Due to frequent and often severe lung affections caused by COVID-19, murine models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are increasingly used in experimental lung research. The one induced by a single lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure is practical. However, whether it is preferable to administer LPS intranasally or intratracheally remains an open question. Herein, female C57Bl/6 J mice were exposed intranasally or intratracheally to one dose of either saline or 3 mg/kg of LPS. They were studied 24 h later. The groups treated with LPS, either intranasally or intratracheally, exhibited a pronounced neutrophilic inflammation, signs of lung tissue damage and protein extravasation into the alveoli, and mild lung dysfunction. The magnitude of the response was generally not different between groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. However, the variability of some the responses was smaller in the LPS-treated groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. Notably, the saline-treated mice exposed intratracheally demonstrated a mild neutrophilic inflammation and alterations of the airway epithelium. We conclude that an intranasal exposure is as effective as an intratracheal exposure in a murine model of ARDS induced by LPS. Additionally, the groups exposed intranasally demonstrated less variability in the responses to LPS and less complications associated with the sham procedure.

No abstract

Despite improved awareness of work‐related diseases and preventive measures, many workers are still at high risk of developing occupational hypersensitivity airway diseases. This stems from a lack of knowledge of bioaerosol composition and their potential effects on human health. Recently, archaea species were identified in bioaerosols, raising the possibility that they play a major role in exposure‐related pathology. Specifically, Methanosphaera stadtmanae (MSS) and Methanobrevibacter smithii (MBS) are found in high concentrations in agricultural environments and respiratory exposure to crude extract demonstrates immunomodulatory activity in mice. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the specific impact of methanogens exposure on airway immunity and their potential to induce airway hypersensitivity responses in workers remains scant. Analysis of the lung mucosal response to methanogen crude extracts in mice demonstrated that MSS and MBS predominantly induced TH17 airway inflammation, typical of a type IV hypersensitivity response. Furthermore, the response to MSS was associated with antigen‐specific IgG1 and IgG2a production. However, despite the presence of eosinophils after MSS exposure, only a weak TH2 response and no airway hyperresponsiveness were observed. Finally, using eosinophil and mast cell‐deficient mice, we confirmed that these cells are dispensable for the TH17 response to MSS, although eosinophils likely contribute to the exacerbation of inflammatory processes induced by MSS crude extract exposure. We conclude that, as MSS induces a clear type IV hypersensitivity lung response, it has the potential to be harmful to workers frequently exposed to this methanogen, and that preventive measures should be taken to avoid chronic hypersensitivity disease development in workers.