↓ Skip to main content

Cardiotoxicity screening: a review of rapid-throughput in vitro approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Toxicology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cardiotoxicity screening: a review of rapid-throughput in vitro approaches
Published in
Archives of Toxicology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00204-015-1651-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xichun Li, Rui Zhang, Bin Zhao, Christoph Lossin, Zhengyu Cao

Abstract

Cardiac toxicity represents one of the leading causes of drug failure along different stages of drug development. Multiple very successful pharmaceuticals had to be pulled from the market or labeled with strict usage warnings due to adverse cardiac effects. In order to protect clinical trial participants and patients, the International Conference on Harmonization published guidelines to recommend that all new drugs to be tested preclinically for hERG (Kv11.1) channel sensitivity before submitting for regulatory reviews. However, extensive studies have demonstrated that measurement of hERG activity has limitations due to the multiple molecular targets of drug compound through which it may mitigate or abolish a potential arrhythmia, and therefore, a model measuring multiple ion channel effects is likely to be more predictive. Several phenotypic rapid-throughput methods have been developed to predict the potential cardiac toxic compounds in the early stages of drug development using embryonic stem cells- or human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. These rapid-throughput methods include microelectrode array-based field potential assay, impedance-based or Ca(2+) dynamics-based cardiomyocytes contractility assays. This review aims to discuss advantages and limitations of these phenotypic assays for cardiac toxicity assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 25%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 15%
Engineering 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#2,190
of 2,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,668
of 390,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.