Variation of Ciliary Beat Pattern in Three Different Beating Planes in Healthy Subjects
Variation of Ciliary Beat Pattern in Three Different Beating Planes in Healthy Subjects
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.015
复制
发表时间：
2017-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.6
通讯作者：
Chilvers, Mark A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kempeneers, Celine;Seaton, Claire;Chilvers, Mark A.
背景：数字高速视频显微镜(DHSV)可以在三个平面上分析呼吸道纤毛的纤毛搏动频率(CBF)和纤毛搏动模式(CBP)。正常的参考数据使用侧边来评估纤毛运动障碍，并使用纤毛完成10个搏动周期所需的时间来计算CBF。呼吸上皮内CBF的变异性已被描述，但有关CBP变异性的数据仅限于健康上皮。本研究的目的是记录正常样本CBP的变异性，比较三个剖面的睫毛功能，并比较5个或10个拍频周期计算的CBF。方法：用DHSV在三个剖面记录13名健康受试者的刷鼻标本。结果：82.1%的侧缘CBP和CBF均匀分布。在侧向侧貌中，边缘内的一致性较低(均匀的正常CBP，69.1%[侧向侧貌]；97.1%[朝向观察者]，92.0%[上方])，运动障碍较高。观察者之间对运动障碍的一致意见很差。CBF在不同心搏周期之间(P=.8097)或10至5个搏动周期(P=.1126)之间没有差异。结论：我们的研究表明，来自健康受试者样本的手动CBP分析缺乏一致性和一致性，强调了在有限的感兴趣区域进行自动CBP分析以及单一和有限的手动CBP分析的风险。朝向观察者和从上面的轮廓可以用来计算CBF，但对于睫状肌运动障碍和CBP的评估可能不那么敏感。仅通过评估五拍周期，就可以可靠地测量CBF。
BACKGROUND: Digital high-speed video microscopy (DHSV) allows analysis of ciliary beat frequency (CBF) and ciliary beat pattern (CBP) of respiratory cilia in three planes. Normal reference data use a sideways edge to evaluate ciliary dyskinesia and calculate CBF using the time needed for a cilium to complete 10 beat cycles. Variability in CBF within the respiratory epithelium has been described, but data concerning variation of CBP is limited in healthy epithelium. This study aimed to document variability of CBP in normal samples, to compare ciliary function in three profiles, and to compare CBF calculated over five or 10 beat cycles.METHODS: Nasal brushing samples from 13 healthy subjects were recorded using DHSV in three profiles. CBP and CBF over a 10-beat cycle were evaluated in all profiles, and CBF was reevaluated over five-beat cycles in the sideways edges.RESULTS: A uniform CBP was seen in 82.1% of edges. In the sideways profile, uniformity within the edge was lower (uniform normal CBP, 69.1% [sideways profile]; 97.1% [toward the observer], 92.0% [ from above]), and dyskinesia was higher. Interobserver agreement for dyskinesia was poor. CBF was not different between profiles (P = .8097) or between 10 and five beat cycles (P = .1126).CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a lack of uniformity and consistency in manual CBP analysis of samples from healthy subjects, emphasizing the risk of automated CBP analysis in limited regions of interest and of single and limited manual CBP analysis. The toward the observer and from above profiles may be used to calculate CBF but may be less sensitive for evaluation of ciliary dyskinesia and CBP. CBF can be measured reliably by evaluation of only five-beat cycles.