Defining minimum media requirements for ex vivo respiratory cilia studies


Abstract

Freshly harvested airway samples are routinely collected and imaged to study cilia function and diagnose motile ciliopathies. A previous study has suggested that Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (DPBS) is just as effective as complex traditional cell culture media for the ex vivo assessment of cilia motility using airway samples. The use of a less complex media to study cilia motility would be beneficial in reducing exogenous factors typically found in complex cell culture media that may influence cilia behaviour . Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the minimum media composition required to preserve airway ciliary function by incubating isolated mouse trachea sections in three simple saline-based solutions of increasing complexity (0.9% Saline, NaCl/KCl solution containing 150 mM NaCl / 4.15 mM KCl, DPBS) following 0-12 hours storage at either 4 °C or 37.5 °C.
Results reveal that a simple NaCl/KCl solution which approximates physiological extracellular concentrations of Na ⁺ , Cl ⁻ , and K ⁺ was sufficient to preserve ciliary motility in these tissues for up to two hours at 37 °C. Beyond two hours, samples stored in all solutions lacking an exogenous energy source displayed small but significant reductions in cilia beat frequency (CBF), which could be prevented by 10mM glucose supplementation, maintaining CBF for up to 12 hours. In contrast, storage in 0.9% saline led to a rapid and significant impairment of cilia motility, with this impairment being significantly more pronounced following 4°C storage vs 37 °C storage. Additionally , ciliated cells were found to be more susceptible to storage associated injury and cell death than non-ciliated epithelial cells, with this vulnerability exacerbated by storage in 0.9% saline and at 4 °C.
In conclusion, a simple NaCl/KCl solution is sufficient to maintain ciliary motility for up to two hours at 37°C, with glucose supplementation alone required to preserve CBF for up to 12 hours. The use of simplified media for cilia motility studies provides a standardized and cost-effective foundation for future mechanistic studies allowing clearer insights into underlying pathways regulating motile cilia function.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].