Journal of Applied Physiology Watch the video to learn how APS reaches out to developing nations.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 99: 378-380, 2005; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00163.2005
8750-7587/05 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rottier, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by George, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rottier, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by George, S. C.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A different analysis applied to a mathematical model on output of exhaled nitric oxide

ABSTRACT

The following is the abstract of the article discussed in the following letter:

The relatively recent detection of nitric oxide (NO) in the exhaled breath has prompted a great deal of experimentation in an effort to understand the pulmonary exchange dynamics. There has been very little progress in theoretical studies to assist in the interpretation of the experimental results. We have developed a two-compartment model of the lungs in an effort to explain several fundamental experimental observations. The model consists of a nonexpansile compartment representing the conducting airways and an expansile compartment representing the alveolar region of the lungs. Each compartment is surrounded by a layer of tissue that is capable of producing and consuming NO. Beyond the tissue barrier in each compartment is a layer of blood representing the bronchial circulation or the pulmonary circulation, which are both considered an infinite sink for NO. All parameters were estimated from data in the literature, including the production rates of NO in the tissue layers, which were estimated from experimental plots of the elimination rate of NO at end exhalation (ENO) vs. the exhalation flow rate (E). The model is able to simulate the shape of the NO exhalation profile and to successfully simulate the following experimental features of endogenous NO exchange: 1) an inverse relationship between exhaled NO concentration and E, 2) the dynamic relationship between the phase III slope and E, and 3) the positive relationship between ENO and E. The model predicts that these relationships can be explained by significant contributions of NO in the exhaled breath from the nonexpansile airways and the expansile alveoli. In addition, the model predicts that the relationship between ENO and E can be used as an index of the relative contributions of the airways and the alveoli to exhaled NO.

To the Editor: Exhaled nitric oxide (NO) reflects airway inflammation. By measuring NO at different flow rates the relative contributions of the airways and alveolar compartment may be estimated, as demonstrated by Tsoukias and George (1). They proposed a two-compartment model of pulmonary NO output in an effort to explain several fundamental and experimental observations. Total output of NO (ENO) is:

In this equation E,ee is the flow at end exhalation, Calv,ee is an estimate of the alveolar concentration, t:g,air is the average flux of NO from airway tissue to luminal air, and As,air the total surface area of airway tissue. By plotting the E,ee values on the x-axis and ENO values on the y-axis of an x-y diagram, the slope of the regression line between measurements at different flow rates is supposed to be consistent with the NO concentration of the alveolar compartment, while the intercept with the y-axis is consistent with the NO flux from airway tissue (Fig. 6 in Ref. 1).

However, NO output is calculated as the product of the constant expiratory flow and the NO concentration. Therefore, there is a mathematical relation between the variables on the x-axis and the y-axis. A necessary condition to derive meaningful results from linear regression and its associated correlation coefficient is that the variables on the x-axis and y-axis are independent, i.e., have no mathematical relation. In the present model this can be achieved by rearranging the above equation:


where Cee is the NO concentration measured in exhaled air at end exhalation. By plotting Cee on the y-axis and 1/E,ee on the x-axis, the slope of the line between measurements now is consistent with the NO flux. Meanwhile, the intercept with the y-axis is consistent with the alveolar NO concentration. Because an indefinitely high E,ee minimizes the bronchial contribution to the total NO output, the NO concentration measured in exhaled air then approximates the concentration of the alveoli.

To analyze whether such a new arrangement in this two-compartment model changes the end results significantly, we measured end-expiratory NO concentrations three times at four different flow rates (30, 50, 100, and 200 ml/s), using a NIOX (Aerocrine, Stockholm, Sweden). Study subjects were four healthy and six asthmatic individuals of various ages (5–43 yr) and sex (4 male, 6 female). Afterward, we derived the alveolar NO concentrations [parts/billion (ppb)] and bronchial NO fluxes (nl/s) following the two equations described above. The rearranged equation led to small but significant shifts between the alveolar and bronchial contribution. The mean (SD) alveolar concentration according to Tsoukias and George (1) compared with our analysis was 4.19 (1.19.) vs. 5.58 (1.82) ppb (P < 0.05). Also, the mean (SD) bronchial NO flux differed: 1.00 (0.60) vs 0.90 (0.51) nl/s (P < 0.05). The mean (SD) difference between the two methods in alveolar NO concentration was 1.39 (1.25) ppb and in bronchial NO flux was 0.10 (0.09) nl/s (see Fig. 1).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Bland and Altman plot of bronchial nitric oxide (NO) flux (A; x-axis) and alveolar NO concentration (B; x-axis). On the y-axes is the difference between the Tsoukias' and our method. Solid symbols, individuals with asthma; open symbols, healthy individuals. ppb, Parts/billion.

 
We conclude that a different way of applying the mathematical two-compartment model on NO output of Tsoukias and George (1) leads to small but significant shifts in the alveolar and bronchial contribution. The two methods differ especially for higher NO values (see Fig. 1), so when more inflammation is present.

Although the differences are small, for the sake of methodological correctness we would prefer the modified equation:

REFERENCE

  1. Tsoukias NM and George SC. A two-compartment model of pulmonary nitric oxide exchange dynamics. J Appl Physiol 85: 653–666, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bart L. Rottier
Department of Paediatrics
E-mail: b.l.rottier{at}bkk.umcg.nl


Judith Cohen
Department of Pulmonary Medicine


Thom W. van der Mark
Department of Pulmonary Medicine


W. Rob Douma
Department of Pulmonary Medicine


Eric J. Duiverman
Department of Paediatrics


Nick H. T. ten Hacken

E-mail: n.h.t.tenhacken{at}int.umcg.nl
Department Pulmonary Medicine
University Medical Center Groningen/Beatrix Children’s Hospital
University of Groningen
9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands


 

REPLY

To the Editor: The opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor by Rottier and colleagues is greatly appreciated. We would like to thank them for a thoughtful letter that contrasts two techniques for determining two NO exchange parameters: alveolar NO concentration (CANO) and the maximum airway flux of NO (J'awNO). The solution of the two-compartment model for the exhaled NO concentration at constant air flow (CENO,) is nonlinear (2, 5),

(1)
where DawNO is airway diffusing capacity and is the exhalation flow. For mathematical simplicity, a linear approximation of Eq. 1 can be made (2, 4):

(2)
To fit measurements of CENO, at constant to determine CANO and J'awNO, Rottier and colleagues recommend plotting CENO, vs. 1/, a technique described previously by Pietropaoli et al. (4) and referred to as the "Pietropaoli technique" (2). Our group plotted CENO,· vs. , which has been described as the "Tsoukias technique" (2) and was originally introduced in a companion paper (6) to that cited by Rottier and colleagues. Although mathematical coupling occurs in the Tsoukias technique, it may lead to errors only in statistical inferences (1, 3). However, the goal of this analysis is determining unknown physiological parameters, CANO and J'awNO, based on a mathematical model, by minimizing the sum of errors squared (SSE) between the experimental observations and that predicted by the model:

(3)
where superscripts "exp" and "mod" refer to experimental and model values of CENO,, respectively; n is the number of measurements; and W is the weight function, which may be dependent on . Of note is the observation that if W = 2 for the Pietropaoli technique, then the objective function (right-hand side of Eq. 2) to determine J'awNO and CANO is equivalent to the Tsoukias technique with W = 1. Hence, the Tsoukias method effectively places more weight on the exhaled concentrations collected at higher flows.

How does the choice of W() impact the error of the estimated parameters? To answer this question, a simple simulation with the following assumptions was performed: 1) the nonlinear solution of the two-compartment (Eq. 1) represents the true lungs or the gold standard; 2) two ranges of exhalation flows were examined that included those of Rottier and colleagues (30, 50, 100, and 200 ml/s) and a higher range that is more commonly found in the literature (100, 200, 250, and 300 ml/s); 3) the true values for J'awNO, CANO, and DawNO were 1,000 pl/s, 5.0 ppb, and 10 ml/s, respectively, and represent typical values inbetween a healthy subject and an asthmatic subject; 4) CENO, was calculated using Eq. 1, and a normally distributed error with a standard deviation of 1 ppb was superimposed on the data to represent random error from the experimental sampling system; and 5) J'awNO and CANO were determined by the Pietropaoli and Tsoukias techniques for 500 consecutive simulations in which a new random error was superimposed on CENO, for each simulation.

The mean values of J'awNO and CANO determined from the simulations were dependent on the technique employed (see Fig. 1) in a pattern consistent with that observed by Rottier and colleagues. However, the average error relative to the true values for a single simulation was actually lower for the Tsoukias technique. The differences between the techniques were greater for the low flow range 30–200 ml/s.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. The percent error in the estimated values of the physiological parameters the maximum airway flux of nitric oxide (NO) (J'awNO) and the alveolar NO concentration (CANO)are shown as a function of the technique (Pietropaoli and Tsoukias, see text) employed and the exhaled flow range. A: low flow, 30–200 ml/s. B: high flow, 100–300 ml/s. , exhalation flow. *Statistically significant difference between techniques, P < 0.05.

 
In summary, J'awNO and CANO may be determined from exhaled NO concentrations at different exhalation flows by plotting either CENO, vs. 1/ (Pietropaoli technique) or CENO,· vs. (Tsoukias technique). The Tsoukias technique places greater emphasis on high-flow data, which more accurately reflect the linear approximation of the two-compartment model. As a result, the Tsoukias technique actually provides more accurate estimates for the model-based parameters, J'awNO and CANO, relative to the Pietropaoli technique.

REFERENCES

  1. Archie JP Jr. Mathematic coupling of data: a common source of error. Ann Surg 193: 296–303, 1981.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. George SC, Hogman M, Permutt S, and Silkoff PE. Modeling pulmonary nitric oxide exchange. J Appl Physiol 96: 831–839, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Moreno LF, Stratton HH, Newell JC, and Feustel PJ. Mathematical coupling of data: correction of a common error for linear calculations. J Appl Physiol 60: 335–343, 1986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Pietropaoli AP, Perillo IB, Torres A, Perkins PT, Frasier LM, Utell MJ, Frampton MW, and Hyde RW. Simultaneous measurement of nitric oxide production by conducting and alveolar airways of humans. J Appl Physiol 87: 1532–1542, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Tsoukias NM and George SC. A two-compartment model of pulmonary nitric oxide exchange dynamics. J Appl Physiol 85: 653–666, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Tsoukias NM, Tannous Z, Wilson AF, and George SC. Single-exhalation profiles of NO and CO2 in humans: effect of dynamically changing flow rate. J Appl Physiol 85: 642–652, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Steven C. George
Department of Biochemical Engineering
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, California 92697-2515
E-mail: scgeorge{at}uci.edu




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
J. Cohen, W. R. Douma, N. H. T. ten Hacken, J. M. Vonk, M. Oudkerk, and D. S. Postma
Ciclesonide improves measures of small airway involvement in asthma
Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2008; 31(6): 1213 - 1220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
P. Condorelli, H.-W. Shin, A. S. Aledia, P. E. Silkoff, and S. C. George
A simple technique to characterize proximal and peripheral nitric oxide exchange using constant flow exhalations and an axial diffusion model
J Appl Physiol, January 1, 2007; 102(1): 417 - 425.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rottier, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by George, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rottier, B. L.
Right arrow Articles by George, S. C.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the American Physiological Society.