3.
Pressure and adiabatic heating effects.
The pressure dependence of rate is shown at multiple temperatures. Because increasing pressure can cause a temperature increase, we show that effect with the dashed line. The optimal temperature with the parameters used was and the rates are referenced at
.
Fig 4.
Sensitivity analysis of the rate coefficient function to pressure parameters.
(A) The optimal temperature (Topt), and rate coefficient at Topt, and at when using the combination of the extreme values of
and
.(B-D) Sensitivity of the model to individual variations of pressure parameters. The reference model is plotted with a dash blue line in each panel. The range of values were:
from –1 to 0 in
increments;
from 100 to 500 in
increments; and
from 5 to 70 in
increments. The range of parameters is plotted from low to high value as green to cyan. We used as a reference the model with:
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
.
Fig 5.
Effects of temperature and pressure on the Hodgkin-Huxley model.
(A) left - single action potentials generated rheobase for different pressures and temperatures. Right - Spike trains under the same conditions. (B) Firing rate vs pressure, temperature, and input current. For each panel the pressure and temperature panels the input current was . For the bottom panel the temperature was
.
Fig 6.
Effects of low-pressure on precise spike timing in the Hodgkin-Huxley model.
(A) Examples of spike traces of the Hodgkin-Huxley model at different pressure receiving identical sequences of input random currents. For each value of pressure we repeated the simulations 10 times with different input current random sequences. (B) Average firing rate vs pressure. Error bars are for the standard deviation calculated on the 10 different runs. (C) Examples of spike time differences for simulations that had the same random input sequences of stimulation but different pressures (colors correspond to pressures in A). (D) Standard deviation of the spike time differences vs pressure. (E) Average correlation coefficients of the inter-spike intervals (ISI) with respect to the simulation at 1 atm (black). We recalculated the correlation coefficients after averaging 10 ISIs, showing two pressures in which the correlations were statistically significant.
Fig 7.
Effects of hypothermic and hyperthermic temperatures and high pressure on the spike trains of models of human cortical pyramidal cells.
Rows: four different cortical models. Columns: Three different temperatures. Each model was run with normal and blast-type pressure (10 atm). The models were obtained from the Cell Types database from the Allen Institute, see text for details.
Fig 8.
Simplified pore cross section during open and closed states.
In the closed state, the radius shrinks by 1 Å which allows the fully hydrophobic part of the pore to dewet. The blue represents regions occupied by water molecules.