{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012531328320802004, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008521303258145364, 'mean_word_length': 5.501628664495114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of the effects of polyarginine and stimulated eosinophils on the responsiveness of the bovine isovolumic bronchial segment preparation

1 The bovine isovolumic bronchial segment preparation has been used to study the sensitivity and responsiveness of bronchial smooth muscle after various manipulations. 2 Addition of acetylcholine (ACh) to the lumen of the segments elicited an increase in intraluminal pressure as a result of contraction of the airway smooth muscle. However, the increases in intraluminal pressure were greater when the ACh was added to the adventitial surface of the preparation. 3 Addition of polyarginine to the bronchial lumen for 60–120 min resulted in an increased magnitude of response and greater than 100 fold increase in sensitivity to ACh administered into the lumen. Depolarizations induced by KCl were similarly enhanced when the solution was added into the lumen. In contrast, the sensitivity and responsiveness to ACh or K+‐induced depolarization administered adventitially was unchanged. 4 The mechanical disruption of the epithelium produced a 32 fold increase in sensitivity to ACh introduced via the lumen, whereas the sensitivity to ACh added adventitially remained unaltered. 5 Addition of polyarginine to the adventitial bathing medium resulted in no change in the responsiveness or sensitivity to ACh, irrespective of whether the ACh was given intraluminally or adventitially. 6 Histological examination revealed that polyarginine caused extensive disordering of the normal architecture of the bronchial epithelium. Taken together with the unaltered responsiveness to adventitial ACh (i.e. lack of change in intrinsic muscle sensitivity) these observations suggest that the effect of polyarginine was most likely due to disruption of a diffusion barrier. 7 In contrast to the effects of polyarginine, the only effect of stimulated eosinophils was to produce a small diminution in the responsiveness to ACh that had been added adventitially.