↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Electronic Cigarette (ECIG)-Generated Aerosol and Conventional Cigarette Smoke on the Mucociliary Transport Velocity (MTV) Using the Bullfrog (R. catesbiana) Palate Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effects of Electronic Cigarette (ECIG)-Generated Aerosol and Conventional Cigarette Smoke on the Mucociliary Transport Velocity (MTV) Using the Bullfrog (R. catesbiana) Palate Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.01023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic L. Palazzolo, John M. Nelson, Emily A. Ely, Andrew P. Crow, James Distin, Stan C. Kunigelis

Abstract

Background: While ECIGs are under scrutiny concerning safety, particularly in reference to the physiological impact that aerosolized ECIG liquid (E-liquid) may have on respiratory tissues, others believe that ECIGs are a "Harm Reduction" alternative to conventional cigarettes. Previous studies investigating ciliated respiratory epithelium indicate that smoking shortens cilia length, reduces cilia beat frequency and disrupts respiratory epithelium, which most likely contributes to the inhibition of mucocilliary clearance. Monitoring mucous clearance of respiratory tissues exposed to ECIG-generated aerosol or conventional cigarette smoke, as indexed by mucous transport velocity (MTV), is one way to gauge the impact aerosol and smoke have on the respiratory tract. Therefore, we designed an experiment to test the effect of ECIG-generated aerosol and smoke on MTV using the frog palate paradigm. Methods: Peristaltic pumps transport ECIG-generated aerosol and conventional cigarette smoke into custom-made chambers containing excised bullfrog palates. MTVs were determined before exposure, immediately after exposure and approximately 1 day following exposure. MTVs were also determined (at the same time points) for palates exposed to air (control). Surface and cross sectional SEM images of palates from all three groups were obtained to support MTV data. Results: The results indicate that ECIG-generated aerosol has a modest inhibitory effect (p < 0.05) on MTV 1 day post-exposure (0.09 ± 0.01) compared to control MTV (0.16 ± 0.03 mm/s). In contrast, smoke completely inhibits MTV from 0.14 ± 0.03 mm/s immediately before exposure to 0.00 mm/sec immediately after exposure and the MTV is unable to recover 1 day later. SEM images of control palates and palates exposed to ECIG-generated aerosol both show cilia throughout their epithelial surface, while some areas of palates exposed to smoke are completely devoid of cilia. Additionally, the epithelial thickness of aerosol-exposed palates appears thicker than control palates while smoke-exposed palates appear to be thinner due to epithelial disruption. Conclusions: These results indicate that ECIG-generated aerosol has only a modest effect on mucocilary clearance of bullfrog palates and aerosol sedimentation accounts for epithelial thickening. In accordance with the primary literature, conventional cigarette smoke dramatically inhibits mucociliary clearance and is, in part, due to decreased number of cilia and disruption of the smoke-exposed epithelium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 19 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Psychology 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,454,971
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,476
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#375,220
of 439,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#212
of 321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 321 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.