Michael P DeLorme1, Owen R Moss. 1. CIIT Centers for Health Research, 6 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2136, USA. Michael.P.DeLorme@usa.dupont.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of pulmonary physiological measurements in laboratory animals is an essential tool in many biomedical and toxicological research areas. Recently, an unrestrained single chambered whole-body plethysmograph that utilizes a barometric analysis technique to quantify pulmonary physiological values has gained widespread use. However, results generated with the single chamber plethysmograph have come under increased scrutiny because airflow in the lung is indirectly measured. The purpose of the present study was to use mice with known interstrain differences in pulmonary physiology (A/J, BALB/c, CD-1, and B6C3F1) and compare the physiological data generated with a single chamber plethysmograph to data obtained in the widely accepted double chamber noninvasive airway mechanics (NAM) plethysmograph in which the animals are restrained. METHODS: Animals were placed into the plethysmographs and baseline physiological data acquired. The mice were then subjected to challenge with aerosols generated from isotonic saline (control) and methacholine solutions of increasing concentration (2.5-320 mg/ml) for 3 min for determination of the concentration of methacholine that induced a 200% increase in airway resistance (PC(200)R). RESULTS: Repeated physiological measurements on the same animals in both the single and double chamber plethysmographs demonstrated that each instrument generated reproducible baseline physiological data. However, comparison of physiological data generated with the double-chambered instrument to that generated with the single chamber plethysmograph revealed several significant differences. While the single chamber plethysmograph appeared to give inaccurate measurements of tidal volume, it provided much better analysis of airway reactivity based on PC(200)R results. In contrast, the double chamber plethysmograph provided accurate physiological data such as tidal volume and respiratory rate, but provided inaccurate and irreproducible airway reactivity results based on PC(200)R. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that the choice of single or double chamber plethysmograph for physiological measurements should be linked to the study objectives and the type of data required.
INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of pulmonary physiological measurements in laboratory animals is an essential tool in many biomedical and toxicological research areas. Recently, an unrestrained single chambered whole-body plethysmograph that utilizes a barometric analysis technique to quantify pulmonary physiological values has gained widespread use. However, results generated with the single chamber plethysmograph have come under increased scrutiny because airflow in the lung is indirectly measured. The purpose of the present study was to use mice with known interstrain differences in pulmonary physiology (A/J, BALB/c, CD-1, and B6C3F1) and compare the physiological data generated with a single chamber plethysmograph to data obtained in the widely accepted double chamber noninvasive airway mechanics (NAM) plethysmograph in which the animals are restrained. METHODS: Animals were placed into the plethysmographs and baseline physiological data acquired. The mice were then subjected to challenge with aerosols generated from isotonic saline (control) and methacholine solutions of increasing concentration (2.5-320 mg/ml) for 3 min for determination of the concentration of methacholine that induced a 200% increase in airway resistance (PC(200)R). RESULTS: Repeated physiological measurements on the same animals in both the single and double chamber plethysmographs demonstrated that each instrument generated reproducible baseline physiological data. However, comparison of physiological data generated with the double-chambered instrument to that generated with the single chamber plethysmograph revealed several significant differences. While the single chamber plethysmograph appeared to give inaccurate measurements of tidal volume, it provided much better analysis of airway reactivity based on PC(200)R results. In contrast, the double chamber plethysmograph provided accurate physiological data such as tidal volume and respiratory rate, but provided inaccurate and irreproducible airway reactivity results based on PC(200)R. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that the choice of single or double chamber plethysmograph for physiological measurements should be linked to the study objectives and the type of data required.
Authors: Cathryn S Mah; Darin J Falk; Sean A Germain; Jeffry S Kelley; Melissa A Lewis; Denise A Cloutier; Lara R DeRuisseau; Thomas J Conlon; Kerry O Cresawn; Thomas J Fraites; Martha Campbell-Thompson; David D Fuller; Barry J Byrne Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Rui Xiao; Zakia Perveen; Daniel Paulsen; Rodney Rouse; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Michael Kearney; Arthur L Penn Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Maik Hüttemann; Icksoo Lee; Xiufeng Gao; Petr Pecina; Alena Pecinova; Jenney Liu; Siddhesh Aras; Natascha Sommer; Thomas H Sanderson; Monica Tost; Frauke Neff; Juan Antonio Aguilar-Pimentel; Lore Becker; Beatrix Naton; Birgit Rathkolb; Jan Rozman; Jack Favor; Wolfgang Hans; Cornelia Prehn; Oliver Puk; Anja Schrewe; Minxuan Sun; Heinz Höfler; Jerzy Adamski; Raffi Bekeredjian; Jochen Graw; Thure Adler; Dirk H Busch; Martin Klingenspor; Thomas Klopstock; Markus Ollert; Eckhard Wolf; Helmut Fuchs; Valérie Gailus-Durner; Martin Hrabě de Angelis; Norbert Weissmann; Jeffrey W Doan; David J P Bassett; Lawrence I Grossman Journal: FASEB J Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: S J Wilson; M J Harmer; R L Lee; H M Rigden; N M Doyon-Reale; K M Forman; X Gao; M W Lieh-Lai; D J P Bassett Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health A Date: 2013
Authors: Rui Xiao; Zakia Perveen; Rodney L Rouse; Viviana Le Donne; Daniel B Paulsen; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Arthur L Penn Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.914