As discussed above, comparison of simulations with rabbit wedge QT results (Beattie et al., 2013) using the same type of screening data were more successful — perhaps because concentrations were known more accurately in that preparation. Some human ex-vivo ventricular wedge experiments, applying compounds at more accurately known concentrations, would be

valuable to clarify this. In terms of using a cellular rather than tissue simulation, here we directly compared the absolute prolongation of APD90 with the absolute change in QT interval. As part of the Beattie et al. (2013) study, we performed a simulation study of one-dimensional pseudo-ECG QT change and compared this with APD90 change. The results suggested an excellent correspondence between APD and QT changes, and that

a ratio of ΔAPD90:ΔQT of 1:1.35 provides the Olaparib cost line of best fit.2 This suggests that a simple rescaling of APD90 to improve prediction of QT may be in order for future refinement. Note that the concentration used was assumed to be the free molar concentration corresponding to the Cmax value. Using this concentration ignores the timing of QT measurements, active metabolites, and any effects leading to compound accumulation in cardiac tissue, but these data were not readily available. There are many possible compound effects that were not being screened for, and hence could not be picked up LBH589 clinical trial in in-silico predictions, no matter how accurate the models. An example

would be changes in ion channel trafficking to the membrane, which are not screened for as standard. Certain compounds may have known additional affects that could explain inaccurate predictions: in the case of Alfuzosin (Fig. 3) TQT prolongation may be caused by sodium channel activation (Lacerda et al., 2008). This could be screened for, but isn’t something we have included here. Of the 34 drugs studied, only three (Darifenacin, Desvenlafaxine, Etravirine) had simulated predictions of prolongation instead of shortening (of 2–7 ms) for all models and datasets. There were no compounds for which simulations predicted shortening instead of prolongation 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl across all combinations. This proportion of 3/34 gives an impression of the background rate of confounding compounds, in which simulated predictions are highly inaccurate. These are probably down to factors such as additional channel blocks, interaction with nervous system etc. which make the simulated compound effects an incomplete representation of the compounds’ true actions. The true proportion of drugs with off-target effects that we could not capture could be lower, as predictions here may be inaccurate simply due to underestimated channel potencies. Because screening will always target a subset of components, later experimental safety tests will remain crucial to detect off-target and more subtle compound-induced effects.