Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison between the computational model of the mouse lens and experimental data collected from different species

From: A computer model of lens structure and function predicts experimental changes to steady state properties and circulating currents

Species Technique Medium cation concentrations (mM) Current values* and % change from control
Ap Eq Pp
Mouse § Computational modelling [K+]eo = 8 - [Na+]eo = 110 - 8.5 μA/cm2 + 20 μA/cm2 - 11 μA/cm2
[K+]eo = 58 - [Na+]eo = 57 85% 90% 85%
[K+]eo = 108 - [Na+]eo = 10 - 35% - 25% - 40%
Rat[16] Vibrating probe [K+]eo = 5 - [Na+]eo = 130 - 20 μA/cm2 + 22 μA/cm2 - 12 μA/cm2
[K+]eo = 75 - [Na+]eo = 75 N/A - 75% N/A
[K+]eo = 113 - [Na+]eo = 37 N/A - 200% N/A
Frog[15] Vibrating probe [K+]eo = 2 - [Na+]eo = 113 - 13 μA/cm2 + 24 μA/cm2 - 36 μA/cm2
[K+]eo = 54 - [Na+]eo = 54 60% 60% 60%
[K+]eo = 105 - [Na+]eo = 2.5 - 70% - 70% - 60%
Rabbit[9] Ussing chamber [K+]eo = 3 - [Na+]eo = 115 - 1.2 μA + 10.8 μA - 2.9 μA
[K+]eo = 37 - [Na+]eo = 83 - 50% N/A 40%
  1. §Mouse data is from the current model. *Current values obtained from the model and the literature are expressed as either current densities (μA/cm2) or magnitudes (μA).
Back to article page

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

ISSN: 1475-925X

Contact us