Modulation of protective reflex cough by acute immune driven inflammation of lower airways in anesthetized rabbits.

Chronic irritating cough in patients with allergic disorders may reflect behavioral or reflex response that is inappropriately matched to the stimulus present in the respiratory tract. Such dysregulated response is likely caused by sensory nerve damage driven by allergic mediators leading to cough hypersensitivity. Some indirect findings suggest that even acid-sensitive, capsaicin-insensitive A-δ fibers called "cough receptors" that are likely responsible for protective reflex cough may be modulated through immune driven inflammation. The aim of this study was to find out whether protective reflex cough is altered during acute allergic airway inflammation in rabbits sensitized to ovalbumin. In order to evaluate the effect of such inflammation exclusively on protective reflex cough, C-fiber mediated cough was silenced using general anesthesia. Cough provocation using citric acid inhalation and mechanical stimulation of trachea was realized in 16 ovalbumin (OVA) sensitized, anesthetized and tracheotomised rabbits 24h after OVA (OVA group, n = 9) or saline challenge (control group, n = 7). Number of coughs provoked by citric acid inhalation did not differ between OVA and control group (12,2 ±6,1 vs. 17,9 ± 6,9; p = 0.5). Allergic airway inflammation induced significant modulation of cough threshold (CT) to mechanical stimulus. Mechanically induced cough reflex in OVA group was either up-regulated (subgroup named "responders" CT: 50 msec (50-50); n = 5 p = 0.003) or down-regulated (subgroup named "non responders", CT: 1200 msec (1200-1200); n = 4 p = 0.001) when compared to control group (CT: 150 msec (75-525)). These results advocate that allergen may induce longer lasting changes of reflex cough pathway, leading to its up- or down-regulation. These findings may be of interest as they suggest that effective therapies for chronic cough in allergic patients should target sensitized component of both, reflex and behavioral cough.

Introduction

A common feature to all allergic and atopic disorders is the presence of strong sensations, and/or reflexes that are primary aimed to get rid of allergen [1]. However, mediators released during an allergic reaction interact with afferent nerves and may induce longer-lasting changes in neuronal activity that can outlast the stimulus by hours, days or even years [1]. As nervous system is rendered hyperactive in many patients with allergic diseases, symptoms such as chronic itch, pain, gastrointestinal discomfort, dyspnea, sneezing, coughing or wheezing frequently represent dysregulated sensory responses and pathological behaviors driven by neuroimmune interaction. [1,2]. This concept is in keeping with a hypothesis of neuropathic origin of chronic cough that have been raised recently highlighting the possible cause-effect link between exposure to infectious, irritant or allergic diseases and sensory nerve damage resulting in cough hypersensitivity [3].

Recent studies focusing on neurobiology of cough [4,5,6,7] reveal the complexity of cough regulation resulting in reconfiguration of brainstem respiratory pattern generator in such a way that normal respiratory pattern is replaced by cough motor pattern [8,9]

To summarize current knowledge, cough motor pattern may be produced reflexively or behaviorally. Reflex cough has a crucial role in basic defense of airways including clearance of aspirate, inhaled particulate matter and accumulated secretions [5,10,11]. Reflex cough is largely dependent upon brainstem processing of incoming afferent input and requires minimal conscious involvement and it can be therefore provoked in anesthetized animals and humans or in decerebrated animals. On the other hand, behavioral cough occurs as a result of subcortical and cortical processing of afferent information from airways. It is associated with conscious perception of the sensation of irritation (urge to cough) and serves in fine to reduce such sensation. [7,10,12].

Stimulation of the acid-sensitive, capsaicin-insensitive mechanoreceptors projecting to the larynx, trachea and large bronchi leads to coughing even in anesthetized animals and humans and is therefore likely responsible for protective reflex cough [5,10,11]. This type of mechanoreceptors classed as A-δ fibres whose soma is situated in nodose ganglia were recently called “cough receptors” [5].

Chemically sensitive bronchopulmonary non-myelinated C-fibers, whose soma is situated in jugular ganglia, mediate cough evoked by a wide range of nociceptive stimuli, including endogenous mediators released during inflammation or tissue injury through expression of Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) ion channels on their nerve terminals. Inhalation of C-fiber stimulators, such as capsaicin, induces not only cough, but also a sensation of urge-to-cough; which is often experienced prior to the cough motor event. Thus, it remains possible that bronchopulmonary C-fibers do not evoke reflex cough, but rather promote behavioral cough [11,12]. Studies in experimental animals may support this notion since capsaicin is extremely effective at evoking cough in conscious animal but typically fail to do so in anesthetized one [13,14].

Based on the evidence to date, chronic irritating cough in patients with allergic disorders may therefore reflect either behavioral or reflex response that is inappropriately matched to the stimulus present in the respiratory tract [10]. In order to treat chronic cough in such patients, it is essential to identify possible mechanisms of both, reflex and behavioral cough sensitization, driven by allergic mediators. This task appears especially complicated as new therapeutic approaches should not suppress reflex cough, that protects respiratory system from aspiration, inhaled particulate matter and clears the airways form accumulated secretions [15], but rather restore normal reflex cough function and sensitivity [16].

TRP channels frequently act as a final pathway for many immune cell-derived stimuli in order to activate or modulate sensory nerves. Therefore, the type of afferent neuron initiating cough that is most susceptible to direct activation and modulation by allergic mediators is bronchopulmonary C-fibre [17]. For this reason, in order to develop new therapeutic strategies much attention is payed to understand mechanisms of its activation. As TRP receptors are not normally expressed by nodose A-δ fiber [5,14,18,19], one may expect that these afferent nerves are not activated by allergen mediators and so, the protective reflex cough is not altered during allergic inflammation.

However, many indirect findings suggest that immune-driven inflammation modulates also reflex cough. Several endogenous mediators that are released by immune or structural cells during different stages of allergic disease may influence afferent and central neurons involved in cough reflex pathway. [11]. [20,21],

The aim of this study is to find out whether reflex cough is altered during acute allergic airway inflammation in a rabbit model sensitized to ovalbumin. The used of rabbit model to study neuronal mechanisms implied in cough reflex induction to different stimuli has been advocated for neuronal similarity of rabbit lungs to human lungs [22,23,24]. In order to evaluate the effect of such inflammation exclusively on reflex cough supposed to be mediated by A-δ fibers, C-fiber mediated cough was silenced using general anesthesia. As “cough receptors” are sensitive to punctuate mechanical stimulation of epithelium and a rapid drop in luminal pH, the effect of airway allergic inflammation was tested for the both stimuli. The use of validated and reproducible methodology of mechanical stimulation of trachea, elaborated in our laboratory permitted us to assess the sensitivity of cough reflex to mechanical stimulation by using several mechanical stimulation durations. We also analyzed bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for immune cell counts to characterize the inflammatory state.

We addressed the hypothesis that citric acid induced cough reflex and mechanically induced cough reflex in anesthetized animals are up-regulated 24h after OVA challenge in sensitized rabbits.

Materials and methods

Animals

Sixteen New Zealand adult rabbits (1.5–2 kg) purchased by HYCOLE (SARL-HYCOLE-Route de Villers Plouich, 59159 MARCOING,France, http://hycole.com/) were studied. All animals were housed. All animals were housed in two in conventional animal facilities with a 16 hour day and 8 hour night cycle at Animal House of Faculty of Medicine, University of Lorraine. Food and drink were given ad libitum and routinely checked by the technical staff. Enrichment consisted in hay and small pieces of wood. Animal care and study protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee on animal testing (Comité d’éthique en expérimentation animale CEEA) affiliated to the University of Lorraine (Comité d’Ethique Lorrain en Matière d’Experimentation animale CELMEA C2EA-66) followed by the validation of the “Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche” under the number authorization 01582.02 according to recommendations 86–609 CEE issued by the council of the European Communities. Ethics Committees on animal testing are recognized as the competent authority for the ethical evaluation of authorization applications for projects involving animal models. The CEEA comprise at least 5 members: a veterinary surgeon, a scientist, an investigator, an animal keeper, and a person from the social profession not involved in research activities. In 2016, 126 CEEA were authorized by the French Ministry of Research, including that of University of Lorraine.

Sensitization and provocation of airway inflammation with ovalbumin

The sensitization and challenge protocol used in this study is shown in Fig 1. All rabbits were sensitized by two intraperitoneal injections (IP) of 1 mL of a suspension containing 0.1 mg ovalbumin (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Quentin Fallavier, France) and 10 mg aluminum hydroxide (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Quentin Fallavier, France) in sterile saline (0.9% NaCl) on day 0 and 13 [25]. The solutions were suspended by 30min agitation on ice before IP injections. Seven days before airway exposure to allergen, the sensitization to OVA was tested by an intradermal sensitization assay. One hundred microliters of OVA solution (200 μg/mL of saline) and saline alone were injected symmetrically in the shaved back dermis of each animal using a 1 mL syringe fitted with a 25-gauge needle. The extent of the reaction was measured 24h and 48 h later using caliper. Two measurements were taken at right angles to one another in order to calculate the induration size in square millimeters [26]. According to the size of skin induration around the site of OVA injection, rabbits were divided into Saline and OVA group i.e. challenged by Saline or OVA aerosols, respectively. Rabbits with smallest skin indurations were intended to Saline group which corresponded to 7 controls versus 9 OVA.

Fig 1

Experimental procedure.

IP: intraperitoneal injections of 0.1 mg ovalbumin (OVA) and 10 mg aluminum hydroxide, ISA: Intradermal Sensitization Assay with 20 μg of OVA or saline, OVA challenges:40 mg of OVA, BAL: Bronchoalveolar Lavage.

The aerosols of ovalbumin or saline were performed using an ultrasonic nebulizer (LS 290, SYSTAM®) producing droplets with a mass media aerodynamic diameter of 3.5 μm (60% of particles have a size between 1 and 5 μm) connecting to custom-built device elaborated in our laboratory. This system was a closed Plexiglas chamber (33x33x51.5 cm) consisting of a head chamber isolated from a body chamber. The rabbit was positioned in order to permit proximity between rabbit nose and an opening for aerosol diffusion. To realize the aerosol challenges, rabbits were placed in the restraining system that had the opening for tubing connected to nebulizer containing 20 mL of 2.5 mg/mL of OVA in saline or saline alone. Twenty-minute nebulization allowed aerosolization of almost 40 mg of OVA. All aerosols were performed in class I safety enclosure for safety reasons. Rabbits were exposed to OVA or saline, 48h and 24h before the mechanical and chemical cough challenge. A habituation to aerosol challenges was performed for five days (ten minutes each challenge) before the first OVA/Saline challenge.

Chemical and mechanical stimulation of trachea

Anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia

Anesthesia was induced with sodium pentobarbital (22 mg.Kg-1) (Ceva Santé animale, Libourne, France) injected through the ear vein. Fifteen minutes after the induction of anesthesia an intramuscular injection in hind limb muscles of ketamine (10 mg. Kg-1) (Virbac France, Carros, France) was realized. The anesthesia was maintained by a bolus injection of sodium pentobarbital (2.2 mg. Kg-1) following by a continuous perfusion of 33 mg/hour. Monitoring of analgesia and anesthetic depth was performed in 15 minutes intervals by assessing the change of physiologic parameters (heart and respiratory rate) and absence of withdrawal responses to compressive ear and toe pinch. In the case of withdrawal response, a supplementary bolus of sodium pentobarbital (2.2 mg. Kg-1) was injected. In this case, the procedure was interrupted for 15 min.

At the end of the experiment, animals were sacrificed by an overdose of pentobarbital.

Animal preparation

The anesthetized animal was placed in the supine position. Rectal temperature was continuously monitored with an electrical thermistor (Physitemp Instruments, YSI 402 Clifton, NJ USA) and maintained at 38°C using circulating warm water pad. The electromyographic activity of the rectus abdominis muscle was measured by insertion of bipolar insulated fine stainless steel wire electrodes (A-M Systems INC, Sequim, WA 98,382) introduced under visual control into either the transversus abdominis or external oblique abdominal muscles according to Basmajian and Stecko ([27] to further characterize the active expiration from augmented breath [28]. An upper cervical tracheotomy allowed the insertion of a tracheal cannula that was connected to a pneumotachograph (No. 0 Fleisch pneumotachograph with linear range ± 250 mL/s) and to the mechanical stimulation apparatus. The pneumotachograph was calibrated before each experiment using a 20 ml calibration syringe.

Mechanical stimulation of trachea

The apparatus developed to elicit a discrete mechanical challenge to the trachea has been described in details and validated in previous reports [29]. Briefly, a rotating silastic catheter introduced in tracheotomy is driven by a small electrical motor that spins the catheter and rubs its tip onto the airway mucosa for a short period. The electrical signal from the engines serves as marker for accurate identification of the stimulus time course. As cough reflex is significantly more frequently provoked during inspiration compared to expiration [29] mechanical stimulations were triggered during inspiratory phase. The beginning of inspiration was detected electronically as soon as the flow signal reached a positive value. Four stimulation durations (50, 150, 300 and 600 msec) repeated 3 times each in a pseudorandom order were performed. An interval of at least 1 min of quiet and regular breathing was allowed to elapse between two stimuli. during which reference tidal volume was determined [30].

Chemical stimulation of trachea

A 1M citric acid (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Quentin Fallavier, France) solution was nebulized using an ultrasonic nebulizer (LS 290, SYSTAM) in a plastic bottle connected to the tracheal cannula for 4 min.

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)

Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed following chemical and mechanical stimulation of trachea. After euthanasia a catheter was inserted via steel tracheal cannula into trachea until a resistance prevented to progress. Lavage was performed by slow injection followed by aspiration of 5 mL of HEPES (140 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 1 MgCl2, 10mM glucose, and 10 mM HEPES; pH 7.4) solution for three times. The collected solution (10–13 mL) was homogenized by successive aspiration before filtration on nylon tissue with 60 μm mesh to remove mucus (Zschauer et al., 1999). The total cell concentration of BAL was determined after trypan blue coloration on counting chamber Malassez. An aliquot of the BAL containing 250,000 cells was then spun in a cytospin (500 rpm for 10 min) and stained by May-Grünwald-Giemsa (MGG) staining to identify cell populations using light microscopy (40x objective, AX70 Olympus®). A minimum of 100 cells per slide were identified and classified as macrophages, eosinophils, lymphocytes, basophils, neutrophils, monocytes, epithelial cells and other cells.

Data analysis

Ventilatory responses to mechanical stimulation of trachea

The cough response was identified from the change in tidal volume (VT), peak expiratory flow (V’Epeak) and rectus abdominis EMG [28]. Cough reflex (CR) was defined as an increase of VT followed by an increased V’Epeak associated with a

burst of rectus abdominis EMG activity (Fig 2). In order to take into account the spontaneous between-breath variability, an unbiased differentiation of CR from expiration reflex was achieved by a statistical evaluation of VT between stimulation and reference breath. Tidal volume of reference breath was determined as the mean of 3 breaths prior to stimulation and its upper limit as mean + 3 standard deviations. The cough reflex was identified when VT of stimulation breath was higher than upper limit of reference VT. Reflex cough response to mechanical stimulation consisted of a bout of one or several CR.

Fig 2

Typical cough reflex to mechanical stimulation of trachea.

The increased expiratory flow is associated with a burst of rectus abdominis EMG activity and preceded by an increased tidal volume. Thick bar on the top indicates the moment of mechanical stimulation.

The use of four stimulation durations (50, 150, 300 and 600 msec) allowed the assessment of duration–response curve enabling to assess the sensitivity of cough response to mechanical stimulation. The cough threshold (CT) was defined as the shortest stimulation duration necessary to provoke at least one cough reflex. When no response was seen using 600 msec (longest) stimulation, the threshold was arbitrarily set to 1200 msec.

In addition, the cumulative number of CR for each stimulation duration (NCUM50, NCUM150, NCUM300, NCUM 600, respectively) was calculated as the sum of cough reflex number induced by that duration and all shorter stimulation durations.

Ventilatory responses to chemical stimulation of trachea

Cough response to nebulisation of citric acid for 4 minutes was quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity that allowed to count number of CR (Fig 3). The cumulative number of CR at 1st (NCUM1), 2nd (NCUM2), 3rd (NCUM3) and 4th minute (NCUM4) were calculated.

Fig 3

Typical reflex cough response during chemical stimulation of trachea quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity.

Downward arrows indicate the bursts of EMG activity corresponding to cough reflex.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the SYSTAT 12 package (San Jose, CA, USA). Cells types’ number, cumulative number and total number of defensive responses were expressed as the mean ± standard error and statistical comparisons between groups were performed using ANOVA or Student's t test.

Threshold of defensive response was expressed as median (25–75%) and statistical comparisons between groups were performed using non parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Pairwise comparisons between groups were subsequently performed using post-hoc analysis (Conover-Inman test for multiple comparisons) and a statistical significance was retained for a p ≤ 0.05.

Results

Effect of allergen challenge on airway eosinophilia

Rabbits exposed to OVA aerosols showed a significant increase of eosinophil counts in BAL as compared to those exposed to Saline (11.6±1.92.0% vs. 2.2±0.6%; p = 0.001) (Fig 4.)

Fig 4

Eosinophil count in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) of Saline and OVA group at the end of experiment.

Eosinophil count expressed as percentage of total cell count. Data are mean ± SE. P-values were calculated using the unpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test.

Effect of allergen challenge on cough response to airway stimulation

Cough response to chemical stimulation

Saline and OVA group did not statistically differ neither in total number of CR (= NCUM4) provoked by nebulization of citric acid aerosol during 4 minutes (saline: 17,9 ± 6,9 vs. OVA: 12,2 ±6,1; p = 0.5) nor in NCUM1, NCUM2, NCUM3 (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Cumulative number of coughs provoked by 4 minute nebulization of citric acid aerosol (1M).

Data are mean ± SEM. Cumulative number of coughs did not differ significantly between Saline and OVA.

Cough response to mechanical stimulation

Mechanical stimulation of trachea in rabbits challenged with OVA provoked two diametrically different responses (Fig 6). In order to obtain appropriate understanding of reflex cough modulation by airway inflammation, OVA group was therefore divided into 2 subgroups for further analysis.

Fig 6

Scatter plot displaying the values of mechanical cough threshold in rabbits of OVA and Saline group.

Cough threshold represents the shortest stimulation duration necessary to provoke at least one cough reflex. When no response was seen using longest (600 msec) stimulation, the threshold was arbitrarily set to 1200 msec.

The subgroup named “non responders” consisted of 5 rabbits (5/9; 55.5%) that did not cough at any of four stimulation durations. In this subgroup CT was significantly increased compared to saline group (Table 1) and NCUM600 was significantly lower compared to Saline group (Table 1, Fig 7).

Table 1

Parameters of cough response to mechanical stimulation and to chemical stimulation and BAL cell count.

Comparison of cough threshold to mechanical stimulation (CT) and the cumulative number of cough for each stimulation duration (NCUM50, NCUM150, NCUM300, NCUM 600) between two subgroups of OVA group and Saline group.

	OVA		Saline	p
	Non responders	Responders		Non responders vs. Saline	Responders vs. Saline
n	5	4	7
Cough response to mechanical stimulation of trachea
CT	1200 (1200–1200)	50 (50–50)	150 (75–525)	0.001	0.003
NCUM 50	0.00±0.24	1.75±0.26	0.14±0.2	0.89	0.001
NCUM 150	0.00±0.74	3.75±0.83	1.14±0.6	0.48	0.06
NCUM 300	0.00±1.11	7.00±1.24	2.57±0.63	0.22	0.03
NCUM 600	0.00±1.26	9.75±1.4	4.57±1.06	0.04	0.03
Cough response to chemical stimulation of trachea (citric acid)
Total count	11,8 ± 4,8	12,75±5,5	17,8±6.9	0.85	1.0
Bronchoalveolar lavage (% of total cell count)
Eosinophils	11.3 ± 2.4	12.0 ± 3.3	2.36 ± 0.6	0.012	0.017
Macrophages	86.1 ± 1.6	86.1 ± 4.0	96.26 ±0.85	0.006	0.012

Fig 7

The cumulative number of coughs provoked by mechanical stimulation in Saline group and two OVA subgroups (Responders and Non responders)

*Significance of difference between “Responders” and Saline group at the level of p < 0.05; + Significance of difference between “Non responders” and Saline group at the level of p < 0.05.

The subgroup named “responders” consisted from 4 rabbits (4/9; 44.5%) presenting a cough response when using the shortest mechanical stimulation. In this subgroup, CT was significantly decreased compared to saline group (Table 1) and NCUM50, NCUM300 and NCUM600 were significantly higher compared to saline group (Table 1; Fig 7).

The cough response to citric acid stimulation and the eosinophil counts in BAL were not significantly different between the two OVA subgroups (Table 1).

Discussion

This study is the first one to investigate the effect of acute immune-driven inflammation associated with allergic challenge on reflex cough in sensitized rabbits in vivo. Cough response to citric acid inhalation was not altered by two consecutive allergen challenges performed 48h and 24h before reflex cough provocation when compared to animals challenged by saline. Unlike citric acid induced cough, allergic airway inflammation induced significant modulation of mechanically induced reflex cough that was either up-regulated or down-regulated when compared to rabbits challenged by saline.

These findings are of interest as they show that protective reflex cough, an important defense mechanism that allow clearing airways even during sleep or anesthesia, is modulated during allergic inflammation of lower airways.

Immune-driven inflammation model

In order to evaluate modulation of involuntary cough during acute allergic airway inflammation we have employed the frequently used allergen OVA. Acute sensitization of OVA followed by OVA aerosol challenges induces allergic airway and pulmonary inflammation in many animal models of asthma, including rabbit [31,32,33]. Although, this procedure not entirely reflect the inflammation profile of asthma [32], increased eosinophils in BAL and lung tissue have been attested in different animals models i.e. rabbit [34], mouse [35] and guinea pig [36]. Recent literature shows that rabbit model is of particular interest to study asthma and other lung diseases for several reasons [23] and we used this model especially for two reasons. Firstly, mouse and rat, the most frequently used models of asthma, do not express typical cough reflex (at least under anesthesia) and secondly, in guinea pig, the most frequently used animal model of cough, this reflex cannot be provoked under pentobarbital anaesthesia (personal observations). The protocol of sensitization was modified to take into consideration both the efficiency of inflammation induction and the 3Rs principle in animal experimentation. Indeed, in the study of Zschauer et al. (1999) [31] the same profile of cell was observed between control rabbits (no-sensitized and saline challenged) and sensitized rabbits challenged with OVA. As variability in sensitization efficacy was suspected, it has been chosen to reduce the number of animals used by a systematic sensitization. To test the efficiency of sensitization a dermal test was realized and as far as possible, rabbits with smallest indurations were intended to control group i.e. not exposed to OVA aerosols (S1 Fig and S1 Table). As the use of OVA aerosol leads to the development of an antigen tolerance and the quick resolution of inflammation after discontinuing antigen exposures [32] we realized preliminary experiments to determine the optimal aerosol challenge number that allowed us to reproduce some key features of clinical acute asthma, such as early and late-phase bronchoconstriction in response to allergen challenge and the influx of eosinophils into lower respiratory tract resulting in eosinophil airway inflammation. Realization of two OVA challenges in sensitized rabbits, 48 h and 24 h before experiments, provoked significant increase of eosinophils (S1 Table) that was comparable with those in study of Xue and co-workers that used five allergen challenges [37]. The timing of eosinophils influx after OVA challenge was studied in mouse and revealed discrepancy corresponding to maximum inflammations from 6h [35] to 24h [38] post allergen exposure. This discrepancy was explained by the type of allergen. In rabbit, a 24 h delay after the last aerosol exposure appears as the common procedure.

Modulation of chemically induced cough

The first hypothesis addressed in our study expected that protective reflex cough provoked by citric acid will be up-regulated in sensitized animals exposed to allergen when compared to those exposed to control solution. This prediction was based on prior studies that describe several potential mechanisms by which allergic airway inflammation may modulate neural pathways responsible for cough reflex. Firstly, citric acid-induced cough in anesthetized animals without airway inflammation is supposed to be exclusively mediated through ASICS channels expressed on airway Aδ-fiber terminals [11]. Up to date, there is no direct experimental evidence suggesting that ASICS channels expressed on airway Aδ-fiber terminals are modulated by allergic inflammation. However, it has been shown that ASIC transcript levels in sensory neurons were increased in inflammatory conditions in vivo [39] and that proinflammatory mediators such as nitric oxide [40], nerve growth factor and in a lesser extent serotonin [41] increases proton-gated currents on sensory neurons and/or the number of ASIC expressing neurons leading to a higher sensory neuron excitability. Secondly, there is experimental evidence suggesting that increased production of various neurotrophic factors during airway allergic inflammation may lead to phenotypic changes in neurons [42,43,44]. For example, Lieu and co-workers have found that nodose A-δ neurons in guinea pig trachea begin to express de novo TRPV1 channels during allergic airway inflammation [42]. As TRPV1 channels are involved in citric acid-evoked cough, de novo expression of TRPV1 channels on cough receptor cell membrane may in fine lead to increased responsiveness of these fibers to acid solutions. Finally, there is considerable evidence that following allergen challenge the non-myelinated and myelinated afferent neurons of respiratory tract begin to synthetize and transport tachykinins to their central terminal [20,21]. As the local release of substance P has been shown to increase the excitability of the nucleus of the solitary tract neurons in guinea pigs and rabbits [45,46], allergic inflammation may lower the activation threshold of cough reflex evoked by cough receptor stimulants via the mechanisms of tachykinin-mediated central sensitization [1]. However, our results showed no difference of cough reflex number provoked by citric acid between sensitized animals exposed to OVA and those exposed to saline (Fig 3). Our results do not highlight cough reflex up-regulation 24 hours after the last OVA challenge in rabbits challenged daily for 2 consecutive days. It is therefore supposed that a) the reflex cough provoked by citric acid is not up-regulated by airway inflammation; or b) the number of allergen expositions in our study was not sufficient to induce neuromodulation of afferent and/or second order neurons; and/or finally c) the time needed to induce such neuromodulation after allergen challenge was insufficient. The latter two suggestions seem to be more likely even if the acute inflammation state was attested by eosinophils influx in BAL. The de novo expression of TRPV1 channels on vagal myelinated fibers was observed in guinea pigs challenged daily for 3 consecutive days [42] and in rats challenged 3 times per week for 3 weeks [43] and increased excitability of brainstem neurons was induced by a long-term exposure of young rhesus monkeys to house dust mite [47]. More studies are needed to clarify the time course of inflammation mediated modulation of reflex cough induced by chemical stimulation.

Modulation of mechanically induced cough

Mechanical stimulation of lower airways is converted to electrical signals via depolarization of afferent vagal Aβ-fibers, Aδ-fibers or C-fibers [11,48]. Among them, the low-threshold mechanosensitive nodose Aδ fibers that terminate in extra pulmonary airways have been recently defined as “cough receptors” in the airways of guinea pig [14]. Different experimental studies focusing on anatomical and physiological characteristics of the Aδ fibers have shown that these afferents, exquisitely sensitive to light touch are responsible for mediating mechanically induced cough reflex [11]. Our hypothesis of mechanical cough reflex up-regulation by allergic airway inflammation was based on several observations. In the in vitro study realized by Riccio and co-workers (1996) the mechanical sensitivity of tracheal Aδ-fiber endings to calibrated Frey filaments was increased immediately after 5–30 min exposure to antigen challenge when compared to pre-challenge period [48]. Given the similarities between pain and cough, the results showing that allergic stimulus may produce mechanical hyperalgesia lasting approximately 72 hours suggest that allergic challenge may induce a longer-lasting increase in cough reflex sensitivity to mechanical stimulus. Results of our study partially confirmed such expectations as they showed that significantly increased cough reflex sensitivity to mechanical stimulus was present 24h after allergen challenge in almost half of OVA treated rabbits.

On the other hand, in resting half of OVA treated rabbits, we found significantly down-regulated cough response when compared to control group. Transduction of mechanical sensing is not clarified yet, however, there is a lot of information supporting the role of cytoskeleton and/or extracellular matrix. Concerning respiratory tract, in vitro electrophysiological study, focusing to the mechanisms of adaptation of airway afferent neurons to mechanical stimulation, suggested that nodose mechanosensitive fibers are localized in the tissue in a fashion that the activation stimulus is the dynamic phase of the mechanical stimulus [49]. Using new techniques of intravital labeling with FM2-10 and visualization through water-immersion optics confirmed adherence of Aδ-fiber terminals to the sub epithelial matrix, where sensing physical disturbances is signaled through the structure of the matrix [50].

It is therefore not surprising that responsiveness to mechanical stimulation may be modulated in the case of airway wall modifications driven by acute allergic response.

Acute exposition to allergen in sensitized subjects is commonly associated with modifications of airway wall and mucus composition. Exudation of plasma proteins from leaky blood vessels is frequently observed in this situation and leads to development of rapid perivascular edema through the action of inflammatory mediators [51,52]. Inflammatory edema of tracheal wall may considerably change the structure of ECM by making it stiffer. If afferent neurons embedded in ECM experience mechanical stimulation when ECM undergoes large deformations, it is tempting to suppose that increased rigidity of ECM might increase the intensity of mechanical stimulus needed to provoke cough. In addition, acute allergic inflammatory response of the airway includes important modifications of mucus secretion. In human, the conducting airways of healthy subjects are covered by thin mucous layer containing 97% of water and few mucins [53]. In acute asthma, an extensive mucins secretion [54,55] and an impaired degradation of mucus in the presence of plasma proteins exudation [51] results in formation of concentrated mucus of rubbery quality [56]. An increase of mucus viscosity might increase the intensity of mechanical stimulus needed to provoke cough. Therefore, a combination of inflammatory edema and qualitative changes of mucous layer might participate on the no response pattern observed in this study.

In the study of Riccio et al. the mechanical sensitivity of tracheal Aδ-fiber endings to calibrated Frey filaments was measured in vitro using a preparation consisting from isolated tracheal segments, vagus nerves and afferent ganglions [48]. In such case, exudation of plasma proteins, inflammatory edema and subsequent increase of mucus viscosity could not take place and the increase of mechanical sensitivity of tracheal Aδ-fibers in this study probably occurred in absence of airway tracheal wall modifications.

Taken together, the two responsiveness profiles to mechanical stimulation found in our study likely reflect the relation between mechanotransduction and the time course of the inflammation process and recovery if we suppose individual phenotypic responses to allergen challenge in different animals. Unfortunately, there is no information about spontaneous recovery time from tracheal edema provoked by acute inhalation of allergen. There is some information showing that the restoration of the mucus rheology proprieties in subjects with acute asthma exacerbation takes place 24–72 hours after the initiation of the exacerbation [51]. Therefore, we suppose that animals with down-regulated mechanical cough response did not yet recover from inflammatory edema and mucus modifications whereas those with up-regulated cough response did. Such speculation seems likely as our recent observations showed that mechanical cough was significantly down-regulated immediately after single nebulization of OVA in sensitized rabbits and such down-regulation remained during the totality of recording period (100 min post-challenge) [57].

To confirm such relation an investigation of mucus composition and histological tissue analysis should be realized in each animal, however, such studies were not in the goal of this work.

Further studies are necessary to test these hypotheses and to focus on the impact of the morphological modifications induced by inflammation on mechanically induced cough reflex mediated by Aδ-fiber.

Limitations of the study

This study presents several limitations.

The evaluation of inflammatory state was only realized by eosinophils count in BAL without further histological characterization of the airways. Such supplementary investigations would have been useful to better define inflammation induced modifications of airway tissue which likely modify the potential of intratracheal stimulation.

During citric acid cough challenge, it was not possible to record airflow using pneumotachograph and so the fine differentiation of cough from expiration reflex (ER) could not be realized. Expiration reflex is frequently elicited by mechanical stimulation of larynx and trachea [58] and so its differentiation from cough is important for this modality. On the other hand, there is no information whether citric acid inhalation may provoke ER as the two reflexes are commonly not differentiated in the studies using citric acid to provoke cough. Only one study, using citric acid microinjections into the larynx, classified expulsive responses into CR or ER [59]. In their study, microinjections of 0.8 M citric acid during 5 minutes provoked a big cough response (about 26–30 coughs) but only few ER (n≈ 3) and no dose response relationship was observed for ER when using several citric acid concentrations. Therefore, we suppose that in our study, the great majority of expulsive events provoked by inhalation of citric acid and quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity were cough reflexes.

The number of animals per group was determined between 6 and 9 animals during the design of this study. The analysis of results revealed that the OVA group included two distinct profiles responses to mechanical cough stimulation. It has been chosen to distinguish two subgroups named “non responders” consisted of 5 rabbits (5/9; 55.5%) and “responders” consisted of 4 rabbits (4/9; 44.5%). For this reason, this study is a pilot study and further studies will be realised to determine the airways changes in the two subgroups.

Conclusion and perspectives

The effect of acute allergic airway inflammation on protective reflex cough sensitization was studied in anaesthetized animal in order to silence C-fiber mediated cough. The results of this study suggest that modulation of mechanically induced reflex cough is present 24 hours after allergen challenge in sensitized animals. On the other hand, this study failed to highlight the modulation of citric acid induced reflex cough in the same setting.

These results advocate that allergen may induce longer lasting changes of protective reflex cough pathway, leading to its up- or down-regulation. Further studies are needed, however, to understand underlying mechanisms of reflex cough modulation driven by allergic mediators so as their time course.

These findings may be of interest as they suggest that effective therapies for chronic cough in allergic patients should target sensitized component of both, reflex and behavioral cough.

The rabbit model of reflex cough testing presented here may prove useful in evaluating the reflex cough function and sensitivity when developing new therapies for chronic cough.

Sensitization test to ovalbumin.

Sensitization was induced by two intraperitoneal injections of OVA (200 μg/mL) in 2 weeks intervals. Dermal test was performed by two symmetrical intradermic injections of OVA (20 μg in 100 μL of saline) and of saline (NaCl 0.9%) one week after the last injection. Induration sizes (A) and erythema (B) were evaluated 24h and 48h after intradermic injections.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Percentage of macrophages and eosinophils in BAL of rabbits following different OVA exposure procedures.

Preliminary results before study. Results are expressed as the mean ± SD of number of counts indicated in brackets. The number of rabbits of the different groups is indicated in column entitled n.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

30 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-22841

Modulation of protective reflex cough by acute immune driven inflammation of lower airways in anesthetized rabbits

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Demoulin-Alexikova,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers raised some minor issues that require to be addressed. I hope that the authors can effectively respond to these comments in the revision.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yu Ru Kou, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. At this time, we request that you  please report additional details in your Methods section regarding animal care, as per our editorial guidelines:

(1) Please state whether the provided ethics committee contains animal welfare experts or whether an animal ethics or IACUC committee reviewed and approved the study. Please provide the full name of the committee that reviewed and approved the study

(2) Please state the source of the rabbits used in the study

(3) Please provide details of animal welfare (e.g., shelter, food, water, environmental enrichment)

3. Please state specifically whether the IRB approved your study.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I was very satisfied by the manuscript, because it showed the role of airway Ad fibers - minly their contribution to the modulatin of airway defensive reflexes by allergen challenge. Surprisingly there were no changes in the citric acid induced cough and mechanical challenge provoked two brand different responses - no response or up regulated response, which authors try to explain by the presence of mucus/fluid layer and therefore insensitivity of mechanosensory afferents. I think this study should be published as a pilot study with further experiments focused on the airway changes in any, and neurobiology. i do not think 24 or 48 hours lasting eposure to inflammatory mediators could cause "neuroplastic" changes suffiecient to upregulate coughing mediated via Ad. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this model will behave after repeated challenges ..saying a chronic model with analysis of ion channel expression.

I have a question for author. Do you think 5 and 4 animals in responders /nonresponders group - is this enough to be ready to jump to conclusions? A paragrpah should be devoted to the number of subjects in your experiment.

Introduction section should be a little shorter. I see that authors were trying to explain the situation that exist in this field precisely, but to my taste it was too long. a Part of it perhaps should be moved to discussion - but this is on the journal policy if they preffer longer introductions due to a broader spectrum of readers.

Reviewer #2: Interesting paper about the influence of allergic inflammation induced by sensibilisation and challenge by ovalbumin in rabbits on cough. I appreciate logic sequence of methods, results and discussion part and find the results as very interesting..

Minor rcomments and recommendation:

1. I recommend to modify an abstract in order to be clear which procedures were made in the two groups.

2. Is there any reason why non-sesnitized rabbits were not used as a control?

3. Reasons for using challenge by ovalbumin only in "positive" dermal tests after sensitisation should be included in the study - what was the size of induration for inclusion into respective goups?

4. It is questionalble to use results of own unpublished observations in this kind of study; on the other hand, they help to elucidate observed effects.

5. Were there any differences in BAL eosinophils between responders and non-responders in OVA challenged group? This and other markers of inflammation could help to explain these completely copntrary results in cough threshold (fig. 6)... Did you measure also some other systemic markers of allergic inflammation in plasma (e.g. some interleukins)? If yes, woud you consider their inclusion into the manuscript to clearly demonstrate also systemic changes?

6. In the introduction, a paragraphs about suitability of rabbit model for testing both chemical and mechanical induced cough should be included with appropriate references.

7. When performing BAL, the volume of HEPES solution repeatedly admnistered is usually re-calculated to body weight of animals. Why you did adinister uniform amount of the solution? Was the bw of rabbith equally distrobuted among the groups?

8. Latin words should be written in Italics (e.g. rectus abdominis).

9. In the discussion should be mentioned, why only sensitised animals where used and were not confirmed with non-sensitized animals (e.g. eosinophils).

10. The first sentence in the discussion should be more specific for rabbits, as there are available some studies about ovalbumin sensitisation and challenge on cough reflex in guinea pigs (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204154; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12470206; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21939521; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16343041; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15611590; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569475; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19218639)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

12 Nov 2019

Response to Reviewers

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Answer:

Some modifications have been done in the formatting of the manuscript:

“Abstract” title size was increase to the appropriate size

Numbers in front of the affiliations was in superscript

The all text format was checked to be conform to the PLOS ONE style requirements

2. At this time, we request that you please report additional details in your Methods section regarding animal care, as per our editorial guidelines:

(1) Please state whether the provided ethics committee contains animal welfare experts or whether an animal ethics or IACUC committee reviewed and approved the study. Please provide the full name of the committee that reviewed and approved the study

Answer:

Section “animals” in material and methods has been amended as follow

Animal care and study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee affiliated to the University of Lorraine (Comité d’Ethique Lorrain en Matière d’Experimentation animale CELMEA C2EA-66) followed by the validation of the “Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche” under the number authorization 01582.02 according to recommendations 86-609 CEE issued by the council of the European Communities. Animal care and health were under supervision by the “Services Vétérinaires Départementales de Meurthe et Moselle”.

(2) Please state the source of the rabbits used in the study

Answer:

Section “animals” in material and methods has been amended as follow

Sixteen New Zealand adult rabbits (1.5 -2 kg) purchased by HYCOLE (SARL-HYCOLE-Route de Villers Plouich , 59159 MARCOING,France,http://hycole.com/) were studied .

(3) Please provide details of animal welfare (e.g., shelter, food, water, environmental enrichment)

Answer:

Section “animals” in material and methods has been amended as follow

Sixteen New Zealand adult rabbits (1.5 -2 kg) purchased by HYCOLE (SARL-HYCOLE-Route de Villers Plouich , 59159 MARCOING,France,http://hycole.com/)were studied . All animals were housed in two in conventional animal facilities with a 16 hour day and 8 hour night cycle at Animal House of Faculty of Medicine, University of Lorraine. Food and drink were given ad libitum and routinely checked by the technical staff. Enrichment consisted in hay and small pieces of wood. …..

3. Please state specifically whether the IRB approved your study.

Answer:

Section “animals” in material and methods has been amended as follow

….Animal care and study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee affiliated to the university of Lorraine (Comité d’Ethique Lorrain en Matière d’Experimentation animale CELMEA) followed by the validation of “Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche” under the number authorization 01582.02 according to recommendations 86-609 CEE issued by the council of the European Communities. Animal care and health were under supervision by the “Services Vétérinaires Départementales de Meurthe et Moselle”.

Reviewer #1 :

1. Do you think 5 and 4 animals in responders /non responders group - is this enough to be ready to jump to conclusions? A paragraph should be devoted to the number of subjects in your experiment.

Answer:

During the design of the study the number of animals per group was determined between 6 and 9 animals. The initial hypothesis was to induce an increase of cough reflex to mechanical stimulation in the OVA group. The analysis of results revealed that the OVA group included two distinct profiles responses to mechanical cough stimulation. It has been chosen to distinguish two subgroups named “non responders” consisted of 5 rabbits (5/9; 55.5%) and “responders consisted of 4 rabbits (4/9;44.5%). As mentioned, this study is a pilot study and further studies will be realised to determine the airways changes in the two subgroups.

Section “limitations of the study” has been amended as follow

Limitations of the study

….The number of animals per group was determined between 6 and 9 animals during the design of this study. The analysis of results revealed that the OVA group included two distinct profiles responses to mechanical cough stimulation. It has been chosen to distinguish two subgroups named “non responders” consisted of 5 rabbits (5/9; 55.5%) and “responders” consisted of 4 rabbits (4/9;44.5%). For this reason, this study is a pilot study and further studies will be realised to determine the airways changes in the two subgroups.

2. Introduction section should be a little shorter. I see that authors were trying to explain the situation that exist in this field precisely, but to my taste it was too long. a Part of it perhaps should be moved to discussion - but this is on the journal policy if they prefer longer introductions due to a broader spectrum of readers.

Answer:

We have shortened Introduction section as proposed by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2:

1. I recommend to modify an abstract in order to be clear which procedures were made in the two groups.

Answer:

Abstract has been amended as follow

Mechanically induced cough reflex in OVA group was either up-regulated (subgroup named “responders” CT: 50 msec (50 – 50); n = 5 p=0.003) or down-regulated (subgroup named “non responders”, CT: 1200 msec (1200 - 1200); n=4 p=0.001) when compared to control group (CT: 150 msec ( 75 - 525)).

2. Is there any reason why non-sensitized rabbits were not used as a control?

Answer:

In accordance with the 3Rs principle in animal experimentation, it has been chosen to reduce the total number of animals in the study. We have therefore chosen to use sensitized but not exposed rabbits as a control and to omit the use of non-sensitized rabbits as another control. Brief revision of published studies using OVA to model allergic inflammation have revealed that majority of studies used as a control group either non-sensitized animals or sensitized but not exposed animals, rarely both control group types. As can be seen from the figure below, in current study, responses of sensitized rabbits to dermal tests showed a relatively broad induration size range (see S1 figure below). Such different intensity response to dermal test was supposed to reflect a variability of sensitization efficacy. As far as possible, rabbits with smallest indurations were intended to control group (not exposed to OVA aerosols) and those with largest indurations to OVA group (exposed to OVA aerosols), which corresponded to 7 controls versus 9 OVA. Given such variability of sensitisation efficacy, our approach seems to be adequate for the aim of our study. Moreover, cough threshold observed in control group of current study (150 msec (75 - 525 msec) was similar to that observed in another study performed by our laboratory and using identical protocol of mechanical cough provocation (300 msec (150 - 600 msec) (Varechova, Demoulin et al. 2015). This suggests that cough threshold is not affected by OVA sensitisation.

S1 Figure: Sensitization test to ovalbumin.

Sensitization was induced by two intraperitoneal injections of OVA (200 µg/mL) in 2 weeks intervals. Sensitization evaluation was performed by two symmetrical intradermic injections of OVA (20 µg in 100 µL of saline) and of saline (NaCl 0.9%) one week after the last injection. Induration sizes (A) and erythema (B) were evaluated 24h and 48h after intradermic injections.

A

B

24h 48 h

Erythema NaCl

0.9% OVA 200µg/mL NaCl

0.9% OVA 200µg/mL

none 16 9 12 7

observed 0 7 0 5

Reference: Varechova, S., B. Demoulin, A. L. Leblanc, L. Coutier, I. Ioan, C. Bonabel, C. Schweitzer and F. Marchal (2015). "Neonatal hyperoxia up regulates cough reflex in young rabbits." Respir Physiol Neurobiol 208: 51-56.

Discussion was modified as follows:

….The study protocol was modified to take into consideration both the 3Rs principle in animal experimentation and the efficiency of inflammation induction. In accordance with the 3Rs principle, it has been chosen to reduce the total number of animals in the study. We have therefore used only sensitized but not exposed rabbits as a control and omitted the use of non-sensitized rabbits as another control. In the study of Zschauer et al. (1999) [31] the same profile of cell was observed between control rabbits (not sensitized and saline challenged) and sensitized rabbits challenged with OVA. Moreover, cough threshold observed in control group of current study (150 msec (75 - 525 msec) was similar to that observed in another study using identical protocol of mechanical cough provocation (300 msec (150 - 600 msec) (Varechova, Demoulin et al. 2015). Responses of sensitized rabbits to dermal tests showed a relatively broad induration size range and as far as possible, rabbits with smallest indurations were intended to control group i.e. not exposed to OVA aerosols and those with largest indurations to OVA group (exposed to OVA aerosols) (S1 Fig and S1 Table)…

3. Reasons for using challenge by ovalbumin only in "positive" dermal tests after sensitisation should be included in the study - what was the size of induration for inclusion into respective groups?

Answer:

As mentioned above, as far as possible the rabbits with smallest indurations were intended to control group. The cut off size of induration was determined as 400 mm2. The allocation conducted to a control group with a mean wheal area of 216 mm2 ± 173 mm2 and a OVA group with a mean wheal of 799 mm2 ± 453 mm2. Three rabbits with induration under 400 mm2 were included in this last group included for practical reasons.

4. It is questionable to use results of own unpublished observations in this kind of study; on the other hand, they help to elucidate observed effects.

Answer:

The results mentioned in the discussion and referred as “unpublish results” (see after) have been presented in the ERS international congress 2017, 13-15 September in Milan, Italy. (Foucaud L et al., Up-regulation of chemically induced but not mechanically induced cough during early-phase response to allergen inhalation in ovalbumin sensitized rabbits). The citation of the abstract has been included in the references.

Discussion has been amended as follow

Such speculation seems likely as our recent observations showed that mechanical cough

was significantly down-regulated immediately after single nebulization of OVA in sensitized rabbits and such down-regulation remained during the totality of recording period (100 min post-challenge) [59].

Following reference was added in reference list:

59. Silvia Demoulin-Alexikova, Laurent Foucaud, Bruno Demoulin, Anne-Laure Leblanc, Iulia Ioan, François Marchal, Cyril Schweitzer. Up-regulation of chemically-induced but not mechanically-induced cough during early-phase response to allergen inhalation in ovalbumin sensitized rabbits. European Respiratory Journal 50 (suppl 61) PA1149; DOI: 10.1183/1393003.congress-2017.PA1149 Published 6 December 2017

5. Were there any differences in BAL eosinophils between responders and non-responders in OVA challenged group? This and other markers of inflammation could help to explain these completely contrary results in cough threshold (fig. 6)... Did you measure also some other systemic markers of allergic inflammation in plasma (e.g. some interleukins)? If yes, would you consider their inclusion into the manuscript to clearly demonstrate also systemic changes?

Answer:

No difference was observed in BAL eosinophils between responders and non-responders as mentioned in the table 1, see extract below

Table 1. extract Parameters of cough response to mechanical stimulation and to chemical stimulation and BAL cell count.

OVA Saline p

Non responders Responders Non responders vs. Saline Responders vs. Saline

n 5 4 7

Bronchoalveolar lavage (% of total cell count)

Eosinophils 12.3 ± 2.83 12.34 ± 3.47 2.36 ± 0.6 0.012 0.017

Macrophages 85.30 ± 2.05 85.75 ± 4.06 96.26 ±0.85 0.006 0.012

The measurement of plasmatic and BAL allergic inflammatory parameters (interleukins) other that eosinophils were planned in the future studies focused on the mechanistic exploration of the preliminary result presented in this work.

6. In the introduction, a paragraph about suitability of rabbit model for testing both chemical and mechanical induced cough should be included with appropriate references.

Answer:

The first reviewer suggested that the introduction is perhaps a bet long. So, to take into account this first remark and to answer the question, the modification in introduction was voluntarily as short as possible but give appropriate references justifying the rabbit model for this study.

Introduction was modified as follow

The aim of this study is to find out whether reflex cough is altered during acute allergic airway inflammation in a rabbit model sensitized to ovalbumin. The used of rabbit model to study neuronal mechanisms implied in cough reflex induction to different stimuli has been advocated for neuronal similarity of rabbit lungs to human lungs (Spina et al., 1998; Keir and Page 2008; Clay et al., 2016). In order to evaluate the effect of such inflammation exclusively on reflex cough supposed to be mediated by A-δ fibers, C-fiber mediated cough was silenced using general anesthesia. As “cough receptors” are sensitive to punctuate mechanical stimulation of epithelium and a rapid drop in luminal pH, the effect of airway allergic inflammation was tested for the both stimuli. The use of validated and reproducible methodology of mechanical stimulation of trachea, elaborated in our laboratory permitted us to assess the sensitivity of cough reflex to mechanical stimulation by using several mechanical stimulation durations.

References:

1. Spina D, Matera GM, Riccio MM, Page CP. A comparison of sensory nerve function in human, guinea-pig, rabbit and marmoset airways. Life Sci. 1998;63: 1629–1642.

2. Keir S, Page C. The rabbit as a model to study asthma and other lung diseases. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2008;21: 721–730. doi:10.1016/j.pupt.2008.01.005

3. Clay E, Patacchini R, Trevisani M, Preti D, Branà MP, Spina D, et al. Ozone-Induced Hypertussive Responses in Rabbits and Guinea Pigs . J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016;357: 73–83. doi:10.1124/jpet.115.230227

7. When performing BAL, the volume of HEPES solution repeatedly administered is usually re-calculated to body weight of animals. Why you did administer uniform amount of the solution? Was the bw of rabbit equally distributed among the groups?

Answer:

The body weight of rabbits was effectively equally distributed among groups corresponding to 3.222 ± 0.574 kg in control group and 3.210 ± 0.417 kg. in OVA group.

Moreover, the total cell concentration of BAL was determined in order to standardize the number of cell used to identify cell populations (250,00 cells was spun in a cytospin).

8. Latin words should be written in Italics (e.g. rectus abdominis).

Answer:

The text has been modified as follow

M&M:

Animal preparation …..The electromyographic activity of the rectus abdominis muscle was measured by insertion of bipolar insulated fine stainless steel wire electrodes…..

Fig 2. Typical cough reflex to mechanical stimulation of trachea. The increased expiratory flow is associated with a burst of rectus abdominis EMG activity and…

Data Analysis:

Ventilatory responses to mechanical stimulation of trachea

The cough response was identified from the change in tidal volume (VT), peak expiratory flow (V’Epeak) and rectus abdominis EMG [27]……..

Ventilatory responses to chemical stimulation of trachea

Cough response to nebulisation of citric acid for 4 minutes was quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity….

Fig 3. Typical reflex cough response during chemical stimulation of trachea quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity.

Immune-driven inflammation model

….Although, this procedure not entirely reflect the inflammation profile of asthma [31], increased eosinophils in BAL and lung tissue have been attested in different animals models i.e. rabbit..

Modulation of chemically induced cough

However, it has been shown that ASIC transcript levels in sensory neurons were increased in inflammatory conditions in vivo [39] and that proinflammatory mediators such as nitric oxide…

….filaments was measured in vitro using a preparation consisting from isolated tracheal segments, vagus nerves and afferent ganglions (Riccio, Myers et al. 1996).

Limitations of the study

…Therefore, we suppose that in our study, the great majority of expulsive events provoked by inhalation of citric acid and quantified from the bursts of the rectus abdominis EMG activity were cough reflexes….

9. In the discussion should be mentioned, why only sensitised animals where used and were not confirmed with non-sensitized animals (e.g. eosinophils).

Answer:

The discussion was modified as follow and 2 supporting information documents were added and cited in the text

Immune-driven inflammation model

…………. The study protocol was modified to take into consideration both the 3Rs principle in animal experimentation and the efficiency of inflammation induction. In accordance with the 3Rs principle, it has been chosen to reduce the total number of animals in the study. We have therefore used only sensitized but not exposed rabbits as a control and omitted the use of non-sensitized rabbits as another control. In the study of Zschauer et al. (1999) [31] the same profile of cell was observed between control rabbits (not sensitized and saline challenged) and sensitized rabbits challenged with OVA. Moreover, cough threshold observed in control group of current study (150 msec (75 - 525 msec) was similar to that observed in another study using identical protocol of mechanical cough provocation (300 msec (150 - 600 msec) (Varechova, Demoulin et al. 2015). Responses of sensitized rabbits to dermal tests showed a relatively broad induration size range and as far as possible, rabbits with smallest indurations were intended to control group i.e. not exposed to OVA aerosols and those with largest indurations to OVA group (exposed to OVA aerosols) (S1 Fig and S1 Table). As the use of OVA aerosol leads to the development of an antigen tolerance and the quick resolution of inflammation after discontinuing antigen exposures (Stevenson and Birrell 2011) we realized preliminary experiments to determine the optimal aerosol challenge number that allowed us to reproduce some key features of clinical acute asthma, such as early and late-phase bronchoconstriction in response to allergen challenge and the influx of eosinophils into lower respiratory tract resulting in eosinophil airway inflammation. Realization of two OVA challenges in sensitized rabbits, 48 h and 24 h before experiments, provoked significant increase of eosinophils (S1 Table) that was comparable with those in study of Xue and co-workers that used five allergen challenges….

10. The first sentence in the discussion should be more specific for rabbits, as there are available some studies about ovalbumin sensitisation and challenge on cough reflex in guinea pigs

Answer:

The originality of this study was to investigate the effect of acute immune-driven inflammation associated with allergic challenge on reflex cough in sensitized rabbits as underlining by the reviewer.

The first sentence in the discussion was consequently modified as follow

This study is the first one to investigate the effect of acute immune-driven inflammation associated with allergic challenge on reflex cough in sensitized animals rabbits in vivo.

27 Nov 2019

Modulation of protective reflex cough by acute immune driven inflammation of lower airways in anesthetized rabbits

PONE-D-19-22841R1

Dear Dr. Demoulin-Alexikova,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Yu Ru Kou, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Congratuations to the authors and appreciation for answering all my questions and previous concerns. I recommend the manuscript to be published in this journal.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

6 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-22841R1

Modulation of protective reflex cough by acute immune driven inflammation of lower airways in anesthetized rabbits

Dear Dr. Demoulin-Alexikova:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yu Ru Kou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE