Intra-individual variation of particles in exhaled air and of the contents of Surfactant protein A and albumin.

INTRODUCTION: Particles in exhaled air (PEx) provide samples of respiratory tract lining fluid from small airways containing, for example, Surfactant protein A (SP-A) and albumin, potential biomarkers of small airway disease. We hypothesized that there are differences between morning, noon, and afternoon measurements and that the variability of repeated measurements is larger between days than within days.
METHODS: PEx was obtained in sixteen healthy non-smoking adults on 11 occasions, within one day and between days. SP-A and albumin were quantified by ELISA. The coefficient of repeatability (CR), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CV) were used to assess the variation of repeated measurements.
RESULTS: SP-A and albumin increased significantly from morning towards the noon and afternoon by 13% and 25% on average, respectively, whereas PEx number concentration and particle mean mass did not differ significantly between the morning, noon and afternoon. Between-day CRs were not larger than within-day CRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Time of the day influences the contents of SP-A and albumin in exhaled particles. The variation of repeated measurements was rather high but was not influenced by the time intervals between measurements.

Introduction

Particles in exhaled air (PEx) offer a new opportunity to monitor small airways, i.e., airways with an internal diameter ≤2 mm. Airway closure and subsequent opening produce particles (i.e., droplets) [1, 2]. The amount of airway closure is the greatest when an individual exhales to residual volume and then holds his/her breath for several seconds [1], and the particles generated during the subsequent inspiration contain a sample of respiratory tract lining fluid (RTLF) from the region where the airways close. During exhalation back to functional residual capacity, these particles are exhaled and those in the size range of 0.5–4 μm can be counted and sampled. Where airway closure and opening occur is still not fully elucidated, though in healthy individuals they are assumed to occur in the transition zone between the conductive and acinar airways, based on experimental data from dogs [3].

RTLF, an important protective interface between the respiratory epithelium and the external environment, consists mainly of surfactant [4, 5], comprising, among others, a major surfactant protein Surfactant Protein A (SP-A) and albumin, both of which are potential biomarkers of small airway disease [5, 6]. The number of particles exhaled is another potential biomarker of small airway inflammation, as it has been shown to be lower in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma than in healthy subjects [4, 7].

Despite use of a standardized breathing maneuver, the number of exhaled particles varies considerably between individuals [6, 8]. Although age as well as anthropometric and spirometric variables explain 28–29% of inter-individual variation, the remaining variation is still very large [6]. As these measurements took place at various times during the day [6], it is possible that diurnal variation contributes to some extent to the variability of exhaled particles. The possibility of exhaled particles and their protein content being subjected to diurnal variation has not been investigated previously. Schwarz et al. [8] reported that the intra-individual variation was much smaller than the inter-individual variation of exhaled particles. The intra-individual variability for all lung function measurements tends to increase with increasing time interval between the measurements [9]. The intra-individual variation of exhaled particles, SP-A and albumin within one day and between days has not been studied before.

The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that exhaled particles, SP-A and albumin are subjected to diurnal variation and that the variation between days is larger than the variation within one day. With these analyses, the repeatability of PEx variables will be described, allowing for comparison with other methods.

Methods

Sixteen healthy volunteers, eight men and eight women aged 22–69 years, were recruited for the study using posted notices. Eligible for inclusion in the study were never- or ex-smoking individuals with no reported hay fever and no history of respiratory disease such as asthma and COPD, with those who had not smoked in the past six months being defined as ex-smokers. Exclusion criteria were current ongoing upper respiratory tract infection and pregnancy. Participants provided written informed consent before the measurements and the Regional Ethics Committee at the University of Gothenburg (030–18) approved the study. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the 16 participants.

Table 1

General characteristics and spirometry results of the participants.

Mean values and ranges are presented.

	Women (n = 8)			Men (n = 8)
	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max
Age (yrs)	46.4	22	68	44,8	24	68
Height (cm)	165.9	157	177	180.8	173	191
BMI (kg/m2)	22.1	17.9	26.2	24.5	21.9	28
FVC (% pred)	97.6	83.2	105.5	98.3	91.9	110.4
FEV1 (% pred)	95.5	85.3	106.3	94.2	82.2	98.6
FEV1/FVC (%)	78.3	71.1	86.8	76.6	69.2	85.6

Study design

Each individual was examined on eleven occasions on five non-consecutive days. On three days, measurements were made in the morning (08:00–10:30), at noon (11:00–14:00), and in the afternoon (14:30–17:00). The exception was one individual for whom measurements were made at noon and in the early and late afternoon on two of the three days. On the other two days, only one measurement was made per day, any time between 08:00 and 17:00. The order of the days was random and the overall measurement period varied between five and 24 weeks. Table 2 presents the individual time intervals between the five days. The measurements were made between March and October 2018.

Table 2

Individual time intervals from the first investigation.

		Number of days from first investigation
id	Date of first investigation	Second invest.	Third invest.	Forth invest.	Fifth invest.
1	2018-03-14	33	49	54	61
2	2018-03-19	31	120	157	162
3	2018-03-20	22	43	63	84
4	2018-03-20	22	35	44	58
5	2018-04-10	14	36	41	48
6	2018-04-18	15	33	55	63
7	2018-05-07	15	32	36	43
8	2018-05-07	7	14	21	35
9	2018-05-15	15	27	37	43
10	2018-06-08	6	11	18	39
11	2018-07-12	6	11	63	106
12	2018-08-21	15	21	30	35
13	2018-08-29	12	27	40	71
14	2018-09-04	6	21	28	50
15	2018-09-10	25	30	39	66
16	2018-09-13	12	20	28	35

Bold characters indicate the days when investigations were performed in the morning, noon and afternoon. On the other days the investigations were performed only once but at various times.

Spirometry

Spirometry was performed using a Spirare spirometer (Spirare, Stockholm, Sweden) in accordance with the ATS/ERS criteria [10]. Forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) were expressed as a percentage of the reference value (% pred) according to Brisman et al. (note the corrigendum) [11].

Exhaled particles

The equipment for counting exhaled particles, the PExA 2.0 instrument (see S2 Fig) (PExA AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), has been described previously in detail [12], though minor modifications have since been made [4]. The subject breathed via a mouthpiece and a two-way, non-re-breathing valve into the instrument, which consists of a thermostated box (36°C) containing an optical particle counter (Grimm model 1.108; Grimm Aerosol Technik GmbH & Co., Ainring, Germany) and an impactor (Dekati Ltd., Tampere, Finland). The measured particles were between 0.41 and 4.55 μm in diameter and were sampled by impaction on a hydrophilic silicon wafer inside the impactor. The number of particles sampled on the silicon wafer was estimated based on measurements from an optical particle counter. Subjects inhaled HEPA-filtered air for a minimum of three breaths before sampling to remove the particles from ambient air. All subjects wore a nose clip throughout the procedure. A standardized breathing maneuver was used [1, 13], starting with an exhalation at the normal flow rate to residual volume, breath-holding for five seconds, followed by a maximal inhalation to total lung capacity, immediately followed by a normal exhalation to functional residual capacity. Exhalation flow was not controlled and was measured using an ultrasonic flow meter (OEM flow sensor; Spiroson-AS, Medical Technologies, Zürich, Switzerland), enabling visualization of the expiratory flow and volume [4]. Between breathing maneuvers, the subject breathed particle-free air tidally for 30–60 seconds. Each sampling session continued until 120 ng had been collected. The median number of breathing maneuvers required to collet 120 ng was 7, with a range from 4 to 53. The same investigator performed all sampling sessions. PEx number concentrations are expressed as n × 1000 per liter of exhaled air (kn L–1) and per breath (kn breath–1). The particle mean mass (pg) estimated the particle size distribution [6].

Chemical analysis

Before analysis, samples were extracted from PTFE membranes using 140 μL of extraction buffer with a composition of 10 mM PBS containing 1% BSA w/v and 0.05% TWEEN-20 v/v (Thermo Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA). Extraction was conducted for 60 min using a thermomixer (Comfort, Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany) set at 37°C and 400 rpm. The extracted sample volume was split: 40 μL each for SP-A and albumin, with the rest as a backup. The samples were quantified using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The manufacturer’s instructions for SP-A ELISA (BioVendor, Brno, Czech Republic) and albumin ELISA (E-80AL; Immunology Consultant Laboratories, Portland, OR, USA) were used with minor changes. Buffer (i.e., extraction buffer:assay diluent buffer, 1:2 ratio) was prepared for standards and controls to match the sample buffer composition. Before analysis, 80 μL of assay diluent buffer was added to the PEx samples. The first incubation time for SP-A was two hours at 37°C with agitation at 300 rpm. Albumin was incubated for one hour at room temperature with agitation at 300 rpm. The reaction time was nine minutes. The precision of the assays was monitored by using three sample replicates in each run. The CVs of the replicates for SP-A and albumin were 0–10% with median CVs of 3% for SP-A and 4% for albumin and no significant difference between the three assays. SP-A and albumin results were expressed in weight percent (wt%), i.e., mass divided by the total particle mass and expressed as a percentage.

Statistical analyses

According to the ATS/ERS task force, “Standardisation of lung function testing” [9], the coefficient of repeatability (CR) is recommended as the optimal method to assess intra-individual variability. Other widely used statistical tools are the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) [14] and coefficient of variation (CV) [9]. CR calculations were based on the differences between measurements, i.e., subtracting a later from an earlier measurement. The distribution of the differences was inspected visually using histograms and by comparing mean and median values. SP-A and albumin differences were normally distributed, while the PEx number concentration differences were right skewed and therefore log transformed, using the natural logarithm (lnPEx), to follow a normal distribution. Particle mean mass differences were expressed as the percentage of the mean of the corresponding measurements (calculated by subtracting a later from an earlier measurement and dividing it by the mean of the two measurements) to achieve a normal distribution. CR was calculated by multiplying the standard deviation (SD) of the differences by 1.96. The two-way repeated ANOVA was tested for differences between the morning, noon, and afternoon values and between the three days with multiple measurements.

Differences between morning, noon, and afternoon

Only the measurements made three times in one day repeated on three different days were used for these calculations. For one individual lacking morning measurements on two days, only noon and late afternoon measurements were included in the analyses.

Variation of repeated measurements within and between days

Within-day CR calculations used differences between morning, noon, and afternoon measurements for each day for each individual, i.e., three differences per individual and day. Within-day ICC calculations were made for each of the three days separately and the average of the three days is presented. Within-day CV was calculated for each individual using three days with three measurements each and the average within-day CV and SD are presented.

To assess variation of repeated measurements between days, all five days were used and only noon measurements were used for days with multiple measurements. To calculate between-day CR, differences between all five measurements for each individual were calculated, i.e., a later measurement was subtracted from an earlier one, resulting in 10 differences per individual. Between-day ICC and CV were also calculated.

Microsoft Excel 2016 was used to calculate the CR and CV, and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to calculate two-way repeated ANOVA, ICC, and to create figures. The significance level was set to two-tailed p-value < 0.05.

Results

Differences between morning, noon, and afternoon

There were no significant differences between morning, noon, and afternoon regarding lnPEx (kn L–1 and kn breath–1) and particle mean mass (see Table 3). A small but significant within-day variation of SP-A was observed (p = 0.022; see Fig 1A). The average increase in SP-A from morning to noon was 13%, with the lowest values of SP-A in the morning (see Table 3 and Fig 1A). Albumin followed the same pattern as SP-A, with the lowest values in the morning and an increase towards noon (p = 0.001; Table 3 and Fig 1B). The average increase in albumin from morning to noon was 25%.

Table 3

Results of the within day measurements.

Mean values and 95% confidence intervals are presented for the normally distributed lnPEx, particle mean mass expressed as a percentage of the mean of the inherent measurements, SPA and albumin. Median values and the interquartile range are given for the non-normally distributed PEx and particle mean mass.

	Mean (95% CI) or median (interquartile range)
	Morning	Noon	Afternoon
PEx (kn/L)*	12.8 (9.3–18.0)	14.7 (9.6–18.1)	14.7 (10.0–19.7)
lnPEx (kn/L)	2.6 (2.3–2.8)	2.6 (2.4–2.8)	2.7 (2.4–3.0)
PEx (kn/breath)*	40.7 (30.4–75.2)	49.8 (28.8–65.3)	54.9 (30.1–78.7)
lnPEx (kn/breath)	3.8 (3.5–4.1)	3.8 (3.6–4.1)	3.9 (3.6–4.2)
Particle mean mass (pg)*	0.46 (0.37–0.63)	0.42 (0.33–0.52)	0.42 (0.32–0.50)
Surfactant protein A (wt%)	4.5 (3.8–5.2)	5.1 (4.4–5.8)	5.1 (4.3–5.9)
Albumin (wt%)	5.4 (4.7–6.0)	6.7 (5.8–7.6)	6.7 (5.9–7.4)

* indicates the variables that are presented as median values and interquartile range.

Fig 1

Plots illustrating results from repeated measurements of SP-A and albumin within a day.

Each line represents one of the three days with multiple measurements (grey for day 1, black for day 2 and red for day 3). The dots represent mean values of the 16 subjects, and the error bars the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P-values are according to two-way ANOVA for repeated measures.

Variation of repeated measurements within and between days

Table 4 presents within- and between-day CRs and means of the differences. Only the between-day mean of the differences for SP-A was not statistically significantly different from zero (p = 0.359; Table 4). Within-day ICC values were similar on the three days with multiple measurements; Table 5 presents the average of the three days as well as the between-day ICCs. Table 6 presents the average intra-individual CV for within- and between-day variation. Fig 2 illustrates the variation of repeated measurements between days; graphic representation reveals no important effect of the time interval of 60 days on the differences.

Table 4

Coefficients of repeatability (CR) and means of the differences of the normally distributed variables lnPEx, particle mean mass percentage, surfactant protein A and albumin.

	Within day		Between days
	CR	Mean of the differences	CR	Mean of the differences
lnPEx (kn/L)	0.63	-0.08*	0.85	-0.10*
lnPEx (kn/breath)	0.72	-0.08*	0.96	-0.11*
Particle mean mass (%)	39	5*	54	-5*
SP-A (wt%)	2.5	-0.3*	2.6	-0.1
Albumin (wt%)	2.8	-0.8*	2.9	0.6*

* indicates a statistically significant difference from zero.

Table 5

Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

	Within day	Between days
PEx (kn/L)	0.75	0.5
PEx (kn/breath)	0.75	0.68
Particle mean mass (pg)	0.73	0.69
SP-A (wt%)	0.64	0.66
Albumin (wt%)	0.55	0.59

Table 6

Average of the intra-individual coefficients of variation (CV): Standard deviations are given within parenthesis.

	Within day	Between days
PEx (kn/L)	29% (14%)	27% (11%)
PEx (kn/breath)	33% (16%)	30% (12%)
Particle mean mass (pg)	15% (5%)	15% (9%)
SP-A (wt%)	18% (5%)	17% (7%)
Albumin (wt%)	19% (6%)	16% (6%)

Fig 2

The effect of the mean time interval between measurements on the corresponding differences between the five measurements of the 16 subjects.

The separate panels represent the differences of lnPEx (kn/L), of particle mean mass (the difference as a percentage of the mean of the corresponding measurements), of SP-A and of albumin. The lines represent the mean of the differences and the 95% upper and lower limits of agreement, as calculated by the mean of the differences ± CR.

Discussion

The present study shows that SP-A and albumin levels are lower in the morning than at noon and in the afternoon, whereas the PEx number concentration and particle mean mass appear unaffected by the time of day. Furthermore, it shows that variation of repeated measurements of exhaled particles and their contents does not increase with increasing time interval between the measurements.

The PEx method samples RTLF from small airways while avoiding invasive techniques and unknown dilutions, as in, for example, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum, and exhaled breath condensate [15-17]. However, the method has some drawbacks, namely the sample not containing any cellular material that can be obtained will BAL. RTLF from small airways contains phospholipids (approximately 90%) and proteins (approximately 10%). SP-A, synthesized almost exclusively by alveolar type-II cells, is the most abundant protein and is important for both host defense and surfactant function [18, 19]. Albumin is the major blood protein and is abundant in RTLF, constituting about 25% of the proteins in PEx samples [5], and may leak from plasma into the airways [20]. Surfactant protein D (SP-D) and Club (Clara) cell protein (CC-16) are present in high concentrations in RTLF and are considered markers of epithelial injury and COPD [21-24]. These potential biomarkers appear in serum as well, possibly due to passive leakage across the lung epithelium into the systemic circulation. However, SP-A, SP-D, and CC-16 are to a minor extent produced by extra-pulmonary tissues as well [25-27], but the correlations between lung and serum levels are weak [28-30].

The within-day variation of SP-A and albumin in exhaled particles agrees with biomarkers of lung injury in serum, such as SP-D and CC-16, which also display diurnal variation [26, 28]. The underlying mechanisms are not fully elucidated but likely concern diurnal differences in the production and secretion of these proteins by alveolar type-II cells and Club (Clara) cells or diurnal differences in transepithelial leakage due to changes in epithelial tight junctions [28]. Differences in leakage could potentially explain the diurnal variation of albumin in exhaled particles observed in the present study. Another potential reason for the observed diurnal variation in our study could be gravity, on account of the subjects’ body position at night being horizontal compared to being vertical during the day, which may alter mucocilliary transport in the airways. Furthermore, there is diurnal rhythm of spirometric variables in healthy subjects, with circadian minima at night and in the early morning hours [31, 32]. Borsboom et al. [32] reported a substantial increase in FEV1, FVC, and peak expiratory flow from 09:00 to around noon, while total lung capacity hardly varied during the day, suggesting that substantial circadian changes may not occur in lung elastic recoil, but rather in airway caliber. On the other hand, the diffusing capacity of the lung and fractional exhaled nitric oxide do not seem to exhibit any diurnal variation [33-35]. The detailed mechanisms behind these differences are unclear. The circadian rhythm probably plays an important role in homeostasis and relates to the natural variations of wakefulness, body temperature, blood pressure, and hormone levels over a 24-h cycle and presumably to the variation of SP-A and albumin levels as well. The system consists of a central clock situated in the hypothalamus and peripheral clocks in each tissue and organ in the body [36].

A consequence of the lower levels of SP-A and albumin in the morning relative to noon and afternoon is that the time of day when taking a sample should be considered, both when comparing results within an individual and when comparing differences between groups.

The coefficient of repeatability is clinically useful: it is a precision index with the same units as the measurement tool and captures 95% of the differences between repeated measurements of the same subjects under stable conditions [14]. The between-day CR is clinically valuable, for example, when assessing an individual’s change in lung function over time or following an intervention, and the within-day CR is useful when interpreting provocation tests. Calculating the CR requires that the differences be normally distributed, and log or other transformations are sometimes required to achieve a distribution that is approximately normal. However, transforming the differences makes the clinical interpretation of the CR more challenging.

In the present study, the between-day CRs for the SP-A and albumin contents of exhaled particles were 2.6 wt% and 2.9 wt%, respectively. Thus, in a healthy subject with normal lung function, changes in SP-A and albumin levels between measurements made on different days should exceed 2.6 wt% and 2.9 wt%, respectively, before a clinically significant change should be considered. The difference between within- and between-day CRs was small and non-significant, indicating that the levels had been stable for at least two months. Our results are aligned with those of previous studies of long-term variation of SP-D and CC-16 in serum. Both SP-D and CC-16 in serum have been shown to remain stable over a three-month period in healthy individuals [25, 37]. Hoegh et al. found that serum SP-D levels remained stable even over a six-month period [26]. Lomas et al. reported a CR for serum CC-16 of 2.9 ng mL–1 over three months [25]. The CRs for both SP-A and albumin in the present study are rather high, and the values are larger than the differences observed in cross-sectional studies between healthy subjects and patients with COPD and asthma [4, 7]. On the other hand, the calculation of CR in our study may overestimate the real variation in healthy subjects, since it was based on only 16 individuals and is therefore greatly influenced by the individuals with the highest variation.

ICC is a commonly used variability index that quantifies the strength of the relationship between measurements [14]. The main drawbacks of ICC are that it is difficult to interpret and is influenced by outliers [14, 38]. In a stable population, ICC values ≥0.6 are generally considered clinically useful [39]. Particle number concentration, particle mean mass, and SP-A levels were all reproducible with ICC values greater than 0.60. The within-day ICC for albumin, however, is low (0.55), while the ICC between the five days is higher, for both albumin (0.59) and SP-A (0.66). The explanation for this may be diurnal variation of SP-A and albumin levels resulting in higher within-day variability. In comparison, the ICC values of FEV1 vary between 0.87 and 0.93 when measured by a trained investigator [34]. Exhaled nitric oxide measurements, used to monitor airway inflammation in asthma, also exhibit low intra-individual variability, with a within-day ICC above 0.94 [34]. Intra-individual variation of potential biomarkers measured in RTLF, however, has not been studied previously. Most studies have investigated the variation of biomarkers in serum or BAL. These studies on smokers and patients with COPD reported very small intra-individual variation of serum biomarkers (ICC for SP-D of 0.87 [21]), while the ICC values for biomarkers in BAL and sputum were lower (SP-D in BAL 0.63 [21], albumin in BAL 0.69, and albumin in sputum 0.61 [30]). This suggests that the reproducibility of the non-invasive sampling of biomarkers in PEx is comparable to that of other standard methods, such as BAL. This is surprising, since the PEx method samples RTLF directly from small airways, avoiding the unknown dilution problem that is present in BAL [15-17]. The reason for the relatively high variability of the SP-A and albumin contents in PEx is unclear, as the variability of the chemical analysis was presumably similar to the variability of the BAL fluid chemical analysis. The variability of the ELISA analysis was rather low in the present study for both proteins and can therefore explain only a minor part of the variability of SP-A and albumin in PEx.

Furthermore, it is surprising that the variability of SP-A and albumin contents is not substantially lower than the variability of the particle number concentration, since the proteins are expressed as the content percentage of the exhaled particles (wt%). However, there is very large variation of SP-A and albumin expressed in wt% at any given particle number concentration, revealing the lack of benefit of adjusting for PEx.

The present study also shows that variation does not increase when the time interval between measurements increases up to two months, in contrast to the repeatability of spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide [9, 35, 40]. Furthermore, the high variability of PEx concentrations in certain individuals was not accompanied by changes in SP-A or albumin. The CV of particle number concentration (kn L–1) between days was 27%, which is in good agreement with the results of Schwarz et al. [41], who reported an average intra-individual CV of 35% based on three measurements of exhaled particle number concentration.

One limitation of this study is its small number of subjects; on the other hand, we performed multiple measurements on each individual, which partly mitigates this. A second possible limitation is that the time intervals between the measurements differed between individuals.

In conclusion, SP-A and albumin in exhaled particles are subjected to diurnal variation, as opposed to particle number concentration and particle mean mass. The variation of repeated measures was uninfluenced by the increasing time intervals between measurements.

Plots illustrating within-day intra-individual variation of particle number concentration, particle mean mass, SP-A and albumin for each individual (n = 16).

Each measurement was centered around each individual’s mean (yijk* = yijk−, where i denotes an individual, j a day, k time of the day and the mean of all individual’s i measurements) and the mean value of the three days for each individual is presented for each time point (morning, noon and afternoon). For SP-A (C) and albumin (D), p-values, calculated with two-way ANOVA for repeated measures for absolute levels of SP-A and albumin, are given.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Figure illustrating the PExA instrument.

Particle-free air is inhaled through a HEPA-filter. The subject breaths through a mouthpiece via a two-way, non-re-breathing valve into the instrument. A fraction of the air is characterized by an optical particle counter that operates at flow of 20 mL·s-1, while the remainder is drawn through the impactor. Particles are sampled from the aerosol with a two stage inertial impactor that is set up with a constant volumetric flow of 230 mL·s-1 (measured using an ultrasonic flow meter) using a RV pump (rotary vane pump). To handle exhalations exceeding the flow rate through the impactor, a reservoir that can buffer the exhaled air is used. A flow meter also measures the exhalation flow into the reservoir. All parts of the PExA instrument, except the mouthpiece, are in a thermostated box at 36°C.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Data set.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

25 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-30683

Intra-individual variation of particles in exhaled air and of the contents of Surfactant protein A and albumin

PLOS ONE

Dear Professor Spela Kokelj,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2020 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,

Ajaya Bhattarai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

1. Thank you for including your competing interests statement;  "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Björn Bake, Marianne Andersson and Gunilla Runström Eden are shareholders of PEXA® AB (www.PEXA.se) and Anna-Carin Olin is a board member. "

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

2. Thank you for including the following funding information within your acknowledgements section; "We wish to acknowledge assistance from the Centre for Allergy Research Highlights Asthma Markers of Phenotype (ChAMP) consortium, funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Karolinska Institute, AstraZeneca & Science for Life Laboratory Joint Research Collaboration, and the Vårdal Foundation"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This research was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation (ACO, grant number 20180209). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to [commercial funding//patents], we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding.

In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests.  If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how.

Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Major revision is necessary. After getting the revised manuscript, the further decision will be given.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: This paper reports findings from a small-sample size study. Given the novelty of the exhaled particle technique and the scarcity of the data on this topic, the results are interesting and important enough to be published despite that the results may be considered preliminary. The findings support the need for a more in-depth study with larger sample size to generate more generalizable results. Specific comments are as follows.

Abstract: CRs should be defined. As written, the units of CRs for different analytes are not normalized to mean values. e.g., reporting a CR as 0.85 kn L-1 gives the reader no idea on variability.

Table 1: Since this is not a randomly selected cohort of subjects, normal distributions would not be expected for any of the anthropocentric (and perhaps spirometric) parameters shown in Table 1. It is more informative to provide range, median, etc, in addition to mean and SD.

Methods: The method of exhaled particle collection should be described in more detail perhaps with a diagram of the sampling set up. How was the sampling air flow controlled? What sampling medium was used to collect particles? How long did it take to collect 120 ng particles? How was this monitored?

Statistical analyses section: the sentence starting "particle mean mass differences..." (Line 141-143) is unclear. Next sentence - what's the rationale to define CR as SD multiplied by 1.96? ANOVA tests presented in the paper are okay; but given the data structure, statistical testing for intra-day and between-day differences can be done more appropriately using mix-effects models, allowing control for subject as a random effect.

Table 3: the heading should be "mean(95% CI) or median (interquartile range)".

Discussion section is very well done.

Reviewer #2: This paper reports on measurements of exhaled breath from 16 subjects. It seems to be partly an advertisement for the PExA instrument (the authors state a conflict) and partly an evaluation of some of the contents of exhaled breath. The paper has some major flaws, discussed below, but the bottom line is that the hypothesis is not clearly stated. The hypothesis that I find is that intra-individual variation is small as measured by CR so that larger variations might indicate onset or resolution of disease. The paper should be restructured around this hypothesis or another one if my interpretation is incorrect.

In addition, the authors present the context of this work in terms of that of their prior co-authors. There is an extensive and growing literature on exhaled breath analysis. The introduction needs to be restructured to address the goals of this work in the context of other work in the field.

Major Comments

Line 47-48: this statement needs references.

Line 50-51: what is a PExA instrument? The introduction should describe the context for the work not the instrumentation used to perform the work. If the point of this work is to highlight the PExA instrument, it should be compared to other instruments that produce similar results.

Line 36: Define lnPEx. Is it the log of PEx?

Line 200-201: BAL contains information on cellular content of for instance neutrophils and eosinophils, which are important health markers. It would be very interesting if exhaled breath particles also contained cellular information, but this was not tested in this study. This sentence is more of a sales pitch for the PExA instrument and not a balanced evaluation of the pros and cons of exhaled breath analysis vs. BAL.

Lines 202-211: No analysis was performed of SP-D or CC-16 in this study. Why is it discussed here?

Line 218: this study did not include any subjects with asthma – why is this included here?

Line 223-228: speculation. It could be that gravity plays a role. At night the subjects were horizontal while in the day vertical, which may alter mucociliary transport and may explain some of the observations. This is also speculation.

Table 4: wt% might vary with relative humidity – drier conditions might lead to higher concentrations. Was RH in the clinic measured? If not, are these results valid?

**********

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: Yes: Junfeng (Jim) Zhang

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.

10 Dec 2019

Dear Ajaya Bhattarai,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript entitled “Intra-individual variation of particles in exhaled air and of the contents of Surfactant protein A and albumin”.

We appreciate the time and effort that PLOS ONE and the reviewers have dedicated providing valuable feedback on our manuscript and we have incorporated changes in the manuscript to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. These changes are highlighted in a separate file. We consider this revision, incorporating reviewers’ insightful comments, to have substantially improved the manuscript.

Looking forward to hearing from you regarding our revision and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have that would improve the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Spela Kokelj (on the behalf of the co-authors)

Journal Requirements:

1. Updated Competing Interests statement is provided in the cover letter and the patent number has been included.

2. The Funding Statement was incorrect and it has been revised. The funding related text has been removed from the manuscript and the Acknowledgements section has been changed (line 310-313).

Response to the Reviewer #1:

Comment: This paper reports findings from a small-sample size study. Given the novelty of the exhaled particle technique and the scarcity of the data on this topic, the results are interesting and important enough to be published despite that the results may be considered preliminary. The findings support the need for a more in-depth study with larger sample size to generate more generalizable results. Specific comments are as follows.

Reply: We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer.

Comment: Abstract: CRs should be defined. As written, the units of CRs for different analytes are not normalized to mean values. e.g., reporting a CR as 0.85 kn L-1 gives the reader no idea on variability.

Reply: We agree with this comment. The abstract is rewritten to highlight diurnal variation and effect of time between the measurements on variation. CR is defined in the method section and CRs are instead presented only in Table 4 and Table 3 gives the reader an overview of mean values for all variables.

Comment: Table 1: Since this is not a randomly selected cohort of subjects, normal distributions would not be expected for any of the anthropocentric (and perhaps spirometric) parameters shown in Table 1. It is more informative to provide range, median, etc, in addition to mean and SD.

Reply: We agree and have therefore revised Table 1 where we present the mean value and range for all variables.

Comment: Methods: The method of exhaled particle collection should be described in more detail perhaps with a diagram of the sampling set up. How was the sampling air flow controlled? What sampling medium was used to collect particles? How long did it take to collect 120 ng particles? How was this monitored?

Reply: A figure of the PExA instrument and the sampling set-up has been added as a supplement (S2 Fig.) Exhalation flow was measured using an ultrasonic flow meter (OEM flow sensor; Spiroson-AS, Medical Technologies, Zürich, Switzerland), enabling visualization of the expiratory flow and volume. The sampling air flow was, however, not controlled, since the flow through the impactor is controlled and constant and the exhalations exceeding the flow rate are buffered in the reservoir. The sampling medium used to collect particles was a hydrophilic silicon wafer inside the impactor. We have included this in the Methods section under Exhaled particles (line 104). The median number of breathing maneuvers required to collect 120 ng was 7, with a range from 4 to 53. This has been added to the Methods section under Exhaled particles (line 114-115).

Comment: Statistical analyses section: the sentence starting "particle mean mass differences..." (Line 141-143) is unclear.

Reply: Regarding the sentence about particle mean mass differences (line 141 -142) – the text has been revised. The sentence (line 143-146) now reads: “Particle mean mass differences were expressed as the percentage of the mean of corresponding measurements (calculated by subtracting a later from an earlier measurement and dividing it by the mean of the two measurements).”

Comment: Next sentence - what's the rationale to define CR as SD multiplied by 1.96?

Reply: The rationale behind CR = ±1.96*SD is that CR then defines the maximum difference which is likely to occur between measurements with 95% probability, assuming normal distribution.

Comment: ANOVA tests presented in the paper are okay; but given the data structure, statistical testing for intra-day and between-day differences can be done more appropriately using mix-effects models, allowing control for subject as a random effect.

Reply: As the reviewer mentioned above, we could apply mix-effects models allowing control for subjects as a random effect. Then, we can obtain the coefficients of predictor variables, which are adjusted for subjects as random. However, we are not only interested in coefficients of predictors but also of the effects of actual day- and daytime variance. Therefore, we treat them as fixed variables to yield the value of coefficients.

Comment: Table 3: the heading should be "mean (95% CI) or median (interquartile range)".

Reply: The suggested correction in Table 3 has been made.

Comment: Discussion section is very well done.

Reply: The positive feedback is appreciated.

Response to the Reviewer #2:

Comment: This paper reports on measurements of exhaled breath from 16 subjects. It seems to be partly an advertisement for the PExA instrument (the authors state a conflict) and partly an evaluation of some of the contents of exhaled breath. The paper has some major flaws, discussed below, but the bottom line is that the hypothesis is not clearly stated. The hypothesis that I find is that intra-individual variation is small as measured by CR so that larger variations might indicate onset or resolution of disease. The paper should be restructured around this hypothesis or another one if my interpretation is incorrect.

In addition, the authors present the context of this work in terms of that of their prior co-authors. There is an extensive and growing literature on exhaled breath analysis. The introduction needs to be restructured to address the goals of this work in the context of other work in the field.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the keen concern. However, we claim that the authors do not want to promote any commercial advertisement of a specific instrument and are only interested in evaluating the method of exhaled particles itself. Therefore, we have now revised the manuscript and the PExA® instrument is mentioned in the method section only, which is necessary in this context. We have also clearly stated a hypothesis in the introduction, as suggested (line 66-69).

Comment: Line 47-48: this statement needs references.

Reply: The reference has been added.

Comment: Line 50-51: what is a PExA instrument? The introduction should describe the context for the work not the instrumentation used to perform the work. If the point of this work is to highlight the PExA instrument, it should be compared to other instruments that produce similar results.

Reply: We have restructured the introduction to shift focus away from the PExA instrument and instead focus on the context of the work. We have also mentioned the work of the others (Schwarz et al.) that are using a similar method to sample exhaled particles. However, the results and the methods are hard to compare since there is nobody using this breathing maneuver that is used with our method. The results would be different if tidal breathing would be used like with other similar methods. On top of that, there is lack of methods that allow a similar chemical analysis of the exhaled particles to our method.

Comment: Line 36: Define lnPEx. Is it the log of PEx?

Reply: lnPEx is a natural logarithm of PEx. The abstract has been restructured and does therefore not include lnPEx. The definition of lnPEx has been added to the manuscript (line 143).

Comment: Line 200-201: BAL contains information on cellular content of for instance neutrophils and eosinophils, which are important health markers. It would be very interesting if exhaled breath particles also contained cellular information, but this was not tested in this study. This sentence is more of a sales pitch for the PExA instrument and not a balanced evaluation of the pros and cons of exhaled breath analysis vs. BAL.

Reply: You have raised an important point here, however, we do not agree with the comment on “a sales pitch”. The authors would like to emphasize that the aim of the present study was to evaluate the PEx method and not to promote the PExA instrument. To the best of our knowledge, there is no comparable method sampling exhaled particles. The exhaled particles obtained with our instrument unfortunately do not contain cellular information such as for example BAL. We have changed the sentence and it now reads (line 207-210): “The PEx method samples RTLF from small airways while avoiding invasive techniques and unknown dilutions, as in, for example, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum, and exhaled breath condensate. However, the method has some drawbacks, namely the sample not containing any cellular material that can be obtained will BAL.”

Comment: Lines 202-211: No analysis was performed of SP-D or CC-16 in this study. Why is it discussed here?

Reply: They are other known components of respiratory tract lining fluid. We know nothing about variability of SP-A or albumin, since it has not been studied previously, we wanted to compare it to other known components of respiratory tract lining fluid that have been studied before, especially since they also exhibit diurnal variation and are secreted by the same cells as SP-A (for SP-D).

Comment: Line 218: this study did not include any subjects with asthma – why is this included here?

Reply: The suggestion has been noted and asthma has been omitted (line 228-229).

Comment: Line 223-228: speculation. It could be that gravity plays a role. At night the subjects were horizontal while in the day vertical, which may alter mucociliary transport and may explain some of the observations. This is also speculation.

Reply: Thank you for bringing this interesting point up. We agree with the comment and have incorporated it in the discussion section (line 225-228).

Comment: Table 4: wt% might vary with relative humidity – drier conditions might lead to higher concentrations. Was RH in the clinic measured? If not, are these results valid?

Reply: The humidity in the instrument is similar to the humidity of the air we are exhaling. The humidity in the instrument is kept constant throughout the measurement by the exhaled air that is saturated at 36 °C circling around. We assume the humidity of exhaled air is similar between subjects. Furthermore, the exhaled particles are not at any point in contact with room air, so they are not under the influence of the relative humidity in the room.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Jan 2020

Intra-individual variation of particles in exhaled air and of the contents of Surfactant protein A and albumin

PONE-D-19-30683R1

Dear Dr. Kokelj,

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,

Ajaya Bhattarai

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: 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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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)

**********

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: Yes: Junfeng (Jim) Zhang

14 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30683R1

Intra-individual variation of particles in exhaled air and of the contents of Surfactant protein A and albumin

Dear Dr. Kokelj:

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. Ajaya Bhattarai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE