Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 30;16(3):281–292. doi: 10.15283/ijsc22158

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Contractile properties of CM that differentiated from hiPSC. The electrophysiological properties of hiPSC-CM were assessed using a multi-electrode array (MEA) assay. Differences in the field potential parameters of (A) XC-hiPSC-CM and (B) XF-hiPSC-CM at 2 and 4 weeks after differentiation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. (C) Comparison of the field potential parameters of XC-hiPSC-CM and XF-hiPSC-CM at 4 weeks. The commercially available CM NexelTM Cardiosight®-S was used as a positive control. n=6 per group of XC/XF-CM, n=4 for NexelTM Cardiosight®-S. ***p<0.001 by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Val-ues are presented in terms of means± SEM. BPM, beats per minute; FPA, field potential amplitude; FPDcF, field potential duration corrected with Fride-ricia's formula.