4.8 Article

Submucosal gland secretions in airways from cystic fibrosis patients have normal [Na+] and pH but elevated viscosity

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.131087598

关键词

ASL; chloride; trachea; ratio imaging

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL59198, R01 HL059198, HL60288] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R37 DK035124, DK43840, R01 DK051817, R01 DK035124, DK35124, DK51817] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluid and macromolecule secretion by submucosal glands in mammalian airways is believed to be important in normal airway physiology and in the pathophysiology of cystic fibrosis (Cf), An in situ fluorescence method was applied to measure the ionic composition and viscosity of freshly secreted fluid from airway glands. Fragments of human large airways obtained at the time of lung transplantation were mounted in a humidified perfusion chamber and the mucosal surface was covered by a thin layer of oil. Individual droplets of secreted fluid were microinjected with fluorescent indicators for measurement of [Na+], [Cl-], and pH by ratio imaging fluorescence microscopy and viscosity by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. After carbachol stimulation, 0.1-0.5 mul of fluid accumulated in spherical droplets at gland orifices in approximate to3-5 min. In gland fluid from normal human airways, [Na+] was 94 +/- 8 mM, [Cl-] was 92 +/- 12 mM, and pH was 6.97 +/- 0.06 (SE, n = 7 humans, more than five glands studied per sample). Apparent fluid viscosity was 2.7 +/- 0.3-fold greater than that of saline. Neither [Na+] nor pH differed in gland fluid from CF airways, but viscosity was significantly elevated by approximate to2-fold compared to normal airways. These results represent the first direct measurements of ionic composition and viscosity in uncontaminated human gland secretions and indicate similar [Na+], [Cl-], and pH to that in the airway surf ace liquid. The elevated gland fluid viscosity in CF may be an important factor promoting bacterial colonization and airway disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据