Hypoxic/ischemic models in newborn piglet: Comparison of constant FiO(2) versus variable FiO(2) delivery

A comparison of a constant (continuous delivery of 4% FiO(2)) and a variable (initial 5% FiO(2) with adjustments to induce low amplitude EEG (LAEEG) and hypotension) hypoxic/ischemic insult was performed to determine which insult was more effective in producing a consistent degree of survivable neuropathological damage in a newborn piglet model of perinatal asphyxia. We also examined which physiological responses contributed to this outcome. Thirty-nine 1-day-old piglets were subjected to either a constant hypoxic/ischemic insult of 30- to 37-min duration or a variable hypoxic/ischemic insult of 30-min low peak amplitude EEG (LAEEG < 5 mu V) including 10 min of low mean arterial blood pressure (MABP < 70% of baseline). Control animals (n = 6) received 21% FiO(2) for the duration of the experiment. At 72 h, the piglets were euthanased, their brains removed and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and assessed for hypoxic/ischemic injury by histological analysis. Based on neuropathology scores, piglets were grouped as undamaged or damaged; piglets that did not survive to 72 h were grouped separately as dead. The variable insult resulted in a greater number of piglets with neuropathological damage (undamaged = 12.5%, damaged = 68.75%, dead = 18.75%) while the constant insult resulted in a large proportion of undamaged piglets (undamaged = 50%, damaged = 22.2%, dead = 27.8%). A hypoxic insult varied to maintain peak amplitude EEG < 5 mu V results in a greater number of survivors with a consistent degree of neuropathological damage than a constant hypoxic insult. Physiological variables MABP, LAEEG, pH and arterial base excess were found to be significantly associated with neuropathological outcome. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Downregulation of IgE antibody and allergic responses in the lung by epidermal biolistic microparticle delivery

Background: Biolistic injections provide a needle-free delivery of antigen-laden microparticles to the epithelium. The precision of the injection preferentially targets the Langerhans cell network, which, although ideal for vaccination, might not be suitable for the downregulation of immune responses in immunotherapy. Objective: We sought to determine the ability of biolistic injection of antigen into the epithelium of sensitized mice to inhibit IgE antibody and lung inflammatory responses produced by further exposure to antigen. Methods: Mice were sensitized by means of a needle injection of ovalbumin (OVA) in alum and given a series of biolistic injections of OVA or vehicle control, followed by a boost of OVA in alum. Serum IgE and IgG antibodies were measured before and after the boost. The mice were then challenged intranasally, and the infiltration of inflammatory cells was measured by means of bronchoalveolar lavage. Airway reactivity of the challenged mice was measured by examining responses to methacholine with forced oscillatory techniques. Results: Biolistic injection of OVA into the dorsal skin of sensitized mice markedly inhibited IgE and IgG1 antibody responses induced by boosting. IgG2a antibody responses were reduced rather than stimulated. The eosinophilic inflammation in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid induced by intranasal challenge was also markedly inhibited. Lung hyperreactivity showed an initial increase and then a decrease of responsiveness to methacholine, with elastance returning to the level of unsensitized mice. Biolistic injection into the buccal epithelium was also inhibitory. Conclusions: Biolistic injection of allergen inhibited the boosting of IgE antibody and eosinophilic lung inflammatory responses without inducing TO immunity.