Respiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2024
Advancing cough research: Methodological insights into cough challenge in guinea pig models using double chamber vs whole-body plethysmography.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Plevkova Jana, Jakusova Janka, Brozmanova Mariana, Biringerova Zuzana, Buday Tomas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compares two methods of citric acid-induced cough in guinea pigs in whole-body plethysmography (WBP) and double chamber plethysmography (DCP) to evaluate their efficacy.
METHODS: Sixteen specific pathogen-free (SPF) and sixteen conventionally-bred (CON) animals were exposed to 0.4 M citric acid aerosol. They underwent cough provocation using both DCP and WBP methods. The number of coughs and latency to the first cough were recorded and analysed using statistical methods to determine significant differences between the two techniques.
RESULTS: WBP resulted in significantly higher cough counts (WBP vs. DCP: 13±9 vs 2±3 for SPF; 14±8 vs 5±5 for CON; p<0.0001) and shorter latency (WBP vs. DCP: 59±6 s vs 159±14 s for SPF; 77±4 s vs 112±12 s for CON; p<0.0001) compared to DCP in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Methodological differences substantially impact cough responses. WBP provides a more reliable and physiologically relevant methodology for cough assessment, suggesting the need for standardized protocols in cough research to enhance translational relevance.
METHODS: Sixteen specific pathogen-free (SPF) and sixteen conventionally-bred (CON) animals were exposed to 0.4 M citric acid aerosol. They underwent cough provocation using both DCP and WBP methods. The number of coughs and latency to the first cough were recorded and analysed using statistical methods to determine significant differences between the two techniques.
RESULTS: WBP resulted in significantly higher cough counts (WBP vs. DCP: 13±9 vs 2±3 for SPF; 14±8 vs 5±5 for CON; p<0.0001) and shorter latency (WBP vs. DCP: 59±6 s vs 159±14 s for SPF; 77±4 s vs 112±12 s for CON; p<0.0001) compared to DCP in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Methodological differences substantially impact cough responses. WBP provides a more reliable and physiologically relevant methodology for cough assessment, suggesting the need for standardized protocols in cough research to enhance translational relevance.