Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Pancreatic $\beta-$Cell Dynamics with Three-Time-Scale Systems

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A canard near a pseudo-singular point in a three-time-scale beta-cell model sets the pace of bursting and the coupling strength needed for synchronization.

desk verdict The GSPT/blow-up analysis of the Marinelli beta-cell model is real work, but the synchronization claim in §4.2 is an unvalidated proportionality passed off as a sufficient condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18837 v1 pith:YDDWLQJB submitted 2025-05-24 math.DS

Navojit Dhali Pallab This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 34E1534C6037N25
keywords pancreaticbetacellsthree-time-scalesystemscanarddynamicspseudo-singularpointblow-upanalysisburstingsynchronizationlingertimeGeometricSingularPerturbationTheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that slow bursting in an established biophysical model of pancreatic $\beta$ cells is organized by a three-time-scale structure, with two fast variables, one intermediate variable, and two slowest variables. Its central thesis is that the quiescent phase of each burst is a canard-mediated delay near a pseudo-singular point, so the duration of the quiet phase is set by the geometry of the critical manifold rather than by a generic slow passage. If the thesis is correct, glucose controls burst frequency through this geometry: as glucose rises from $7$ to $13$ mM, the linger time near the pseudo-singular point falls from about $35$ s to about $5$ s, the burst period falls from about $10.3$ to $5.5$ minutes, and the coupling strength required for burst-initiation synchronization rises from about $0.005$ to $0.042$ ms$^{-1}$, following $k\propto 1/t_{\mathrm{linger}}$. The synchronization statement is offered as a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudo-singular point of the reduced three-time-scale system, defined as the point on the two-dimensional critical manifold where the normalized slow dynamics vanish. At this point the fold of the fast critical manifold meets the intermediate and slow dynamics, so the usual hyperbolic slow-manifold theory does not apply; the argument desingularizes the flow with a blow-up in the central chart, where the small parameter $\varepsilon$ is set to one. In that chart a canard solution emerges, and the time the full trajectory spends near the pseudo-singular point defines the linger time. This object carries the argument because it connects the geometric singular perturbation analysis to the numerical period, the Poincaré fixed point, and the coupling strength curve.

What would settle it

Simulate two diffusively coupled $\beta$ cells from the same model at $G=8$ mM with coupling strengths from $0.001$ to $0.05$ ms$^{-1}$ and measure the phase difference between burst onsets; the paper's claim requires synchronization to appear near $k\approx 1/t_{\mathrm{linger}}$ (roughly the $0.005$--$0.042$ ms$^{-1}$ range) and to fail at much weaker coupling. If synchronized burst initiation occurs at substantially different coupling, or fails in that range, the central assertion is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the adopted five-variable biophysical $\beta$-cell model, written as a system with two fast variables $(v,u)$, one intermediate variable $x$, and two slowest variables $(y,z)$, has a pseudo-singular saddle on the critical manifold. At this non-hyperbolic point the standard geometric singular perturbation theory description breaks down, and the paper applies a blow-up transformation in the central chart to desingularize the flow. The blow-up reveals a canard connection whose passage time defines the linger time; in the full system this linger time is the burst's quiet phase. The numerical analysis then links that geometric object to physiology: higher glucose shortens the linger time, shortens the bursting period, and increases the coupling strength $k$ needed to synchronize burst initiation across cells. The paper presents the resulting $k\propto 1/t_{\mathrm{linger}}$ relation as a sufficient condition for burst-initiation synchronization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coupling strength needed to synchronize the start of bursts is the reciprocal of the time the cell spends in the quiet phase; this relation is asserted rather than derived, and the synchronization curve depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-time-scale reduction is correct, the quiet phase of each beta-cell burst is a canard-mediated delay, so its length is controlled by the position of the pseudo-singular point rather than by the speed of the slowest variable alone.
  • The model predicts a monotone glucose response: raising $G$ from $7$ to $13$ mM shortens the linger time from roughly $35$ s to $5$ s and the burst period from about $10.3$ to $5.5$ minutes.
  • The recovered coupling-strength curve $k\propto 1/t_{\mathrm{linger}}$ rises from about $0.005$ to $0.042$ ms$^{-1}$, giving a concrete glucose-dependent threshold for burst-initiation synchronization; the paper presents this as a sufficient condition.
  • A Poincaré section at $v=-59$ mV has a stable fixed point for most glucose values studied, so the bursting pattern is a stable limit cycle whose burst-initiation timing is reproducible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if $k\propto 1/t_{\mathrm{linger}}$ survives a coupled-network test, it gives a fast way to predict synchronization thresholds in larger heterogeneous islets: compute the single-cell linger time for each cell and use the reciprocal as the local coupling requirement, without simulating the whole network.
  • Beyond the paper: because the quiet phase is attributed to a canard, small changes in parameters that move the pseudo-singular point, such as the K(ATP) conductance, should change burst timing sharply rather than gradually; this is a testable prediction the paper does not carry out.
  • Beyond the paper: the glucose-dependent coupling curve suggests that in a heterogeneous islet, cells with lower glucose sensitivity may desynchronize first as glucose rises, which could be checked by sorting simulated cells by their linger times and comparing with the coupling strengths used in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a five-variable pancreatic β-cell model (Marinelli et al.) as a three-time-scale dynamical system with fast, intermediate, and slowest variables. It derives the critical manifold and fold set, identifies pseudo-singular points, applies a blow-up transformation in the central chart, and numerically investigates limit cycles, their periods, and the glucose dependence of the model's bursting behavior. The paper then defines a 'linger time' near the pseudo-singular point and, using the relation k ∝ 1/t_linger, claims that the coupling strength needed for burst-initiation synchronization increases with glucose concentration.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would provide a geometric explanation of the quiescent-phase duration via canard dynamics and a glucose-dependent threshold for synchronization in a biophysically relevant model. The three-time-scale perspective is a sensible and timely approach, and the author provides clearly tabulated parameter values and a concrete numerical exploration. However, the advertised synchronization result rests on an unvalidated proportionality, and the mathematical analysis is largely descriptive rather than rigorous, so the significance is currently limited.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 12] The coupling-strength result is based on the relation k ∝ 1/t_linger, which is introduced without derivation and is never tested against the coupled network model Eq. (1). All numerical results in Section 4.1 are for a single cell, so the paper does not demonstrate that this k is either necessary or sufficient for burst-initiation synchronization. The abstract's statement that the coupling strengths are 'presented as a sufficient condition' is therefore misleading; the relation is an assumption, not a prediction.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figure 11] The linger time is not defined operationally. The text says it is 'the duration the trajectory spends in the neighborhood of the pseudo-singular point,' but no neighborhood radius, tolerance, or extraction algorithm is given. Moreover, the text in Figure 11 calls the quantity the 'minimum linger time' without explaining what minimum means. Without a precise definition, the values in Figures 11 and 12 cannot be reproduced or verified.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (10)] The expression for the fold curve L uses undefined functions V1(v) and V2(v) and has signs that appear inconsistent with the defining equation h1=0. Solving h1=0 for y gives negative terms, whereas Eq. (10) is written with positive signs. This apparent error or missing definitions affects the critical-manifold analysis and undermines the reader's confidence in the computation of pseudo-singular points.
  4. [Section 3.2] The blow-up transformation and the central-chart system (22) are presented, but no derivation of the weights (1,2,4,2,2,1,2) or of the normal form (21) is provided. The analysis in this section is only numerical (Figures 5 and 6), so the paper does not prove the existence of canard solutions; it only displays trajectories near a special solution. Given that the paper is submitted as a mathematical dynamical-systems work, this gap between the stated method and the claimed conclusion is substantial.
  5. [Sections 1 and 4.1] The time units are inconsistent. The introduction states that 'we use ms as time unit for all the variables,' but Figure 1 and the text in Section 4.1 report time in minutes, while Figure 11 reports linger time in ms and the text converts between seconds and milliseconds. This ambiguity directly affects the reported periods (e.g., '5.7 minutes' vs. '343 seconds') and the interpretation of the coupling-strength values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The functions V1(v) and V2(v) in Eq. (10) are not defined anywhere in the paper.
  2. [Definition 1.3] Definition 1.3 uses the phrase 'with 1 ≤ k < n' but the symbol k is not introduced in that context; presumably it denotes the number of fast variables.
  3. [Figure 12 caption] The caption of Figure 12 says the x-axis is t_linger, while the text and the figure axis label say the x-axis is G (mM); please align the caption with the actual plot.
  4. [Section 3.2] There is a typo: 'solwest variable' should be 'slowest variable'.
  5. [Figure 4] The eigenvalue plots in Figure 4 are not described in the main text, so it is unclear how the classification of the pseudo-singular point as a saddle or node is made from these plots.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The synchronization segment's coupling-strength curve is constructed from t_linger via k ∝ 1/t_linger, so the claimed 'needed' k is the linger-time curve rescaled, not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, text after Figure 11 and Figure 12 caption; coupled network model (1) in Section 1]
    "Figure 12 represents the coupling strength k as a function of glucose concentration (G) for a local network of pancreatic β−cells, computed using the relation k∝ 1/t_linger, with a desired error tolerance."

    The paper defines t_linger as 'the duration the trajectory spends in the neighborhood of the pseudo-singular point, corresponding to the quiescent phase of the bursting cycle.' It then sets the synchronization coupling strength k proportional to 1/t_linger with an unspecified constant and a vague 'desired error tolerance.' The coupled network (1) with the diffusive term (k/N)Σ_j(v_j−v_i) is never simulated, and no independent synchronization threshold or bistability condition is derived. Therefore the plotted 'coupling strength needed for bursting initiation synchronization' is, up to an arbitrary scaling factor, exactly the reciprocal of the measured single-cell t_linger(G).

full rationale

The only load-bearing circularity is in Section 4.2. The paper measures t_linger as the quiescent-phase residence time near the pseudo-singular point and then states that Figure 12 is 'computed using the relation k∝ 1/t_linger, with a desired error tolerance.' Because the coupled network (1) is never simulated and no independent synchronization threshold is derived, the curve labeled 'coupling strength needed for bursting initiation synchronization' is just the measured linger-time curve inverted and rescaled by an arbitrary constant. The abstract's 'sufficient condition' therefore rests on an unvalidated proportionality rather than on the GSPT/blow-up analysis. The canard and blow-up sections are not circular: they use standard external results (Benoit's theorem, blow-up coordinates, numerical integration) and are self-contained with respect to the model from [17]. There is also an internal presentation inconsistency: the text says Figure 12 plots k against G, while the caption says k as a function of t_linger; this impedes reproduction but is not itself a circularity. Score 8 because the synchronization contribution, which is one of the advertised results, reduces by definition to the t_linger input; the canard analysis itself remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the biophysical model from [17], standard GSPT theorems, and the ad hoc assumptions of linger-time neighborhood and k proportional to 1/t_linger. The model parameters are taken from prior work, not fitted here, but the linger-time and coupling results depend on arbitrary tolerances.

free parameters (3)
  • linger_time_neighborhood_radius
    The duration spent near the pseudo-singular point depends on an unquantified neighborhood radius; the paper never specifies it, so any computed t_linger depends on this hidden choice.
  • coupling_scale_constant
    The relation k proportional to 1/t_linger is used with a desired error tolerance to produce k values in a chosen range; the proportionality constant is effectively fit to match Sherman et al. [22].
  • Poincare_section_threshold = -59 mV
    The section at v=-59 mV is chosen by hand; results (fixed points, periods) depend on this section choice, though it is a standard diagnostic rather than a model parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Marinelli et al. model [17] with parameters from [17] accurately represents beta-cell bursting dynamics.
    All analysis starts from this model; if the model is wrong, the conclusions are void. Parameter values are taken from Table 3 without independent validation.
  • standard math Fenichel theory and GSPT apply on the normally hyperbolic parts of the critical manifold C.
    Invoked in Section 2 to derive the constrained system (17).
  • standard math Benoit's theorem on pseudo-singular saddles and nodes guarantees canard solutions.
    Used in Theorem 3.3 to conclude canard existence; the theorem is cited, not proved, and the paper does not verify all non-degeneracy conditions rigorously.
  • ad hoc to paper The blow-up weights (1,2,4,2,2,1,2) are valid for this system.
    The weights are asserted via Definition 3.6 without a Newton diagram computation; the central chart dynamics are only numerically explored.
  • domain assumption Heterogeneity in beta-cells is representable by varying only a5 and kr.
    Section 4.1 uses these two parameters to model cell-to-cell differences; this ignores other sources of heterogeneity.
  • ad hoc to paper The relation k proportional to 1/t_linger is sufficient for burst-initiation synchronization.
    Central to Section 4.2; no coupled network simulation or mathematical proof is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pancreatic $\beta-$Cell Dynamics with Three-Time-Scale Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDDWLQJB

@misc{pith2026250518837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pancreatic $\beta-$Cell Dynamics with Three-Time-Scale Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDDWLQJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18837}
}
abstract

Pancreatic $\beta-$cells regulate insulin secretion through complex oscillations, which are vital for glucose control and diabetes research. In this paper, an existing mathematical model of $\beta-$cell dynamics is analyzed using a three-time-scale framework to study interactions among fast, intermediate, and slow variables. Through Geometric Singular Perturbation Theory (GSPT), the influence of ATP on oscillatory dynamics via membrane potential is explored. At the non-hyperbolic point, where standard methods fail, blow-up analysis is applied to investigate canard dynamics shaped by intermediate and slow variables. Numerical simulations with varied parameters reveal the glucose-dependent oscillations linked to slow dynamics near the pseudo-singular points. By leveraging the pseudo-singular point, the linger time is defined, and simulated results for the coupling strength needed for bursting initiation synchronization are presented as a sufficient condition. This study links mathematics and biology, offering insights into diabetic studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bursting oscillation of simplified β−cell model (5) of Marinelli et al. model [17], for G = 13 mM. with X∞(v) =  1 + exp  v1 − v s1 −1 , Y∞(v) =  1 + exp  v2 − v s2 −1 , Z∞(x) = " 1 + exp G−pr kr − x s3 !#−1 , U∞(x) = " 1 + Kd x 5 #−1 , In system (5), v and u are the fast variables, x is the intermediate variable, y and z are the slowest variables. All the parameter values for this system are presented in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Critical manifold of the system (5), (a) in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Critical manifold (ε=0 and δ = 0) and the trajectory (t ∈ [0, 30] minutes) of the full system (blue) for G = 8 mM, and other parameters remain the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Eigenvalue at the pseudo singular point of the system (20) for glucose concentration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the invariant manifold r3 = 0, the special solution (red) and the solution of the system (22) (blue) in (v3, x3). The unperturbed solution of the system (22) is the separatrix along the special solution, which separates closed orbits from unbounded orbits ( [PITH_F…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solution of perturbed system (22) (blue) compared to the special solution (red) in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Limit cycle in (v, x, y)−space (blue curve) with Poincar´e Section (green surface) at v = −59 mV for G = 8 mM, showing a stable fixed point on the section. Inset: Poincar´e map in (x, y)−plane, with arrows indicating convergence to the fixed point. state variables (x, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fixed points of the Poincar´e map in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Period of the limit cycle (minutes) vs. G ∈ [7, 13] (mM). 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 G (mM) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Period of Limit Cycle (min) Cell 1: a5=0.0943, k r=58.0 Cell 2: a5=0.0929, k r=58.9 Cell 3: a5=0.0964, k r=60.5 Cell 4: a5=0.0924, k r=59.3 Cell 5: a5=0.0949, k r=56.3…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Linger time (tlinger (ms)) as a function of glucose concentration (G). levels reduce the quiescent phase duration and increase bursting frequency. The linger time values (35−5 seconds) align with the typical range for β−cells quiescent phases, as a slow burster, parti…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Coupling strength (k) as a function of tlinger for different glucose concentration (G) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Synchronization Phenomenon in Three-Time-Scale Systems

    math.DS 2025-05 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A sufficient condition k > max(2M/√ε, ln(2W0/√ε)/(δ t_min_linger)) is claimed for near-synchronization in heterogeneous three-time-scale networks, but the proof contains unjustified steps.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Belykh, I., De Lange, E., and Hasler, M., Synchronization of bursting neurons: What matters in the network topology , Physical Review Letters, vol. 94, no. 18, p. 188101, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Benoit, E., Canards et enlacements, Publications Math´ ematiques de l’IH´ES, vol. 72, pp. 63–91, 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    P., A phantom bursting mechanism for episodic bursting, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, vol

    Bertram, R., Rhoads, J., and Cimbora, W. P., A phantom bursting mechanism for episodic bursting, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, vol. 70, pp. 1979–1993, 2008. 23

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    and Sherman, A., Filtering of calcium transients by the endoplasmic reticulum in pancreaticβ-cells, Biophysical Journal, vol

    Bertram, R. and Sherman, A., Filtering of calcium transients by the endoplasmic reticulum in pancreaticβ-cells, Biophysical Journal, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 3775–3785, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    S., Electrical bursting, calcium oscillations, and synchronization of pancreatic islets, The Islets of Langerhans, pp

    Bertram, R., Sherman, A., and Satin, L. S., Electrical bursting, calcium oscillations, and synchronization of pancreatic islets, The Islets of Langerhans, pp. 261–279, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    A., and Satin, L

    Bertram, R., Previte, J., Sherman, A., Kinard, T. A., and Satin, L. S., The phantom burster model for pancreatic β-cells, Biophysical Journal, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 2880–2892, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Chiba, H., Periodic orbits and chaos in fast–slow systems with Bogdanov–Takens type fold points, Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 250, no. 1, pp. 112–160, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Chiba, H., The first Painlev´ e equation on the weighted projective space, Faculty of Mathematics, Kyushu University, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Chiba, H., Weights, Kovalevskaya exponents and the Painlev´ e property, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 811–848, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    M., and Wechsel- berger, M., Mixed-mode oscillations with multiple time scales , SIAM Review, vol

    Desroches, M., Guckenheimer, J., Krauskopf, B., Kuehn, C., Osinga, H. M., and Wechsel- berger, M., Mixed-mode oscillations with multiple time scales , SIAM Review, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 211–288, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Fenichel, N., Geometric singular perturbation theory for ordinary differential equations, Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 53–98, 1979

    1979

  4. [12]

    M., and Henquin, J.-C., Oscillations of secretion driven by oscillations of cytoplasmic Ca2+ as evidences in single pancreatic islets , Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol

    Gilon, P., Shepherd, R. M., and Henquin, J.-C., Oscillations of secretion driven by oscillations of cytoplasmic Ca2+ as evidences in single pancreatic islets , Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 268, no. 30, pp. 22265–22268, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    and Llibre, J., Canards existence in memristor’s circuits, Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, vol

    Ginoux, J.-M. and Llibre, J., Canards existence in memristor’s circuits, Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, vol. 15, pp. 383–431, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    and Kuehn, C., Computing slow manifolds of saddle type , SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol

    Guckenheimer, J. and Kuehn, C., Computing slow manifolds of saddle type , SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 854–879, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    and Kuehn, C.,A survey on the blow-up method for fast-slow systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01402, 2019

    Jard´ on-Kojakhmetov, H. and Kuehn, C.,A survey on the blow-up method for fast-slow systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01402, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  8. [16]

    191, 2015

    Kuehn, C., Multiple time scale dynamics , Springer, vol. 191, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    M., Parekh, V

    Marinelli, I., Thompson, B. M., Parekh, V. S., Fletcher, P. A., Gerardo-Giorda, L., Sherman, A. S., Satin, L. S., and Bertram, R., Oscillations in K(ATP) conductance drive slow calcium oscillations in pancreatic β-cells, Biophysical Journal, vol. 121, no. 8, pp. 1449–1464, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    G., Bertram, R., and Sherman, A., Intra- and inter-islet synchronization of metabolically driven insulin secretion , Biophysical Journal, vol

    Pedersen, M. G., Bertram, R., and Sherman, A., Intra- and inter-islet synchronization of metabolically driven insulin secretion , Biophysical Journal, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 107–119, 2005. 24

    2005

  11. [19]

    Pedersen, M. G. and Sherman, A., Newcomer insulin secretory granules as a highly calcium- sensitive pool, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 106, no. 18, pp. 7432–7436, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Pernarowski, M., Fast and slow subsystems for a continuum model of bursting activity in the pancreatic islet, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1667–1687, 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    and Renstr¨ om, E.,Insulin granule dynamics in pancreatic beta cells, Diabetologia, vol

    Rorsman, P. and Renstr¨ om, E.,Insulin granule dynamics in pancreatic beta cells, Diabetologia, vol. 46, pp. 1029–1045, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    and Rinzel, J., Model for synchronization of pancreatic beta-cells by gap junction coupling, Biophysical Journal, vol

    Sherman, A. and Rinzel, J., Model for synchronization of pancreatic beta-cells by gap junction coupling, Biophysical Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 547–559, 1991

    1991

  15. [23]

    and Wechselberger, M., Canards in R3 , Journal of Differential Equations, vol

    Szmolyan, P. and Wechselberger, M., Canards in R3 , Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 419–453, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    1547, pp

    Tchizawa, K., Generic conditions for duck solutions in R4 (Functional Equations Based upon Phenomena), Proceedings of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS K¯ oky¯ uroku), vol. 1547, pp. 107–113, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Wang, S. and Sherman, A., Identifying the targets of the amplifying pathway for insulin secre- tion in pancreatic β-cells by kinetic modeling of granule exocytosis , Biophysical Journal, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 2226–2241, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Wiggins, S., Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos , Springer-Verlag, 2003. 25

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.