RESUMO
Deep inspiration (DI) dilates normal airway precontracted with methacholine. The fact that this effect is diminished or absent in asthma could be explained by the presence of bronchial inflammation. The hypothesis was tested that DI induces more relaxation in methacholine induced bronchoconstriction-solely determined by the smooth muscle contraction-than in exercise induced bronchoconstriction, which is contributed to by both smooth muscle contraction and airway wall inflammation. The respiratory conductance (Grs) response to DI was monitored in asthmatic children presenting a moderately positive airway response to challenge by methacholine (n = 36) or exercise (n = 37), and expressed as the post- to pre-DI Grs ratio (GrsDI). Both groups showed similar change in FEV1 after challenge and performed a DI of similar amplitude. GrsDI however was significantly larger in methacholine than in exercise induced bronchoconstriction (p < 0.02). The bronchodilatory effect of DI is thus less during exercise- than methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. The observation is consistent with airway wall inflammation-that characterizes exercise induced bronchoconstriction-rendering the airways less responsive to DI. More generally, it is surmised that less relief of bronchoconstriction by DI is to be expected during indirect than direct airway challenge. The current suggestion that airway smooth muscle constriction and airway wall inflammation may result in opposing effects on the bronchomotor action of DI opens important perspective to the routine testing of asthmatic children. New crossover research protocols comparing the mechanical consequences of the DI maneuver are warranted during direct and indirect bronchial challenges.
RESUMO
We report on a 3-year-old girl with a de novo complex X chromosome rearrangement associated with congenital pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) and short stature. Array comparative genome hybridization and FISH analyses contributed to characterize the complex rearrangement consisting of a 7.37 Mb terminal deletion of Xp22.33p22.2, a 17.3 Mb interstitial inverted duplication of Xp22.2p21.3, and a 10.14 Mb duplication of Xq27.3q28. PCR analysis of microsatellite markers supported a paternal origin of the X chromosome rearrangement. A pre-meiotic two-step mechanism may explain the occurrence of this complex X rearrangement: an inverted duplication deletion event on Xp, and duplication of the Xq27.3qter region through a telomere capture event stabilizing the broken chromosome Xp end. The girl has also inherited from her healthy mother an X chromosome with a colony stimulating factor 2 receptor, alpha (CSF2RA) gene deletion. Consistent with the recessive mode of inheritance, the de novo paternal Xp22.33p22.2 deletion combined to the maternally inherited CSF2RA gene deletion led to homozygous deletion of CSF2RA and PAP diagnosis in the girl. The Xp deletion encompasses the pseudoautosomal region 1 (PAR1) which contains genes that escape X inactivation. Short stature homeobox (SHOX) haploinsufficiency explains growth retardation. Absence of other symptoms in relation to the X deletion/amplification is most probably due to skewed X inactivation. Finally, inherited deletions may unmask rare pathogenic genomic rearrangement and contribute to clinical phenotypes by a recessive mode of gene action.
