HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 97/1/269    most recent 01288.2003v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kay, S. S. Articles by Gaver, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kay, S. S. Articles by Gaver, D. P., III

Pressure gradient, not exposure duration, determines the extent of epithelial cell damage in a model of pulmonary airway reopening

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118

Submitted 2 December 2003 ; accepted in final form 3 March 2004

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The reduction of tidal volume during mechanical ventilation has been shown to reduce mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but epithelial cell injury can still result from mechanical stresses imposed by the opening of occluded airways. To study these stresses, a fluid-filled parallel-plate flow chamber lined with epithelial cells was used as an idealized model of an occluded airway. Airway reopening was modeled by the progression of a semi-infinite bubble of air through the length of the channel, which cleared the fluid. In our laboratory’s prior study, the magnitude of the pressure gradient near the bubble tip was directly correlated to the epithelial cell layer damage (Bilek AM, Dee KC, and Gaver DP III. J Appl Physiol 94: 770–783, 2003). However, in that study, it was not possible to discriminate the stress magnitude from the stimulus duration because the bubble propagation velocity varied between experiments. In the present study, the stress magnitude is modified by varying the viscosity of the occlusion fluid while fixing the reopening velocity across experiments. This approach causes the stimulus duration to be inversely related to the magnitude of the pressure gradient. Nevertheless, cell damage remains directly correlated with the pressure gradient, not the duration of stress exposure. The present study thus provides additional evidence that the magnitude of the pressure gradient induces cellular damage in this model of airway reopening. We explore the mechanism for acute damage and also demonstrate that repeated reopening and closure is shown to damage the epithelial cell layer, even under conditions that would not lead to extensive damage from a single reopening event.

acute respiratory distress syndrome; ventilator-induced lung injury; surfactant replacement therapy; lung epithelial cells

Unfortunately, low-volume ventilation can lead to airway damage, as demonstrated by Muscedere et al. (23). Ventilation at low lung volumes and pressures may cause airway and alveolar fluid-structure instabilities that can lead to cyclic opening and closing (recruitment and derecruitment) of small airways and alveoli (13, 18). The pulmonary epithelium is particularly at risk of being damaged by mechanical stresses associated with this behavior (5, 26). Recruitment of closed areas of the lung can result from a bubble propagating through edematous regions of the lung (with little deflection of the airway wall), or by the separation of airway walls that are held shut by a thin layer of lining fluid (12, 14). In either case, the complex mechanical stress field may damage the airway tissue (22). It is known that surfactant protects the lung from damage; however, even mild surfactant dysfunction can lead to severe lung injury (28, 29). The physicochemical behavior related to this protection is a current topic of study (15–18, 21, 25).

We have recently investigated the mechanical stresses that induce epithelial cell damage in a model of airway reopening (5). The results of that study strongly suggest that the pressure gradient (dP/dx) [not shear stress (_s)] is the primary determinant of mechanical damage. That and the present study used a fluid-filled parallel-plate chamber lined with epithelial cells as an idealized model of an occluded airway. Airway reopening was modeled by the steady progression of a semi-infinite bubble of air down the length of the channel, which cleared the fluid. A computational model was developed to determine the mechanical stimuli applied to the cells during the bubble progression (as described in detail in the DISCUSSION). This analysis indicates that the reduction of bubble velocity (U) decreases the _s, _s gradient (d_s/dx), and pressure, while increasing the dP/dx. Because cell damage increased with reduced velocity, it was concluded that the most mechanically damaging element of the stress cycle was the steep dP/dx along the cell in the region of the bubble tip (Fig. 1). This causes an intracell pressure variation that might damage sensitive tissue (discussed below).

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Schematic of hypothetical pressure gradient acting on epithelial cells. The pressure gradient causes an imbalance of pressure along the length of the cell (Lcell), resulting in cell deformation, which can lead to injury of the cell membrane.

To decouple the stress magnitude from the duration, in the present experiments we modify the fluid viscosity (µ) without any variation in the U. Because the stress magnitudes are functions of µU (see DISCUSSION), a 10-fold increase in µ results in precisely the same change in stress magnitude as a 10-fold increase in velocity. However, whereas an increase in U decreases the t_exposure, an increase in µ causes an increase of the t_exposure (see DISCUSSION for an explanation of this effect). Thus, by comparing the damage to computed stress predictions calculated in Ref. 5, we can discern the relative influence of stress magnitude to stress exposure duration in the system.

	EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Cell culture.   A human pulmonary epithelial cell line (A549, American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) was maintained in a culture medium of Ham's F-12K with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and used at passage 89. Before experiments, cells were enzymatically lifted from flasks by using a 1.5% trypsin solution (Invitrogen) and cultured on a small circular region (3.8 cm²) of a glass microscope slide (25 x 75 mm). Specifically, circular sections of the microscope slides were isolated by using polycarbonate cylinders held onto the slides with silicone rubber (Regent Pet Products, Moorpark, CA). Epithelial cells were then enzymatically suspended and seeded at 100 x 10³ cells/cm² inside the circular region. The slides were incubated in sterile 100-mm petri dishes under standard culture conditions (humidified, 37°C, 5% CO₂, 95% air) and cultured to confluence (3 days), providing a density of adherent cell of 65 x 10³ cells/cm² with an average cell diameter of 40 µm. Because the cells were cultured under static conditions, no preferred orientation existed. The polycarbonate cylinder that defined the cell-seeded region of the domain was removed immediately before experiments were conducted.

Apparatus.   A parallel-plate chamber (Fig. 2) designed by Bilek et al. (5) was used as an idealized model of a collapsed segment of an airway in which the walls are held in opposition by a viscous fluid. The upper and lower walls of the parallel-plate chamber were formed by two glass microscope slides. The lower wall of the parallel-plate chamber consisted of the glass microscope slide cultured with pulmonary epithelial cells, as described above. The cell-free upper wall of the parallel-plate chamber consisted of a larger glass slide (38 x 75 mm) seated over the separation wall with a 5-mm-wide, 0.4-mm-thick Silastic (Pharmelast, SF Medical, Hudson, MA) gasket to form a tight seal. The channel height of this model was 0.17 cm [channel half-height (H) = 0.085 cm], which is equivalent to the diameter of airways that are susceptible to fluid obstruction, according to the study by Burger and Macklem (6). We address the issues related to this choice of scale below in Limitations.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Experimental apparatus. A: schematic of the parallel plate chamber used in the present study. B: diagram of the complete experimental setup. The bubble propagated through the parallel-plate flow chamber over a period of 30 s, but propagated over cell-seeded layer for 6 s. IR, infrared.

The cell-seeded slide of the parallel plate chamber was placed into the apparatus, and the channel was flooded with an occlusion fluid. The apparatus was assembled and transferred into a warming bath at 39°C. A small volume of air (2.7 ml) was then infused into the upstream end of the chamber at a rate of 7 ml/min, setting a U of 0.34 cm/s, which "reopened" the channel by removing the occlusion fluid. Thus the bubble propagated through the parallel plate flow chamber over a period of 30 s, but passed over the cell-seeded layer for 6 s. The period of time an individual cell experiences the traveling stress wave is very short (5 x 10^–2 s) and is estimated in the DISCUSSION.

Experiments were conducted at 39°C to be consistent with our prior investigations (5), in which the slight increase in temperature allowed the surfactant micelles to disperse more uniformly on dilution, which maintained the uniformity of the surfactant solution. This was also important to correct for cooling effects as the solution entered into the chamber, which was originally at room temperature. The time for assembly, experimental trial, and disassembly was 5 min.

As a control condition, cell-seeded slides were rinsed with PBS and placed in a petri dish filled with either 39°C PBS or PBS/dextran for 5 min on the benchtop. Whereas an optimal control would have the slides processed in an identical manner without exposure to bubble progression, this is not possible because the action of disassembly without prior bubble progression introduces an uncontrolled expanding air-liquid interface when the slides are separated. These effects could not be discriminated from the purposefully applied reopening stimulus.

Quantification of cellular injury.   After removal from the apparatus (or petri dish for the control), each slide was gently rinsed with 37°C PBS. A 250-µl aliquot of a solution containing 1.2 µl ethidium homodimer-1 (Eth-1) and 1.2 µl calcein AM (Live/Dead Kit, Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) in 1 ml PBS was gently applied to the surface of the cells. The slide was then incubated at 37°C for 10–30 min. These two dyes are supplied in the commercially available "Live/Dead" kit used to differentiate "live" from "dead" cells. If injury or death compromises a cell membrane, Eth-1 enters the cell and binds to DNA, producing a red fluorescent nucleus. Uninjured cells are marked by the calcein AM binding to active intracellular esterases, producing green fluorescence at the cell membrane.

To assess the magnitude of damage, the numbers of injured (red) cells (Eth-1 stained) in each of five random fields were counted manually by using fluorescence micrographs (Fig. 3), with the average number of injured cells expressed either as "injured cells" or cells per centimeters squared of slide surface area. The data are reported as means ± SE for five slides per condition. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.01, and differences between means were statistically evaluated by using Duncan's multiple-range test after model adequacy checking verified the normal distribution of the data. Statistical significance was determined for the reopening experiments compared with the control and for the damage induced by low-viscosity (PBS) reopening compared with the damage from the high-viscosity (PBS/dextran) fluid for the same U.

View larger version (103K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Fluorescent micrographs of calcein AM (green)- and ethidium homodimer (red)- stained cells for each condition tested. The images show a representative field for the PBS [control (A), experimental (B)] and PBS/dextran [control (C), experimental (D)] occlusion fluids. Each image is 625 x 435 µm.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Effect of occlusion fluid viscosity on the no. of injured (ethidium homodimer-1-stained) cells. Values are means ± SE. *Significantly greater than control, P < 0.01. #Significantly greater than the PBS/dextran fluid for the same bubble velocity, P < 0.01.

To briefly explore the impact of repeated closure and reopening, we exposed rat distal airway tissue L2 cells (CCL-149, American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) to multiple passages of a bubble at a velocity of 4 cm/s. To culture these cells, a 1-cm² section of a microscope slide was isolated by using a 0.4-mm-thick Silastic gasket (Pharmelast, SF Medical, Hudson, MA). Pulmonary epithelial cells were suspended in a culture medium of Ham's F-12K medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and plated at 50 x 10³ cells/cm² in the isolated region. The slides were incubated in 100-mm petri dishes under standard culture conditions (humidified, 37°C, 5% CO₂/95% air) for 6 h. The gaskets were then removed, and 15 ml of culture medium were added to the petri dishes. The pulmonary epithelial cells were cultured to confluence. Cells were exposed to the multiple passages of the bubble and then fixed with formaline and stained with Coomassie brilliant blue. At the 4 cm/s reopening rate, little (if any) membrane damage would be expected during a single bubble passage, according to the results of Bilek et al. (5). Figure 5 shows that a single passage resulted in little obvious damage, but multiple passages over the same cells can cause significant damage, with 20 passages resulting in a nearly complete ablation of the epithelial layer. This result indicates that multiple closure and reopening events can result in severe damage to epithelial tissues, even if a single reopening event induces little membrane damage. Note that this study was performed in a surfactant-free system, and thus Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺ were not explicitly included in the model-lining fluid. However, the PBS was still osmotically balanced.

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Demonstration of substrate denudation by repetitive reopening and closure (L2 cells with a reopening velocity of 4 cm/s). Cells were fixed with formaline and stained with Coomassie brilliant blue.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

Stress magnitudes.   To investigate the stress magnitudes in this system, we use the regression formulas provided by Bilek et al. (5) to calculate the maximum _s, d_s/dx, and dP/dx that the cells experience. These relationships were calculated in dimensionless form, which exploits the fact that the fundamental physical interactions depend on the ratio of viscous to surface tension forces. The dimensionless velocity, also known as the capillary number,

(1)

represents the ratio of viscous tension to surface tension effects and determines the dynamic response of the system. The stress relationships (accurate for Ca < 10^–2) in dimensionless (a) and dimensional (b) form are as follows:

  _s

(2a)

or

(2b)

d_s/dx,

(3a)

or

(3b)

and dP/dx,

(4a)

or

(4b)

From these relationships, it is clear that all stress magnitudes depend directly on the product (µU); thus an increase in µ has precisely the same effect on the stress magnitude as an increase in the U. It is this relationship that allows us to vary the stress magnitudes using µ instead of U, which has a different implication for exposure duration, as will be explained below.

The relationships provided in Eqs. 2–4 are potentially counterintuitive, and thus it is important to understand the physical processes that cause this behavior. Figure 6A shows a schematic representation of the interface propagating through the flow chamber, with Fig. 6, B and C, representing the magnified view of the domain and pressure field, respectively. Figure 6B shows that an increase in Ca causes the film around the bubble to thicken. In the limit as Ca 0, the bubble contacts the wall at a contact line, spanwise across the channel. The pressure drop between the interior (air) and exterior (liquid) is approximated by the Laplace–Young relationship, P_tot = /H, where P_tot is the change in total pressure. Therefore, as Ca 0, a step-jump in pressure occurs at the contact line (Fig. 6C), and because P_tot is established over an infinitesimal region, dP/dx –. As Ca increases, the bubble leaves a minuscule layer of fluid ("lubrication film") along the wall (Fig. 6B). This lubrication film grows in depth with increasing Ca and reduces the magnitude of the dP/dx (Fig. 6C). So, although the dP/dx remains large at small Ca, it is reduced by an increase in µ or U. In contrast, as Ca is increased, the _s increases because an increasing volume of fluid is squeezed over the cell surface through the lubrication film. For this reason, an increase in Ca results in a decrease in the dP/dx and an increase in the _s.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. A: schematic of the bubble propagating through the flow chamber. B: a magnified view of the lubrication film near the bubble tip. C: the pressure field near the bubble. This figure demonstrates that the increase of capillary number (Ca) reduces the magnitude of the pressure gradient by increasing the lubrication film thickness. In addition, the decrease of the pressure gradient increases the length of the traveling wave (Lwave), which modifies the exposure time. U, bubble velocity; P, pressure change; , surface tension; H, channel half-height; dP/dx, pressure gradient.

(5)

From this relationship,

and

The t_exposure is determined by the length of time required for the entire width of the traveling wave region to propagate past a point on the wall occupied by a cell

(6)

From this relationship, the t_exposure in the present experiments is approximately

and

This calculation indicates that, even though U is held constant in the present experiments, the increase in µ extends the length of the traveling wave and thus increases t_exposure. In contrast, the experiments of Ref. 5 modified Ca by increasing U, such that an increase in Ca simultaneously decreased t_exposure.

Damage mechanism.   In this section, we present the data from our experiments and demonstrate that the dP/dx, not the duration of stress exposure, is responsible for the damage to the cell layer. Figure 4 shows that the experimental model with low-viscosity PBS as the occlusion fluid (and hence the low Ca) exhibited the greatest amount of membrane disruption. An increase in µ with no change in U caused a reduction of the cell damage. In both the low- and high-viscosity cases, the damage was significantly greater than the control. Calculations of stress components (Table 1) show that cells in low-viscosity experiments are subjected to lower magnitudes of the _s and the d_s/dx, but to larger magnitudes of dP/dx compared with their high-viscosity counterparts. In addition, calculations of the t_exposure show that the present low-Ca experiments introduce a shorter t_exposure than the large Ca experiments. The relationship between t_exposure and Ca is converse to that of Bilek et al. (5).

From the present studies, as well as those of Ref. 5, as synopsized in Tables 1 and 2, significant cell membrane damage occurs when P_cell 300 dyn/cm², which is reduced when P_cell 120 dyn/cm². However, little membrane rupture was observed for P_cell 80 dyn/cm² (5). Clearly, the propensity for membrane disruption decreases with decreasing P_cell; however, it is not yet evident that a specific critical level exists that induces damage.

Limitations.   As with all model experiments, the characteristics of these studies deviate from actual in vivo airway reopening conditions and may influence the validity of our results. One of the fundamental differences relates to the lack of mechanical flexibility of the experimental system. True pulmonary airways are compliant vessels in which airway reopening can cause separation of the airway walls if the liquid lining is not too voluminous. This separation and bending of the walls can induce large inward-directed normal stresses, which may cause additional damage to the tissue (5, 12, 20). The present experimental design also lacks a collagen substrate beneath the epithelial cells. Within the in vivo system, this collagen may act as a cushion beneath the cell that could protect the tissue during reopening.

The multiple-passage experiments (Fig. 5) were conducted by using a different cell line (L2) than the remainder of the studies (A549). The adhesion of these cells to the substrate is not known, and the relationship between reopening velocity and detachment may differ from that of membrane damage. The exposure to the Ca²⁺-Mg²⁺-free PBS over the short time period of the experiment would not be expected to significantly affect detachment of the cells, based on our observations of rinsing cell monolayers with Ca²⁺-Mg²⁺-free PBS, which did not remove cells from surfaces or begin to detach them from substrates, as confirmed with microscopy. Future studies should examine detachment as a function of different velocities and should include Ca²⁺-Mg²⁺ in the PBS because of the potential loosening of cells in the absence of these ions. Nevertheless, the sole purpose of this brief undertaking was simply to demonstrate that multiple reopening events may be far more deleterious than a single reopening event, which it does aptly.

An additional simplification arises from the steady motion imposed in the present investigations. Suki and colleagues (1, 27) have observed "avalanche" behavior that results in the rapid reopening of many segments of airways, followed by a period of time in which few airways reopen. This behavior may be related to a viscous pseudo stick-slip behavior that is evident in models of unsteady airway reopening (D. Halpern, S. Naire, O. E. Jensen, D. Gaver, unpublished calculations). These simulations indicate that airways that initially open slowly under a fixed upstream flow rate begin to spontaneously "jump" to a new, rapid reopening velocity and then return to the slow reopening rate. This periodic instability arises fundamentally from nonlinear behavior related to the fluid-structure interactions in compliant systems, which are not included in the present experimental model.

Our experiments were conducted in H = 0.085 cm, which is equivalent to the diameter of airways that are susceptible to fluid obstruction, according to the study by Burger and Macklem (6). However, the principles investigated in this study are general and relate to the stresses imposed due to bubble progression in any airway generation. Of course, the stress magnitudes will depend on the geometry of the airway in question. This includes the size of the airway and whether the airway retains a circular cross-sectional geometry or flattens to a channel. In a flattened channel, P_tot 8/R, where R is radius, which is much greater than the reopening pressure expected for a circular tube (14). Additionally, geometric differences, which include the morphology of the pulmonary epithelium cells and features such as airway bifurcations, could dramatically increase stresses to values greater than those predicted for our simplified models. This increase in stress would be caused by interfacial curvature variation and thin-film dynamics, as the bubble deforms to slide over the topographical variations in the surface, or splits as it divides into the daughter branches of the bifurcation.

Surfactant-free conditions were studied to accurately establish the stress magnitudes in these models; however, prior studies have established the importance of surfactant in reducing the stress magnitude (15, 16). Surfactant was not incorporated into our model because we were not interested in surfactant protection in the present study. Instead, we simply focused on the determination of stress magnitude as the primary stimulus for cell injury. The of the air-liquid interface in the absence of surfactant is 70 dyn/cm rather than static equilibrium of 25 dyn/cm of pulmonary surfactant. Whereas our prior experiments demonstrated the protective effect of high concentrations of surfactant, it is not feasible to vary the concentration of surfactant in the present study because of the complexities of dynamic effects. For example, even during dynamic equilibrium, the is not uniform over the surface of the bubble, which could confound our results due to surfactant physicochemical hydrodynamic effects (15), although we expect that those effects would be minimized with highly concentrated surfactant (5). At present, the and viscosity of lining fluid in a patient suffering from ARDS are not known; however, the is likely to be elevated due to protein leakage from the vascular system that has been shown to deactivate surfactant (19).

Although there are clearly a number of limitations to our investigations, the idealized models used for this study have allowed us to elucidate the importance of mechanical stress on epithelial cell damage during airway reopening. Additional components will be incorporated in these experimental systems to create better models of the physiological environment and thus to isolate critical aspects related to airway damage.

In conclusion, the goal of this paper was to establish the relative importance of mechanical stress magnitude vs. duration in causing damage to pulmonary epithelial cells during the opening of collapsed pulmonary airways. The results of this idealized study confirm that the progression of a semi-infinite bubble in a narrow channel lined with pulmonary epithelial cells inflicts significant injury to an epithelial cell population. In addition, by using the same U with occlusion fluids of varying viscosities, we have established that the magnitude of the dP/dx, and not the duration of bubble exposure, best predicts the degree of injury to the cell population in airway reopening. Finally, we have demonstrated that multiple passages of a bubble across the epithelial-cell surface can exacerbate the damage and lead to ablation of the cell layer. Future studies should investigate the critical surfactant concentration necessary to protect the airway from damage and the importance of airway wall flexibility.

	GRANTS

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BES-9978605 and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Physical Sciences Research Division Grant NAG3–2734. Computational facilities were provided by the Center for Computational Sciences at Tulane and Xavier universities.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
We appreciate the insightful comments of the reviewers. We thank Lorraine McGinley for research administrative assistance.

	FOOTNOTES

 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. P. Gaver, Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Lindy Boggs Center, Suite 500, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118 (E-mail: dpg{at}tulane.edu).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 

1. Alencar AM, Arold SP, Buldyrev SV, Majumdar A, Stamenovic D, Stanley HE, and Suki B. Physiology: dynamic instabilities in the inflating lung. Nature 417: 809–811, 2002.[Medline]
2. [Anon]. International consensus conferences in intensive care medicine: ventilator-associated lung injury in ARDS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 160: 2118–2124, 1999.[Free Full Text]
3. Argiras EP, Blakeley CR, Dunnill MS, Otremski S, and Sykes MK. High PEEP decreases hyaline membrane formation in surfactant deficient lungs. Br J Anaesth 59: 1278–1285, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Behnia R, Molteni A, Waters CM, Panos RJ, Ward WF, Schnaper HW, and CHTSA. Early markers of ventilator-induced lung injury in rats. Ann Clin Lab Sci 26: 437–450, 1996.[Abstract]
5. Bilek AM, Dee KC, and Gaver DP III. Mechanisms of surface-tension-induced epithelial cell damage in a model of pulmonary airway reopening. J Appl Physiol 94: 770–783, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Burger EJ and Macklem P. Airway closure: demonstration by breathing 100% O₂ at low lung volumes and by N₂ washout. J Appl Physiol 25: 139–148, 1968.[Free Full Text]
7. Cavanaugh KJ Jr and Margulies SS. Measurement of stretch-induced loss of alveolar epithelial barrier integrity with a novel in vitro method. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 283: C1801–C1808, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Cavanaugh KJ Jr, Oswari J, and Margulies SS. Role of stretch on tight junction structure in alveolar epithelial cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 25: 584–591, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Dos Santos CC and Slutsky AS. Invited Review: Mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury: a perspective. J Appl Physiol 89: 1645–1655, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Dreyfuss D and Saumon G. Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 157: 294–323, 1998.[Free Full Text]
11. Fisher JL and Margulies SS. Na⁺-K⁺-ATPase activity in alveolar epithelial cells increases with cyclic stretch. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 283: L737–L746, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Gaver DP III, Halpern D, Jensen OE, and Grotberg JB. The steady motion of a semi-infinite bubble through a flexible-walled channel. J Fluid Mech 319: 25–65, 1996.[CrossRef]
13. Gaver DP III, Jensen OE, and Halpern D. Surfactant and airway liquid flows. In: Molecular Mechanisms in Lung (Dys)function, edited by Nag K. New York: Dekker, In press.
14. Gaver DP III, Samsel RW, and Solway J. Effects of surface tension and viscosity on airway reopening. J Appl Physiol 69: 74–85, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Ghadiali SN and Gaver DP III. An investigation of pulmonary surfactant physicochemical behavior under airway reopening conditions. J Appl Physiol 88: 493–506, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Ghadiali SN and Gaver DP III. The influence of non-equilibrium surfactant dynamics on the flow of a semi-infinite bubble in a rigid cylindrical tube. J Fluid Mech 478: 165–196, 2003.[CrossRef]
17. Halpern D and Grotberg JB. Dynamics and transport of a localized soluble surfactant on a thin film. J Fluid Mech 237: 1–11, 1992.[CrossRef]
18. Halpern D and Grotberg JB. Surfactant effects on fluid-elastic instabilities of liquid-lined flexible tubes: a model of airway closure. J Biomech Eng 115: 271–277, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Hartog A, Gomers D, and Lachmann B. Role of surfactant in the pathophysiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 50: 372–377, 1995.[Medline]
20. Jensen OE, Horsburgh MK, Halpern D, and Gaver DP. The steady propagation of a bubble in a flexible-walled channel: asymptotic and computational models. Phys Fluids 14: 443–457, 2002.[CrossRef]
21. Krueger MA and Gaver DP III. A theoretical model of pulmonary surfactant multilayer collapse under oscillating area conditions. J Colloid Interface Sci 229: 353–364, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
22. Mead J, Takishima T, and Leith D. Stress distribution in lungs: a model of pulmonary elasticity. J Appl Physiol 28: 596–608, 1970.[Free Full Text]
23. Muscedere JG, Mullen JBM, Gan K, and Slutsky AS. Tidal ventilation at low airway pressures can augment lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149: 1327–1334, 1994.[Abstract]
24. Oswari J, Matthay MA, and Margulies SS. Keratinocyte growth factor reduces alveolar epithelial susceptibility to in vitro mechanical deformation. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 281: L1068–L1077, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Otis DR Jr, Johnson M, Pedley TJ, and Kamm RD. Role of pulmonary surfactant in airway closure: a computational study. J Appl Physiol 75: 1323–1333, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Savla U, Sporn PH, and Waters CM. Cyclic stretch of airway epithelium inhibits prostanoid synthesis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 273: L1013–L1019, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Suki B, Barabasi AL, Hantos Z, Petak F, and Stanley HE. Avalanches and power-law behaviour in lung inflation. Nature 368: 615–618, 1994.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Taskar V, John J, Evander E, Robertson B, and Jonson B. Surfactant dysfunction makes lungs vulnerable to repetitive collapse and reexpansion. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155: 313–320, 1997.[Abstract]
29. Taskar V, John J, Evander E, Wollmer P, Robertson B, and Jonson B. Healthy lung tolerates repetitive collapse and reexpansion. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 39: 370–376, 1995.[Web of Science][Medline]
30. Tschumperlin DJ, Oswari J, and Margulies AS. Deformation-induced injury of alveolar epithelial cells. Effect of frequency, duration, and amplitude. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162: 357–362, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Vlahakis NE and Hubmayr RD. Invited Review: Plasma membrane stress failure in alveolar epithelial cells. J Appl Physiol 89: 2490–2497, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Whitehead T and Slutsky AS. The pulmonary physician in critical care * 7: ventilator induced lung injury. Thorax 57: 635–642, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. L. Dailey, L. M. Ricles, H. C. Yalcin, and S. N. Ghadiali Image-based finite element modeling of alveolar epithelial cell injury during airway reopening J Appl Physiol, January 1, 2009; 106(1): 221 - 232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. P. Desai, K. E. Chapman, and C. M. Waters Mechanical stretch decreases migration of alveolar epithelial cells through mechanisms involving Rac1 and Tiam1 Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, November 1, 2008; 295(5): L958 - L965. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Huh, H. Fujioka, Y.-C. Tung, N. Futai, R. Paine III, J. B. Grotberg, and S. Takayama Acoustically detectable cellular-level lung injury induced by fluid mechanical stresses in microfluidic airway systems PNAS, November 27, 2007; 104(48): 18886 - 18891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. C. Yalcin, S. F. Perry, and S. N. Ghadiali Influence of airway diameter and cell confluence on epithelial cell injury in an in vitro model of airway reopening J Appl Physiol, November 1, 2007; 103(5): 1796 - 1807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Sinclair, R. C. Molthen, S. T. Haworth, C. A. Dawson, and C. M. Waters Airway Strain during Mechanical Ventilation in an Intact Animal Model Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., October 15, 2007; 176(8): 786 - 794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Moriondo, P. Pelosi, A. Passi, M. Viola, C. Marcozzi, P. Severgnini, V. Ottani, M. Quaranta, and D. Negrini Proteoglycan fragmentation and respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated healthy rats J Appl Physiol, September 1, 2007; 103(3): 747 - 756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Naire and O. E. Jensen Epithelial cell deformation during surfactant-mediated airway reopening: a theoretical model J Appl Physiol, August 1, 2005; 99(2): 458 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 97/1/269    most recent 01288.2003v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kay, S. S. Articles by Gaver, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kay, S. S. Articles by Gaver, D. P., III