The Direct Effect of Hyperosmolar Agents on Ciliary Beating of Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhalation of hypertonic saline and mannitol improve mucociliary clearance in patients with bronchiectasis, but little is known about how the relative osmotic strengths of these compounds affect ciliary beat frequency (CBF) of ciliated human bronchial epithelial cells (HBEC). Our aim was to compare in vitro the direct effects of osmotically equivalent solutions on CBF of HBEC. METHODS: HBEC were acutely (10, 30 min) exposed to comparable osmolar solutions of saline (0.03-0.48%), mannitol (0.19-3%) and dextran (10%-39.39%). Effects of higher % solutions, reversibility of responses, and prolonged treatments (15-20 h) were also compared. CBF was measured using digital videomicroscopy at baseline and at all time points. RESULTS: CBF of HBEC increased significantly after acute exposure to mannitol (0.19%, 0.38%), decreased with dextran and remained unchanged with saline. Prolonged exposure to mannitol at high (3%, 6%) osmolar concentrations reversibly suppressed CBF. In comparison, acute and prolonged treatment with 39.39% dextran (equivalent to 3% mannitol) reduced CBF irreversibly. Furthermore, acute and prolonged treatment with 1% saline (equivalent to 6% mannitol) suppressed CBF with only the acute effect being reversible. CONCLUSIONS: Mannitol had a direct osmolarity-independent cilio-stimulatory effect at lower % solutions and a reversible cilio-inhibitory effect at higher % solutions, and prolonged exposure to mannitol inhibited CBF reversibly. Both the acute and prolonged effects of mannitol compared to dextran and saline on CBF of HBEC in vitro, imply a unique mechanism of action for mannitol on ciliary beating and might contribute to the improved clearance observed in mannitol-treated patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".