In 20 normal and four anosmic participants, instantaneous inhalation and exhalation flow rates were recorded in response to 15 s stimulations with clean air or propionic acid concentrations (0.16, 1.14, 8.22 and 59.15 p.p.m., v/v) that ranged from peri-threshold for normals to clearly supra-threshold for anosmics. Each odorant/irritant delivery to the face-mask began with an exhalation. This allowed concentration to reach full value before stimulus onset, defined as the point where the participant began to bring the stimulus into the nose by inhalation. Two seconds after this stimulus onset, normals exhibited cumulative inhaled volume (CIV) declines of 39 and 14%, and latencies of 500 and 710 ms, with presentations of 59.15 and 8.22 p.p.m., respectively. With anosmics, 59.15 p.p.m. caused a 19% decline in CIV that began at 730 ms. Examination of the first inhalation after stimulus onset shows that the CIV declines in normals were achieved by a progressive decline in volume (InVol), beginning with a slight drop at 1.14 p.p.m., and a marked decline in duration (InDur) with only the highest concentration. Anosmics exhibited declines in InDur and InVol with only the 59.15 p.p.m. stimulus, and these declines were much more modest than the changes seen in normals. Comparison of these breathing results with perceptual responses from this same experiment demonstrates that: (i) in normals, odor perception rises slightly, but breathing does not change, with the lowest concentration; (ii) the higher breathing sensitivity (declines in InVol) of normals is paralleled by both the higher nasal irritation of these individuals and the presence of odor sensation; (iii) InDur declines in normals only with a stimulus concentration sufficient to cause marked nasal irritation in anosmics; and iv) in anosmics, modest but reliable declines in both InDur and InVol mirror the marked elevation in nasal irritation magnitude seen with only the highest concentration. In view of the failure of prior work to provide evidence that olfactory activation alone can cause any of the breathing changes we observed, we conclude that some breathing parameters are quite useful as rapid and sensitive measures of nasal irritation that arises from activation of nasal trigeminal afferents alone or in combination with the olfactory nerve.
The objective of this study was to fully characterize normosmic perception of stimuli expected to cause widely varying degrees of olfactory and nasal trigeminal stimulation and to directly evaluate the possible role of olfactory nerve stimulation in nasal irritation sensitivity. During each of four identical test sessions, four anosmic and 31 normosmic participants were presented with a range of concentrations extending from peri-threshold for normosmics to supra-threshold for anosmics. For each session, odor (O) and nasal irritation (NI) sensitivities were summarized in terms of the concentrations required to produce four sensation levels ('iso-response' concentrations). Within-participant variation in these iso-response concentrations was < 10-fold for 95% of normosmics, for both O and NI. For O but not NI, these apparent fluctuations in sensitivity were largely accounted for by the uncertainty surrounding the iso-response concentrations calculated for each session. Anosmics exhibited minimal within- and between-participant variation in NI and required, for all but the highest perceptual level, a higher concentration than almost all normosmics. Between-participant variation, expressed in terms of 90% confidence interval widths, was approximately 0.5 log units for both O and NI for the highest perceptual level, but increased to approximately 0.8 and 1.8 log units, respectively, for the lowest (peri-threshold) level. Our findings suggest that: (i) most apparent variation over time in O sensitivity is actually a reflection of the uncertainty surrounding estimates of sensitivity obtained for each session; (ii) within- and between-participant variation in O sensitivity is far less than is commonly reported; and (iii) low to moderate levels of NI in normosmics are the result of relatively weak trigeminal stimulation combined with much greater olfactory activation.
Twenty-four nasal mucosa specimens were obtained from the inferior or middle turbinates of 6 normal subjects and 18 patients with chronic sinusitis, inflammatory polyp formation, or sinus allergies. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis was used to identify the non-neuronal nicotinic cholinergic receptor (nAChR) subunits that were expressed in the nasal mucosa. Collectively, transcripts for alpha (alpha1, alpha2, alpha3, alpha4, alpha6, alpha7) and beta (beta2, beta3, beta4) nAChR subunit genes were detected in the respiratory mucosa. The alpha3, alpha7, and beta2 subunits were expressed in 92%, 88%, and 75% of the subjects, respectively. There was a high degree of interindividual variation in nAChR subunit gene expression among subjects. A significant univariate association was found between tissue type and beta4 expression and between gender and beta3 expression. These data suggest that cells in the nasal mucosa express the necessary messenger RNAs (mRNAs) for numerous nAChR combinations. Moreover, our identification of nAChR subunit mRNAs in the nasal mucosa extends the findings of other functional studies of nAChRs in nasal epithelial cells and implies that nicotine from tobacco products such as cigarette smoke and nicotine nasal spray may have direct cellular effects on nasal mucosa cells through activation of homogeneous or heterogeneous nAChRs. A significant number of patients receiving nicotine nasal spray have reported nasal irritation, and there are reports of transient irritation of the throat and trachea with the use of smoke-free nicotine cigarettes. These adverse respiratory effects may be due to activation of nAChRs in epithelial cells of the nose and trachea.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.