The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Utility of hERG and Repolarization Assays in Evaluating Delayed Cardiac Repolarization: Influence of Multi-Channel Block
Abstract
Drug-induced delayed cardiac repolarization is a recognized risk factor for proarrhythmia and is associated with block of IKr (the potassium current encoded by the human ether-a- go-go-related gene [hERG]). To evaluate the utility of 2 in vitro assays widely used to assess delayed repolarization, we compared the effects of haloperidol and 9 structurally diverse drugs in a hERG and repolarization (canine Purkinje fiber action potential duration [APD]) assay over wide concentrations. Despite potent hERG current block (IC50 = 0.174 microM), haloperidol elicited a bell-shaped concentration-response relationship for APD prolongation, with lesser prolongation (and reduced plateau height) observed with concentrations eliciting maximal hERG block, consistent with multi-channel block at higher concentrations. Consistent with this hypothesis, APD prolongation with the specific IKr blocker dofetilide was a) reduced by concomitant administration of nifedipine (calcium current block) and b) reversed by lidocaine (late sodium current block). Additional studies demonstrated prominent (>50%) hERG inhibition with most (9/10) drugs despite wide APD changes (158% prolongation - 16% shortening), consistent with multi-channel block. The poor correlation between hERG and repolarization assays suggests that the hERG assay oversimplifies drug effects on the complex repolarization process for drugs demonstrating multi-channel block and that neither assay alone adequately predicts proarrhythmic risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hammond, T. (2001) · Cardiovascular Research · doi:10.1016/s0008-6363(00)00310-2 · Cited by 117
Cited by
Polypharmacology – Foe or Friend?
Peters, J.-U. (2013) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm400856t · Cited by 465
Evolution of strategies to improve preclinical cardiac safety testing
Gintant, G., Sager, P. T., & Stockbridge, N. (2016) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2015.34 · Cited by 407
Self-citationHuman engineered heart tissue as a model system for drug testing
Eder, A., Vollert, I., Hansen, A., & Eschenhagen, T. (2016) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2015.05.010 · Cited by 190
Salvo, F., Pariente, A., Shakir, S., Robinson, P., Arnaud, M., Thomas, S., Raschi, E., Fourrier‐Réglat, A., Moore, N., Sturkenboom, M., et al. (2016) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.250 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, R. L., McDermott, J. S., Salmen, H. J., Palmatier, J., Cox, B. F., & Gintant, G. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 369-379
- ISSN
- 0160-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014912931
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Utility of hERG and Repolarization Assays in Evaluating Delayed Cardiac Repolarization: Influence of Multi-Channel Block. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005344-200403000-00007
- The paper
- Martin, R. L., McDermott, J. S., Salmen, H. J., Palmatier, J., Cox, B. F., & Gintant, G. A. (2004). The Utility of hERG and Repolarization Assays in Evaluating Delayed Cardiac Repolarization: Influence of Multi-Channel Block. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005344-200403000-00007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.