ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Comparison of in silico predictions of action potential duration in response to inhibition of IKr and ICaL with new human ex vivo recordings.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During drug development, candidate compounds are extensively tested for proarrhythmic risk and in particular risk of Torsade de Pointes (TdP), as indicated by prolongation of the QT interval. Drugs that inhibit the rapid delayed rectifier [Formula: see text] current ([Formula: see text]) can prolong the action potential duration (APD) and thereby the QT interval, and so are routinely rejected. However, simultaneous inhibition of the L-type [Formula: see text] current ([Formula: see text]) can mitigate the effect of [Formula: see text] inhibition, so that including both effects can improve test specificity. Mathematical models of the action potential (AP) can be used to predict the APD prolongation resulting from a given level of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] inhibition, but for use in safety-testing their predictive capabilities should first be carefully verified. We present the first systematic comparison between experimental drug-induced APD and predictions by AP models. New experimental data were obtained ex vivo for APD response to [Formula: see text] and/or [Formula: see text] inhibition by applying 9 compounds at different concentrations to adult human ventricular trabeculae at physiological temperature. Compounds with similar effects on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] exhibited less APD prolongation compared to selective [Formula: see text] inhibitors. We then integrated in vitro [Formula: see text] patch-clamp data for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] inhibition by the tested compounds into simulations with AP models. Models were assessed against the ex vivo data on their ability to recapitulate drug-induced APD changes observed experimentally. None of the tested AP models reproduced the APD changes observed experimentally across all combinations and degrees of [Formula: see text] and/or [Formula: see text] inhibition: they matched the data either for selective [Formula: see text] inhibitors or for compounds with comparable effects on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. This work introduces a new benchmarking framework to assess the predictivity of current and future AP models for APD response to [Formula: see text] and/or [Formula: see text] inhibition. This is an essential primary step towards an in silico framework that integrates in vitro data for translational clinical cardiac safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.