Rb+ Flux through hERG Channels Affects the Potency of Channel Blocking Drugs: Correlation with Data Obtained Using a High-Throughput Rb+ Efflux Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nonradioactive Rb+ efflux assay has become a reliable and efficient high-throughput hERG screening method, but it is limited by its low sensitivity for potent hERG blockers. Using the patch clamp technique, the authors found that the low sensitivity is due in part to the use of Rb+ as the permeating cation in the assay. The affinities of the drugs measured by patch clamp technique in the presence of Rb+ were 3- to 10-fold lower than when measured by the same method in the presence of K+ ions. The apparent affinity of the drugs decreased even further when monitored by the Rb+ efflux assay. It was also observed that Rb+ had minimal effects on the activation properties of channels while there was a significant change in the half-inactivation potential. This voltage shift reduces hERG channel inactivation at efflux assay potentials, and will reduce the affinity of hERG-blocking drugs that bind to inactivated states of the channel. In combination with the effects of elevated extracellular ion concentrations, it is likely that Rb+ modulation of hERG channel inactivation is largely responsible for the reduced drug potencies observed in the Rb+ efflux assay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".