When we compare 3-MA concentration the independent screens shown in Table 1, certain screens are very consistent (e.g. pIC50 of 6.0, 5.9 and 5.9 for hERG with Paliperidone), whilst others show wide variation (e.g. 5.0 and 0.0 for KCNQ1 with Duloxetine). Further screening of this type using a wider variety of assays would
be valuable to establish the most reliable platforms. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show a summary of the action potential prolongation results for a subset of the compounds, based upon the three different datasets. These compounds were selected to indicate representative cases where the simulations underestimate the TQT study results (Fig. 3), and cases where the predictions are more accurate (Fig. 4). Results for all of the individual compounds are shown in Supplementary Material S1.1. In Fig. 3 we see the results for Alfuzosin and Lapatinib. The lines and shaded regions denote the three different model predictions, and the red circle (highlighted with black dashed this website lines) is the TQT result. In the case of Alfuzosin the models are not predicting any change in APD90 at the estimated TQT concentration (< 10–2 μM), but a correct prolongation is predicted at much higher concentrations.
For this compound, the predictions are similar with all three datasets, with possibly the Barracuda set closest to TQT. Fig. 3 also shows results for Lapatinib. The Q and B&Q2 results similarly underestimate block, but in this case using manual patch hERG IC50 values significantly improves predictions, due to a stronger hERG block (see Table 1). In Fig. 4 we show two further examples, where simulation predictions are more accurate. For Maraviroc the prediction is accurate for all data sources, with a very small prolongation observed at the TQT concentration. Sitagliptin is an example of prolongation being
predicted with reasonable accuracy by all the datasets, again the M&Q dataset providing the closest fit to TQT results. The different models sometimes provide different predictions. This is consistent with our observations of their single-channel block behaviour shown in Fig. 2. The 95% credible regions become wide when there is ‘overlap’ Resminostat in the probability distribution of different ion channel pIC50 values, due to assay variability: for instance, hERG block could become significant before, at the same time, or after CaV1.2 block. At the same time, the different models are more/less sensitive to the different ion channel blocks, and so a wide uncertainty based on assay variability is also associated with divergence in model predictions. The Grandi et al. (2010) model appears more likely to predict shortening than the other two models, as one might expect by examining Fig. 2, since it is relatively insensitive to IKr and IKs block, and highly sensitive to ICaL block. To separate these effects, and select models that are most reliable for drug studies, will therefore require data with low variability. In Table 2 we use the O’Hara et al.
Related posts: