Close
  Indian J Med Microbiol
 

Figure 3: (A) Representative traces for IhERG1a (Ai) and IhERG1a/1b (Aii) before and during exposure to 1 μM fluoxetine at 37°C. Lower panels show voltage protocols used. (B) Isochronal concentration-response relationships at 3 min of drug exposure. hERG 1a (circles; IC50 1.40 μM [confidence interval 1.20–1.65 μM]) and hERG 1a/1b (diamonds; IC50 1.36 μM [confidence interval 0.99–1.87 μM]) showed similar IC50values (n = 4–6 cells per concentration; P > 0.05), and an apparently modest but statistically insignificant difference in nH : nH = 1.6 (confidence interval 1.17–2.07) for hERG1a and nH = 0.9 (confidence interval 0.64–1.22) for hERG 1a/1b [P > 0.05 for analysis of variance comparison of these values and that for hERG 1b in Figure 6]

Figure 3: (A) Representative traces for I<sub>hERG1a</sub> (Ai) and I<sub>hERG1a/1b</sub> (Aii) before and during exposure to 1 μM fluoxetine at 37°C. Lower panels show voltage protocols used. (B) Isochronal concentration-response relationships at 3 min of drug exposure. hERG 1a (circles; IC<sub>50 </sub>1.40 μM [confidence interval 1.20–1.65 μM]) and hERG 1a/1b (diamonds; IC<sub>50 </sub>1.36 μM [confidence interval 0.99–1.87 μM]) showed similar IC<sub>50</sub>values (<i>n</i> = 4–6 cells per concentration; <i>P</i> > 0.05), and an apparently modest but statistically insignificant difference in n<sub>H </sub>: n<sub>H</sub> = 1.6 (confidence interval 1.17–2.07) for hERG1a and n<sub>H</sub> = 0.9 (confidence interval 0.64–1.22) for hERG 1a/1b [<i>P</i> > 0.05 for analysis of variance comparison of these values and that for hERG 1b in Figure 6]