LETTERS TO THE EDITORAssessment of air space size and surface areaB. Lande, and W. MitznerB. LandeDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and W. MitznerDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MarylandPublished Online:01 Mar 2010https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00006.2010MoreSectionsPDF (26 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations to the editor: Dr. Knudsen and colleagues (1) are to be congratulated for a very important paper, comparing two different approaches for quantifying air space chord lengths in fixed lungs. The ability to make these measurements in an unbiased manner is very important in assessing pathological changes in emphysema models. The paper also highlights the relation between mean air space chord length (Lm; with either method) and lung volume, which is often overlooked by many investigators. However, with regard to this latter point, there is an issue in the data that is not entirely clear. In the rabbit model, the lung is inflated such that the lung air volume at 80% of total lung capacity (D80) is increased by a factor of 2 compared with that at 40% of total lung capacity (D40) (Table 1, 72 vs. 36 ml). Such a doubling of volume would be consistent with a ≈25% increase in any linear dimension of similar structures. However, the reported measurements of Lm show increases of 80% with the direct method and 64% with the indirect method. Thinking in the other direction, an 80% increase in linear dimension would be consistent with over a fivefold increase in air volume, but this is not even close to what was measured. It is not clear what accounts for this large discrepancy, but it clearly will also lead to a substantial underestimate of the calculated internal surface area. Since the surface area calculation assumes a similar shape, perhaps the shifting volume between alveoli and ducts observed contributes to an error of this magnitude. However, a similar error is present in the treated and untreated surfactant protein-D null mice, which show a smaller change in duct/alveoli partitioning. We hope that the authors may be able to clarify why there is such a discrepancy between the Lm and lung volume measurements, and when it is appropriate to use Eq. 1 [Lm = 4·(V/S), where V/S is volume-to-surface ratio] to calculate surface area in other experimental models with pathophysiological changes in the lung parenchyma. If the surface area calculation is so exquisitely sensitive to the duct/alveoli partitioning, then is it still useful to use it as a reliable index of pathological changes in structure?REFERENCE1. Knudsen L, Weibel ER, Gundersen HJ, Weinstein FV, Ochs M. Assessment of air space size characteristics by intercept (chord) measurement: an accurate and efficient stereological approach. J Appl Physiol (12 3, 2009). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01100.2009.ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: W. Mitzner, Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: [email protected]edu). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Related ArticlesReply to Lande and Mitzner 01 Mar 2010Journal of Applied Physiology More from this issue > Volume 108Issue 3March 2010Pages 760-760 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00006.2010PubMed20233838History Published online 1 March 2010 Published in print 1 March 2010 Metrics
Read full abstract