Comparing Cytology Brushes for Optimal Human Nasal Epithelial Cell Collection: Implications for Airway Disease Diagnosis and Research.

Laura K Fawcett, Nihan Turgutoglu, Katelin M Allan, Yvonne Belessis, John Widger, Adam Jaffe, Shafagh A Waters
Author Information
  1. Laura K Fawcett: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. ORCID
  2. Nihan Turgutoglu: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
  3. Katelin M Allan: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. ORCID
  4. Yvonne Belessis: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
  5. John Widger: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
  6. Adam Jaffe: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
  7. Shafagh A Waters: Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

Primary nasal epithelial cells and culture models are used as important diagnostic, research and drug development tools for several airway diseases. Various instruments have been used for the collection of human nasal epithelial (HNE) cells but no global consensus yet exists regarding the optimal tool. This study compares the efficiency of two cytology brushes (Olympus (2 mm diameter) and Endoscan (8 mm diameter)) in collecting HNE cells. The study involved two phases, with phase one comparing the yield, morphology and cilia beat frequency (CBF) of cells collected from paediatric participants using each of the two brushes. Phase two compared nasal brushing under general anaesthetic and in the awake state, across a wide age range, via the retrospective audit of the use of the Endoscan brush in 145 participants. Results indicated no significant difference in CBF measurements between the two brushes, suggesting that the choice of brush does not compromise diagnostic accuracy. However, the Endoscan brush collected significantly more total and live cells than the Olympus brush, making it a more efficient option. Importantly, the Endoscan brush is more cost-effective, with a notable price difference between the two brushes.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun 15;197(12):e24-e39 [PMID: 29905515]
  2. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2016 Jan;8(1):69-78 [PMID: 26540504]
  3. Respir Res. 2019 Nov 20;20(1):259 [PMID: 31747925]
  4. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Apr 24;22(9): [PMID: 33923202]
  5. J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jun;44(6):2265-7 [PMID: 16757636]
  6. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2022 Jul;67(1):99-111 [PMID: 35471184]
  7. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2016 Mar;18:8-17 [PMID: 26362507]
  8. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 25;9(2):e89675 [PMID: 24586956]
  9. Front Pediatr. 2022 Nov 16;10:1062766 [PMID: 36467478]
  10. J Cyst Fibros. 2021 Mar;20(2):364-371 [PMID: 33414087]
  11. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019 Oct;54(10):1627-1638 [PMID: 31313529]
  12. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014 Mar;134(3):296-9 [PMID: 24359095]
  13. Tanaffos. 2021 Feb;20(2):86-98 [PMID: 34976079]
  14. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2012 Dec 1;303(11):C1173-9 [PMID: 23015550]
  15. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2017 Dec;134(6):377-382 [PMID: 28501546]
  16. Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Aug 4;19(2):217-231 [PMID: 27320041]
  17. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2008 Nov;39(5):560-8 [PMID: 18483420]
  18. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 Nov 30;9(12): [PMID: 33266084]
  19. JCI Insight. 2018 Jul 12;3(13): [PMID: 29997283]
  20. Exp Lung Res. 2014 Sep;40(7):327-32 [PMID: 25058379]
  21. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 04;8(11):e78321 [PMID: 24223790]
  22. J Vis Exp. 2021 Nov 10;(177): [PMID: 34842237]
  23. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct 15;188(8):913-22 [PMID: 23796196]
  24. Eur Respir J. 2014 Dec;44(6):1579-88 [PMID: 25186273]
  25. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2020 Dec;157:47-58 [PMID: 33065219]
  26. Front Pharmacol. 2018 Dec 07;9:1429 [PMID: 30581387]
  27. ERJ Open Res. 2020 Nov 10;6(4): [PMID: 33263055]

Grants

  1. NA/Sydney Childrens Hospitals Foundation
  2. NHMRC_APP1188987/National Health and Medical Research Council
  3. Foundation project grant/Rebecca L. Cooper Medical Research Foundation
  4. The David Miller Giles Innovation Grant/Cystic Fibrosis Australia
  5. Research Grant/Luminesce Alliance
  6. PhD Scholarship/Rotary club of Sydney Cove
  7. Postgraduate Award/UNSW Sydney
  8. Research Training Program Scholarship/Australian Government
  9. Scientia Fellowship/UNSW Sydney

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cellstwobrushnasalbrushesEndoscanepithelialcultureuseddiagnosticairwayHNEstudycytologyOlympusmmdiameterciliabeatfrequencyCBFcollectedparticipantsbrushingdifferencePrimarymodelsimportantresearchdrugdevelopmenttoolsseveraldiseasesVariousinstrumentscollectionhumanglobalconsensusyetexistsregardingoptimaltoolcomparesefficiency28collectinginvolvedphasesphaseonecomparingyieldmorphologypaediatricusingPhasecomparedgeneralanaestheticawakestateacrosswideagerangeviaretrospectiveaudituse145ResultsindicatedsignificantmeasurementssuggestingchoicecompromiseaccuracyHoweversignificantlytotallivemakingefficientoptionImportantlycost-effectivenotablepriceComparingCytologyBrushesOptimalHumanNasalEpithelialCellCollection:ImplicationsAirwayDiseaseDiagnosisResearchPCDdiseasechildrenciliarycysticfibrosisprimarycell

Similar Articles

Cited By