CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨不同激发方式对小鼠过敏性支气管哮喘(简称哮喘)模型的影响.方法模型组用卵清蛋白致敏和激发BalB/c小鼠,第0天、第7天、第14天腹腔注射致敏,从第28天开始分别给予不同次数和方式的激发.根据激发方式的不同,随机分为5组,包括三次滴鼻激发组、二次雾化20 min激发组、三次雾化20 min激发组、三次雾化30 min激发组、四次雾化20 min激发组,每组12只.激发后48 h采用整体体积描记法检测小鼠气道反应性,结果以增强的呼气间歇(enhanced pause,Penh)表示,测定肺功能后再用磷酸盐缓冲液对全肺进行支气管肺泡灌洗,支气管肺泡灌洗液(BALF)进行细胞学分析.结果哮喘组气道反应性(Penh%)和BALF中嗜酸粒细胞比例(EOS%)与正常组相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).三次滴鼻激发组EOS%和Penh%显著高于其他雾化激发组(P<0.05),其中BALF中EOS%三次滴鼻激发组(46.30±4.55)%,与二次雾化20 min激发组(31.19±12.84)%,三次雾化20 min激发组(29.00±12.33)%、四次雾化20 min激发组(37.08±8.44)%相比有显著差异.与三次雾化30 min激发组(41.17±8.78)%无显著差异.三次滴鼻激发组PCI00[(3.75±1.79)g/L]和三次雾化30 min激发组[(5.94±3.27)g/L],四次雾化20 min激发组[(5.19±1.88)g/L]有显著差异(P<0.05).三次滴鼻激发组激发过程中动物死亡2只,其余各组均无死亡.结论滴鼻和雾化激发均能成功建立哮喘模型,其中滴鼻激发建立的哮喘模型气道炎症及气道反应性升高更为显著.
목적 탐토불동격발방식대소서과민성지기관효천(간칭효천)모형적영향.방법 모형조용란청단백치민화격발BalB/c소서,제0천、제7천、제14천복강주사치민,종제28천개시분별급여불동차수화방식적격발.근거격발방식적불동,수궤분위5조,포괄삼차적비격발조、이차무화20 min격발조、삼차무화20 min격발조、삼차무화30 min격발조、사차무화20 min격발조,매조12지.격발후48 h채용정체체적묘기법검측소서기도반응성,결과 이증강적호기간헐(enhanced pause,Penh)표시,측정폐공능후재용린산염완충액대전폐진행지기관폐포관세,지기관폐포관세액(BALF)진행세포학분석.결과 효천조기도반응성(Penh%)화BALF중기산립세포비례(EOS%)여정상조상비차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05).삼차적비격발조EOS%화Penh%현저고우기타무화격발조(P<0.05),기중BALF중EOS%삼차적비격발조(46.30±4.55)%,여이차무화20 min격발조(31.19±12.84)%,삼차무화20 min격발조(29.00±12.33)%、사차무화20 min격발조(37.08±8.44)%상비유현저차이.여삼차무화30 min격발조(41.17±8.78)%무현저차이.삼차적비격발조PCI00[(3.75±1.79)g/L]화삼차무화30 min격발조[(5.94±3.27)g/L],사차무화20 min격발조[(5.19±1.88)g/L]유현저차이(P<0.05).삼차적비격발조격발과정중동물사망2지,기여각조균무사망.결론 적비화무화격발균능성공건립효천모형,기중적비격발건립적효천모형기도염증급기도반응성승고경위현저.
Objective To investigate the effect of different challenge methods on a murine model of allergic bronchial asthma (asthma). Methods BalB/c mice were sensitized and challenged by ovalbumin (OVA). Mice were administered by intraperitoneal antigen on days 0,7 and 14, and firstly challenged with OVA aerosol on days 28. They were divided into 5 groups by different challenge methods and time,including intranasal administration for 3 consecutive days, aerosol administrations for 20 minutes once a day for 2 consecutive days,20 minutes once a day for 3 consecutive days,30 minutes once a day for 3 consecutive days, 20 minutes once a day for 4 consecutive days. Forty-eight hours after the last challenge, airway hyperreactivity to methacholine was evaluated by whole-body plethysmography, present as enhanced expiratory pause (Penh). After the measure of Penh, lungs were lavaged with PBS. Bronchoalveolar lavage cytology was analysed. Results Airway hyperreactivity and eosinophilia of asthmatic mice as evaluated were significantly increased when compared with normal( P <0.05). Airway hyperreactivity and eosinophilia of the group of intranasal administration were significantly increased compared with those of other groups of aerosol challenge( P <0.05). Two mice died in the group of intranasal administration, there was no death in other groups. Conclusions Asthmatic model can be established successfully by both of nasal challenge and aerosol challenge, and the intranasal administration trigger more serious airway inflammation and hyperreaetivity than aerosol challenge.