4.5 Article

Comparison of postnatal lung growth and development between C3H/HeJ and C57BL/6J mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 5, Pages 1577-1583

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00809.2005

Keywords

neonate; respiratory mechanics; alveolar septation; alveolar size; mean linear intercept

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-20342, HL-07534] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous work by our group has demonstrated substantial differences in lung volume and morphometric parameters between inbred mice. Specifically, adult C3H/HeJ (C3) have a 50% larger lung volume and 30% greater mean linear intercept than C57BL/6J (B6) mice. Although much of lung development occurs postnatally in rodents, it is uncertain at what age the differences between these strains become manifest. In this study, we performed quasi-static pressure-volume curves and morphometric analysis on neonatal mice. Lungs from anesthetized mice were degassed in vivo using absorption of 100% O-2. Pressure-volume curves were then recorded in situ. The lungs were then fixed by instillation of Zenker's solution at a constant transpulmonary pressure. The left lung from each animal was used for morphometric determination of mean air space chord length (L-ma). We found that the lung volume of C3 mice was substantially greater than that of B6 mice at all ages. In contrast, there was no difference in L-ma (62.7 mu m in C3 and 58.5 mu m in B6) of 3-day-old mice. With increasing age ( 8 days), there was a progressive decrease in the Lma of both strains, with the magnitude of the decrease in B6 L-ma mice exceeding that of C3. C3 lung volume remained 50% larger. The combination of parenchymal architectural similarity with lung air volume differences and different rates of alveolar septation support the hypothesis that lung volume and alveolar dimensions are independently regulated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available