Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23624022›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacological and toxicological methods

Evaluation of an in silico cardiac safety assay: using ion channel screening data to predict QT interval changes in the rabbit ventricular wedge.

Kylie A Beattie, Chris Luscombe, Geoff Williams, Jordi Munoz-Muriedas, David J Gavaghan, Yi Cui, Gary R Mirams

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Molecular Determinants of Voltage-Dependent Gating in Kv11.1 Channels.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. HumanFrontiers in physiology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kylie A BeattieComputational Biology, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QD, UK. kylie.beattie@cs.ox.ac.uk
Chris Luscombe
Geoff Williams
Jordi Munoz-Muriedas
David J Gavaghan
Yi Cui
Gary R Mirams
University of Oxford · GBGlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K001337/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDrugs that prolong the QT interval on the electrocardiogram present a major safety concern for pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. Despite a range of assays performed to assess compound effects on the QT interval, QT prolongation remains a major cause of attrition during compound development. In silico assays could alleviate such problems. In this study we evaluated an in silico method of predicting the results of a rabbit left-ventricular wedge assay.

methodsConcentration-effect data were acquired from either: the high-throughput IonWorks/FLIPR; the medium-throughput PatchXpress ion channel assays; or QSAR, a statistical IC50 value prediction model, for hERG, fast sodium, L-type calcium and KCNQ1/minK channels. Drug block of channels was incorporated into a mathematical differential equation model of rabbit ventricular myocyte electrophysiology through modification of the maximal conductance of each channel by a factor dependent on the IC50 value, Hill coefficient and concentration of each compound tested. Simulations were performed and agreement with experimental results, based upon input data from the different assays, was evaluated.

resultsThe assay was found to be 78% accurate, 72% sensitive and 81% specific when predicting QT prolongation (>10%) using PatchXpress assay data (77 compounds). Similar levels of predictivity were demonstrated using IonWorks/FLIPR data (121 compounds) with 78% accuracy, 73% sensitivity and 80% specificity. QT shortening (<-10%) was predicted with 77% accuracy, 33% sensitivity and 90% specificity using PatchXpress data and 71% accuracy, 42% sensitivity and 81% specificity using IonWorks/FLIPR data. Strong quantitative agreement between simulation and experimental results was also evident. DISCUSSION: The in silico action potential assay demonstrates good predictive ability, and is suitable for very high-throughput use in early drug development. Adoption of such an assay into cardiovascular safety assessment, integrating ion channel data from routine screens to infer results of animal-based tests, could provide a cost- and time-effective cardiac safety screen.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDrug DesignModels, TheoreticalAnimalsDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectrocardiographyFemaleHeart VentriclesHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysInhibitory Concentration 50Ion ChannelsLong QT SyndromeMyocytes, CardiacPredictive Value of TestsQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipRabbitsIon ChannelsAction potentialAction Potential (Duration)AP (D)Cardiac safetyCompound screeningConcentration for 50% InhibitionECGECVAMelectrocardiogramEuropean Centre for the Validation of Alternative MethodsFLIPRFLuorescence Imaging Plate ReaderGlaxoSmithKlineGSKhERGhuman-Ether-a-go-go Related GeneIC(50)ICHI(Kr)I(Ks)International Conference for HarmonizationIon channelsMathematical modelMethodsminus log(10) of IC(50)pIC(50)QSARQT intervalQuantitative Structure Activity RelationshipRabbit ventricular wedgerapid delayed rectifier potassium currentslow delayed rectifier potassium currentTdPTorsades de Pointes

Identifiers

PMID23624022
PMCPMC4142193
OpenAlexW1977247095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.