An impedance-based assay using hiPSC-CMs offers a high-throughput and accurate method for early detection of cardiotoxic potential in drug discovery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
hiPSC-CM impedance assay may aid preclinical cardiotoxicity screening; leaves open human translation without prospective validation.
Cardiovascular toxicity, a prominent reason for late-stage failures in drug development, has resulted in a demand for in vitro assays that can predict this liability in early drug discovery. Current in vitro cardiovascular safety testing primarily focuses on ion channel modulation and low throughput cardiomyocyte (CM) contractility measurements. We evaluated both human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived CMs (hiPSC-CMs) and rat neonatal CMs (rat CMs) on the xCELLigence Cardio system which uses impedance technology to quantify CM beating properties in a 96-well format. Forty-nine compounds were tested in concentration-response mode to determine potency for modulation of CM beating, a surrogate biomarker for contractility. These compounds had previously been tested in vivo and in a low throughput in vitro optical-based contractility assay that measures sarcomere shortening in electrically paced dog CMs. In comparison with in vivo contractility effects, hiPSC-CM impedance had assay sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values of 90%, 74%, and 82%, respectively. These values compared favorably to values reported for the dog CM optical assay (83%, 84%, and 82%) and were slightly better than impedance using rat CMs (77%, 74%, and 74%). The potency values from the hiPSC-CM and rat CM assays spanned four orders of magnitude and correlated with values from the dog CM optical assay (r(2 )= 0.76 and 0.70, respectively). The Cardio system assay has >5× higher throughput than the optical assay. Thus, hiPSC-CM impedance testing can help detect the human cardiotoxic potential of novel therapeutics early in drug discovery, and if a hazard is identified, has sufficient throughput to support the design-make-test-analyze cycle to mitigate this liability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scott et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: