Comparison of in silico predictions of action potential duration in response to inhibition of IKr and ICaL with new human ex vivo recordings
Yann-Stanislas H. M. Barral, Liudmila Polonchuk, Michael Clerx, David J. Gavaghan, Gary R. Mirams, Ken Wang

TL;DR
This study compares computer models with real human heart tissue to better predict how drugs affect heart rhythms, aiming to improve drug safety testing.
Contribution
The study introduces a new benchmarking framework to evaluate the accuracy of in silico models in predicting drug-induced changes in heart cell action potential duration.
Findings
Compounds with similar effects on IKr and ICaL caused less APD prolongation than selective IKr inhibitors.
No existing AP models accurately predicted APD changes across all drug combinations and inhibition levels.
A new benchmarking framework was developed to assess and improve the predictivity of AP models.
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 K+ current (IKr) can prolong the action potential duration (APD) and thereby the QT interval, and so are routinely rejected. However, simultaneous inhibition of the L-type Ca2+ current (ICaL) can mitigate the effect of IKr 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 IKr and ICaL 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…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 42
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 47
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias · Ion channel regulation and function · Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
