The mechanisms by which cigarette smoke attenuates airway eosinophilia are not currently understood. Trimble et al. (2009) observed robust eosinophilic airway inflammation in mice that

were exposed to smoke over a sensitization period only, while eosinophilic airway inflammation was attenuated by continuous cigarette smoke exposure (Trimble et al., 2009). These findings imply that cigarette smoke has both adjuvant and anti-inflammatory properties in models of allergic airway inflammation. Moerloose et al. (2005) observed an exacerbation of the inflammatory responses in animals exposed to smoke (Moerloose et al., 2005). The reasons for these discordant results are unclear. Differences in the experimental approaches may partially explain these results. selleck products Seymour et al. (1997) suggested that exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can result in different effects on inflammation and sensitization. In their experiment, they observed that exposure of mice to ETS up-regulated allergic responses to inhaled allergens, while mainstream exposure to cigarette smoke (similar to our experimental model) could act in an opposite way (Seymour et al., 1997). In our experimental model, we observed an increase in the Small molecule library elastance response to a nebulized

methacholine solution in the OVA group. This increase in pulmonary responsiveness was observed when Htis was measured but not when Raw was studied, suggesting that the site of the response was in the lung parenchyma and/or distal airways and not in the central airways. Peták et al. (1997) studied the effects of methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in rats in response to intravenous (i.v.) versus aerosol administration and suggested that Mch acts on distinct structures when delivered by inhalation or i.v. Mch produces a muscle contraction by stimulating the muscarinic cholinergic receptors (Peták et al., 1997). Sly et al. (1995) investigated the

role of the muscarinic receptors in puppies and observed that different receptors may be involved in producing airway and parenchymal constriction in response Nintedanib (BIBF 1120) to inhaled Mch. M3 receptors located on the airway smooth muscle are likely to be responsible for airway responses and may be more easily reached by i.v.-delivered Mch, whereas Mch delivered by the aerosol route must diffuse across the respiratory epithelium before reaching the muscle (Barnes, 1993). In contrast, M1 receptors in the alveolar wall, which are reported to be involved in the parenchymal response (Sly et al., 1995), are likely to be reached more easily by aerosol delivery than by the i.v. route.