BACKGROUND: The aim was to optimize antigen challenge for induction of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and inflammation in BALB/c mice sensitized to ovalbumin (OVA). Comparisons were made between mice challenged with OVA either as an aerosol or intranasally. The protocol that induced maximal AHR in BALB/c mice was thereafter tested in C57BL/6 mice. METHOD: Methacholine responsiveness was measured using the flexiVent® system to assess AHR. Inflammatory responses were investigated by histology and cell counts in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. RESULTS: 48 h after challenge with 1 or 6% OVA aerosols, there were similar increments in AHR and BAL cells, predominantly eosinophils. When comparing the effect of 1% OVA aerosol on AHR and cell infiltration at 24 and 48 h after challenge, the responses were similar. At 24 h, intranasal OVA administration (20-200 μg) caused a dose-dependent increase in AHR. BAL cells were increased by all intranasal OVA doses and to a greater extent than after 1% OVA aerosol challenge but without any dose dependency. Histological examination confirmed that there was an increase of eosinophils in lung tissue following either challenge. In C57BL/6 mice, baseline tissue elastance was the only functional outcome that was increased after intranasal OVA challenge. Even though the AHR response was negligible in C57BL/6 mice, a similar infiltration of BAL cells was observed in both strains. CONCLUSION: Intranasal challenge was more effective than aerosol challenge at inducing both AHR and airway inflammation in BALB/c mice. Although intranasal challenge caused airway inflammation in C57BL/6 mice, this strain is not optimal for studying AHR.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to optimize antigen challenge for induction of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and inflammation in BALB/c mice sensitized to ovalbumin (OVA). Comparisons were made between mice challenged with OVA either as an aerosol or intranasally. The protocol that induced maximal AHR in BALB/c mice was thereafter tested in C57BL/6 mice. METHOD:Methacholine responsiveness was measured using the flexiVent® system to assess AHR. Inflammatory responses were investigated by histology and cell counts in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. RESULTS: 48 h after challenge with 1 or 6% OVA aerosols, there were similar increments in AHR and BAL cells, predominantly eosinophils. When comparing the effect of 1% OVA aerosol on AHR and cell infiltration at 24 and 48 h after challenge, the responses were similar. At 24 h, intranasal OVA administration (20-200 μg) caused a dose-dependent increase in AHR. BAL cells were increased by all intranasal OVA doses and to a greater extent than after 1% OVA aerosol challenge but without any dose dependency. Histological examination confirmed that there was an increase of eosinophils in lung tissue following either challenge. In C57BL/6 mice, baseline tissue elastance was the only functional outcome that was increased after intranasal OVA challenge. Even though the AHR response was negligible in C57BL/6 mice, a similar infiltration of BAL cells was observed in both strains. CONCLUSION: Intranasal challenge was more effective than aerosol challenge at inducing both AHR and airway inflammation in BALB/c mice. Although intranasal challenge caused airway inflammation in C57BL/6 mice, this strain is not optimal for studying AHR.
Authors: Tomasz Piotr Wypych; Roberta Marzi; Gregory F Wu; Antonio Lanzavecchia; Federica Sallusto Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: M Ritter; K Straubinger; S Schmidt; D H Busch; S Hagner; H Garn; C Prazeres da Costa; L E Layland Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Alison S Williams; David I Kasahara; Norah G Verbout; Alexey V Fedulov; Ming Zhu; Huiqing Si; Allison P Wurmbrand; Christopher Hug; Barbara Ranscht; Stephanie A Shore Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Magnus Starkhammar; Susanna Kumlien Georén; Linda Swedin; Sven-Erik Dahlén; Mikael Adner; Lars Olaf Cardell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ying Lei; Vamsi Boinapally; Anna Zoltowska; Mikael Adner; Lars Hellman; Gunnar Nilsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joel Bozue; Christopher K Cote; Taylor Chance; Jeffrey Kugelman; Steven J Kern; Todd K Kijek; Amy Jenkins; Sherry Mou; Krishna Moody; David Fritz; Camenzind G Robinson; Todd Bell; Patricia Worsham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.240