Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30035761›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2018

Nasal Potential Difference to Quantify Trans-epithelial Ion Transport in Mice.

Mathilde Beka, Teresinha Leal

Open access · greenAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mathilde BekaLouvain Center for Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (LTAP), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Université Catholique de Louvain.
Teresinha LealLouvain Center for Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (LTAP), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Université Catholique de Louvain; Teresinha.Leal@uclouvain.be.
UCLouvain · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nasal potential difference test has been used for almost three decades to assist in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF). It has proven to be helpful in cases of attenuated, oligo- or mono-symptomatic forms of CF usually diagnosed later in life, and of CF-related disorders such as congenital bilateral absence of vas deferens, idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and bronchiectasis. In both clinical and preclinical settings, the test has been used as a biomarker to quantify responses to targeted therapeutic strategies for CF. Adapting the test to a mouse is challenging and can entail an associated mortality. This paper describes the adequate depth of anesthesia required to maintain a nasal catheter in situ for continuous perfusion. It lists measures to avoid broncho-aspiration of solutions perfused in the nose. It also describes the animal care at the end of the test, including administration of a combination of antidotes of the anesthetic drugs, leading to rapidly reversing the anesthesia with full recovery of the animals. Representative data obtained from a CF and a wild-type mouse show that the test discriminates between CF and non-CF. Altogether, the protocol described here allows reliable measurements of the functional status of trans-epithelial chloride and sodium transporters in spontaneously breathing mice, as well as multiple tests in the same animal while reducing test-related mortality.

Indexed as

AnimalsIon TransportMaleMiceNasal Mucosa

Identifiers

PMID30035761
PMCPMC6124602
OpenAlexW2873285652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.