Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 7777, 2021 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174704


Due to frequent and often severe lung affections caused by COVID-19, murine models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are increasingly used in experimental lung research. The one induced by a single lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure is practical. However, whether it is preferable to administer LPS intranasally or intratracheally remains an open question. Herein, female C57Bl/6 J mice were exposed intranasally or intratracheally to one dose of either saline or 3 mg/kg of LPS. They were studied 24 h later. The groups treated with LPS, either intranasally or intratracheally, exhibited a pronounced neutrophilic inflammation, signs of lung tissue damage and protein extravasation into the alveoli, and mild lung dysfunction. The magnitude of the response was generally not different between groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. However, the variability of some the responses was smaller in the LPS-treated groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. Notably, the saline-treated mice exposed intratracheally demonstrated a mild neutrophilic inflammation and alterations of the airway epithelium. We conclude that an intranasal exposure is as effective as an intratracheal exposure in a murine model of ARDS induced by LPS. Additionally, the groups exposed intranasally demonstrated less variability in the responses to LPS and less complications associated with the sham procedure.

Inflammation/chemically induced , Lipopolysaccharides/adverse effects , Lung/pathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/chemically induced , Administration, Intranasal , Animals , Disease Models, Animal , Female , Inflammation/pathology , Lipopolysaccharides/administration & dosage , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Proteins/analysis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/pathology