Reply to De Mey et al.

reply: We thank Drs. Jo G. R. De Mey, Ulf Simonsen, and Christian Aalkjær (1) for their insightful comments on our guidelines for the measurement of vascular function and structure in isolated arteries and veins (2), recently published in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. We acknowledge Drs. De Mey, Simonsen, and Aalkjær for their several important contributions to the field of vascular physiology, including the most recent review published in Physiological Reviews about sympathetic and sensory-motor nerves in peripheral small arteries (3).

We understand the authors’ concerns about our new guidelines not addressing vascular nerves. In fact, the assessment of the perivascular nerves (e.g., electrical field stimulation) was initially considered a section in these guidelines (2). However, after discussion and further consideration, the diverse pool of experts that coauthored these guidelines collectively decided to first focus on the current and most used methods of vascular physiology. With this in mind, we aimed to provide recommendations for techniques used to evaluate local aspects of vascular physiology. In support of this decision, it is important to highlight the argument described by two of the authors of this Letter to the Editor (1), Drs. Aalkjær and De Mey in their own review published in Physiological Reviews (3). Accordingly, the authors wrote, “A few decades ago, vascular innervation was the focus of much research; however, interest in this area has waned for a period of time … new information has been slowly emerging …” (3). In accordance, little has been done in the past 10–20 yr in the field of vascular nerves when compared with the techniques that were mentioned in the guidelines. Therefore, although we agree that innervation of small arteries is of key importance for understanding vascular physiology, our guidelines first addressed the concerns of the most “popular” techniques in the field. Nevertheless, as was mentioned in the Letter to the Editor (1), the necessary flexibility, debate, volume, and detail of information required to accomplish this are hard to accommodate within the framework of a regular scientific paper or review [like our guidelines (2)]. To alleviate these concerns, the authors of the guidelines (2) suggested several ideas, including that of having these guidelines be “living” document constantly refined as techniques improve. For instance, Dr. Stephanie Watts mentioned that the guidelines could be separated into subunits, including one on nerves and electrical field stimulation that could be commissioned separately, published, and still be associated with our original guidelines (2). If not plausible, a new guidelines indeed would also be appropriate to target specific areas that were not included originally, such as vascular nerves (1) and the bicarbonate solution (4). Overall, the first set of guidelines provides a fundamental starting ground to support the enhancement of rigor and reproducibility, and we feel the concerns raised will be essential points to be considered in the next set of guidelines and/or updates. In either case, the beneficiaries will be future vascular physiologists, who will inherit a comprehensive and well-thought-out guide.

DISCLOSURES

No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

C.F.W. drafted manuscript; C.F.W., C.G.M., S.E., S.K.E., J.A.F., S.G., D.D.G., B.E.I., N.L.K., L.A.M.-L., S.K.S., P.T., A.J.T., S.W.W., and R.C.W. edited and revised manuscript; C.F.W., C.G.M., S.E., S.K.E., J.A.F., S.G., D.D.G., B.E.I., N.L.K., L.A.M.-L., S.K.S., P.T., A.J.T., S.W.W., and R.C.W. approved final version of manuscript.