Wayne Mitzner
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
It is well accepted that many organs in the human body no longer provide evolutionary advantage and appear to be lacking known function. These include the appendix, most body hair, wisdom teeth, male nipples, and external ear muscles, to name just a few. Even worse, many such organs, such as the appendix or wisdom teeth, can be the source of serious pain and medical problems. In this perspective, it is suggested that airway smooth muscle falls into this category—that of an organ with no essential physiologic function that can lead to serious medical problems.
The function of smooth muscle in the airway wall has been speculated on for many years, but when looked at closely from a functional perspective, there really seems to be no need for airway smooth muscle. Indeed, most of the proposed reasons for presence of airway smooth muscle have not been based on experimental validation. In a recent discussion, Seow and
Fredberg (1) commented that there is no known disease entity or physiologic deficit associated with loss of airway smooth muscle.
They further suggested that perhaps airway smooth muscle was a vestigial remnant of its common embryologic origin with the gastrointestinal system, having no modern function. This conjecture, however, is in stark contrast to much classical thinking. In his extensive review article (2), Macklin could not imagine that such a system was there for no physiologic purpose, stating that
“Organized as it is, into a very complex system, this muscle would seem of the utmost functional importance—in fact quite indispensable in respiration.”
In this discussion, we consider the validity of 10 possible roles for airway smooth muscle that have appeared in the literature over the past 125 years. The emphasis will not be on whether smooth muscle is indispensable in respiration, but rather whether it is needed at all. These possible roles consist of the following:
( 1 ) peristalsis to assist exhalation, ( 2 ) peristalsis to assist mucus propulsion, ( 3 ) peristaltic contraction in the fetal lung to generate fluid pressure, ( 4 ) promoting lymphatic and venous flow,
( 5 ) ventilation/perfusion matching, ( 6 ) protecting the peripheral lung, (7) protecting airway structure, ( 8 ) stabilizing airways,
( 9 ) enhancing the effectiveness of cough, and ( 10 ) optimizing anatomic dead space volume.
The several imagined functions of airway peristalsis were speculations based largely on the common embryologic origin of the
( Received in original form December 1, 2003; accepted in final form January 20, 2004 )
Supported by NIH HL-66020.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Wayne Mitzner,
Ph.D., Division of Physiology, Room W7006, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore,
MD 21205. E-mail: wmitzner@jhsph.edu
Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 169. pp 787–790, 2004
Originally Published in Press as DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200312-1636PP on January 23, 2004
Internet address: www.atsjournals.org
airway tree and the gastrointestinal tract, where peristalsis and its neural control is a clearly essential property. Active contraction of bronchial smooth musculature that might contribute to exhalation was emphasized by Miller (3). His anatomic analysis of airway smooth muscle showed a three-dimensional geodesic arrangement analogous to a “lazy tongs” device for mechanical extensions in the axial direction. He also suggested an expiratory wave of peristaltic smooth muscle contraction starting from the periphery to aid in exhalation. This concept of bronchi aiding exhalation was endorsed later by Macklin (2), who stated that
“it seems not so much to infer that the bronchial musculature is an essential in respiration, for it is involved in both the opening and the closing of the pulmonary bellows.” This concept continues to linger to this day with a recent suggestion that respiratoryrelated bronchial rhythmic constriction can facilitate gas exchange in the dog (4). However, the magnitude of such an effect, if it exists, must be quite small and of little physiologic significance.
Gas exchange in the lung can be performed quite well with fully relaxed airway smooth muscle.
The idea that slow peristaltic contraction of the smooth muscle would provide an important means of clearing airway mucus was first described by Bullowa and Gottlieb (5), who used X-rays to follow the movement of barium sulfate capsules and other physical objects out of the lungs of dogs. Reinberg’s subsequent radiographic observation of clearance of a Bismuth instillate in animals and humans supported this initial work (6), and his interpretation of these observations was supported by Macklin
(2). However, these early radiographic observations of serpentine contrast density more likely represented periodicity of mucociliary clearance or artifacts of the method (7). These speculations about such peristalsis were properly criticized in an extensive review article by Widdicombe (8), who concluded that “confident statements that peristalsis is important in expectoration and bronchial evacuation are a poor substitute for experimental studies.” Indeed, with more modern measurements, there have not been any experiments that have shown airway smooth muscle peristalsis to have any functional consequences. The ability of ciliated airways to clear mucus obviates any need for peristalsis, and where there is too much mucus for efficient movement by this mechanism, coughing becomes the more productive means.
A potential role for rhythmically contracting airway smooth muscle in fetal lung development has been suggested in a recent study (9). These investigators observed peristaltic-like contractions in airways in fetal rabbit and pig lung explants. They suggested that such contractions might contribute to fetal lung growth, particularly airway differentiation and branching. Al-

788 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE VOL 169 2004 though their work clearly shows the capacity for fetal airway smooth muscle contraction, it is still not clear that this plays an essential role in lung development. In addition, the proposed peristaltic wave needed for this function would be in the peripheral direction, opposite to what was proposed as necessary by the early anatomists for exhalation and mucus clearance. Although the role of lung liquid pressure and fetal lung stretch from lung fluid secretion is well documented (10, 11), why the airways might need active smooth muscle to counteract this luminal pressure is not clear. It would therefore seem that the effect of peristaltic fetal airway smooth muscle contraction would at best be contributory to the normal pressure generated by fluid secretion. In an air-filled postnatal lung, of course, it could have no function.
In the original Handbook of Physiology chapter on airway smooth muscle, Krahl speculates that “it may be surmised that this effect of bronchial musculature on venous and lymphatic channels must play an important role in propelling the vascular fluids toward the hilus of the lung” (12). He based this creative speculation on histologic observations indicating enlarged vessels around contracted airways. However, for such airway smooth muscle contraction to serve as an effective pump, not only would it have to occur in a rhythmic fashion, but also it would require valves to direct the flow. Unfortunately, there are no valves, nor is there evidence of such rhythmic strong airway smooth muscle contractions in vivo . Furthermore, even if such rhythmicity were important, interstitial pressure variations that occur with normal ventilation would likely be more than sufficient (13).
One might think that the potential need for airway smooth muscle to optimize V almost a century ago, Keith (14) suggested that airway muscle contraction not only might affect the distribution of ventilation but also that the decreased alveolar pressure on inspiration distal to a narrowed airway might dilate the capillaries and increase perfusion. Of course, we now know that the simultaneous decrease pleural pressure would largely prevent such vascular dilation, and even if it did not, such an increased perfusion with a decreased ventilation would not serve any teleologic advantage.
V
2 concentration, as low CO
2 elevated CO
2 is known to contract airway smooth muscle, and may cause relaxation. However, the sensitivity of airways to CO
2 reductions in the normal range is quite low, having little effect till it falls to less than 2% (15). Although this may possibly occur with hyperventilation or with local vascular obstruction, it does not seem to be an essential function of normal living. Indeed, even in the most extreme situation of complete obstruction of left or right main pulmonary artery, ventilation to the obstructed lung was only reduced by approximately 25% (16). Such an experimental observation is consistent with the understanding that resting ventilation distribution is largely controlled by regional lung distensibility rather than airway resistance (17). Thus, a need for airway smooth muscle to regulate airway resistance seems even less relevant in this regard.
Nevertheless, at least one study measuring nitrogen washout in normal subjects has suggested that loss normal vagal tone promotes ventilation heterogeneity (18). These results may have been partially related to the loss of elastic recoil after atropine, but perhaps more importantly, there is no indication that such ventilation changes would be linked to similar changes in perfuimproved after atropine, an idea supported by results showing a more uniform apex to base ventilation distribution (and hence a poorer match with perfusion distribution) after methacholine challenge (19). Furthermore, in another study in asymptomatic subjects with asthma, the distribution of ventilation was found to be unaffected by relaxation of spontaneous tone with isoproterenol (20).
Noxious particles or gases are known to have the capacity to either directly or indirectly lead to airway smooth muscle contraction (21–23). Thus, the question naturally arises whether this constriction might serve some protective function, having evolved to prevent further penetration to the already exposed airway (24). Although such speculation may seem superficially reasonable, when viewed in the context of the living organism, it quickly breaks down. To maintain life, one must continue to ventilate, and thus, a uniform constriction limiting peripheral ventilation of all airways would not be possible for very long.
If the insult were local, then there could be reduced ventilation to that region. However, such a reduction in ventilation to one region would lead to significantly altered ventilation and deposition to the rest of the lung (25). In fact, Macklem and colleagues have concluded that a redistribution of ventilation would likely lead to a more peripheral deposition in the unconstricted region
(26), thereby negating any beneficial effect of the original protective function.
There has been some recent discussion hypothesizing that normal airway tone is required to protect the airway from overdistension that might occur with normal breathing. Without normal airway tone, the airway may become distorted, promoting fibroproliferative pathology (27). Although there is no experimental evidence directly testing such a hypothesis, it seems that the airway structure itself is built to inherently resist overdistension.
As shown by James and colleagues (28), the basement membrane provides a relatively nondistensible natural limit that can be used to compare airway size. Computed tomographic imaging has also shown this natural limit to exist in vivo when there is no airway tone (29), and thus, unless breathing near this elastic limit leads to airway inflammation, this proposed role of airway smooth muscle seems unlikely.
The notion that intraparenchymal airway smooth muscle contraction might stabilize the airways and prevent airway collapse seems to fly in the face of logical thought. If one contracts an airway in vitro (30, 31) or in vivo (32), the airway will continue to narrow until it is closed. This concept of contraction stabilizing airways seems to have originated from the work of Olsen and colleagues (33) and later supported by Coburn and colleagues
(34). Olsen and colleagues studied both tracheal and bronchial segments in vitro . It is relatively easy to see how contraction of the trachealis could in fact protect the tracheal lumen from obstruction with external compression by limiting invagination of the tissue between the ends of the C-ring cartilage; however, even maximal contraction of the trachealis by itself would never lead to tracheal collapse. The situation with intraparenchymal bronchi, however, is quite different. Given the fact that large cartilaginous airways can close in vivo with sufficient methacholine (32), it is hard to imagine an excised airway remaining patent with 20 cm H
2
O negative transmural pressure. Yet this is what

Pulmonary Perspective
Olsen and colleagues showed in contracted bronchi. The only explanation that seems plausible is that their measurements of absolute volume in the bronchial segments were in error and that their airways were at much lower absolute volume than calculated. Indeed, more recent histologic measurements (35) do not support this concept that airway smooth muscle contraction protects or otherwise limits narrowing of intraparenchymal airways. At any transmural pressure, contracted airways were found to have smaller luminal areas than relaxed airways.
Somewhat related to this possible ability of airway smooth muscle to stabilize airways is its potential role in optimizing airflow velocity to enhance coughing effectiveness (24, 36). It is well accepted that airway narrowing that occurs during coughing can increase velocity at the flow limiting segments, thereby augmenting clearance of mucus from the airway (37). This airway narrowing normally results from dynamic compression at specific sites along the airway tree. Thus, it may seem that airway smooth muscle could be activated to cause localized airway narrowing in anticipation of a cough, but there is little experimental evidence to support such a role (38). Although reflex bronchoconstriction and coughing occurs on inhalation of dust and irritant gases, the afferent receptors do not originate from intraparenchymal airways (39). Thus, were a large inhaled particle to deposit in a bronchus, there would not be a localized reflex bronchoconstriction to help expel it. In other pathologic situations such as bronchiectasis with enlarged airways, where coughing effectiveness is often impaired (40), contraction of smooth muscle is either not used or not effective in correcting this limitation.
Furthermore, regional dynamics during coughing are quite complex, and too much airway narrowing must also lower the local regional flow. For this reason, Leith has suggested that bronchodilators may actually improve the effectiveness of coughing by increasing expiratory flow rates (36). Thus, an active role for airway smooth muscle in coughing presently seems quite uncertain.
Macklin (2) and later von Hayek (41) thought that an important role of airway smooth muscle was to play an active role in regulating the volume of the anatomic dead space. The design of the lung is such that anatomic dead space must be small enough to allow adequate alveolar ventilation, yet not so small as to make the airways so narrow to make breathing difficult.
This design compromise in the human lung was discussed in detail by Widdicombe (8), who calculated theoretical graphs to show how evolution has optimized the work of breathing, with a dead space of approximately 20% of the normal tidal volume and a breathing frequency of approximately 15 per minute. Is there any reason that it should be necessary to change this ratio?
Were there some pathology that prevented taking normal tidal breaths, perhaps then it would be advantageous to decrease the dead space. At the other extreme, with heavy exercise, the tidal volume, and alveolar ventilation increase and with higher flow rates, the airway resistance may become limiting. Dilation of the airways in this situation might thus be advantageous. Although the work of breathing is clearly a function of dead space, the sensitivity to dead space changes is not very strong (8).
While this function of active dead space regulation is indeed a legitimate reason for airway smooth muscle, it begs the question of how such a feedback system might be regulated. What is the sensor that determines that dead space needs to be altered? It would have to be an extraordinarily complex feedback system taking into consideration ventilation, work of breathing, blood
789 gases, airway resistance, etc. Furthermore, simply breathing at higher mean lung volume during exercise would by itself tend to dilate the airways to near maximal size.
In summary, it thus it seems clear that none of these potential functions of airway smooth muscle are essential to normal lung physiology. If airway smooth muscle were eliminated, then the airways might enlarge slightly, but there would be no other obvious physiologic consequence. The intrinsic elasticity of the airways would still allow the airway tree to distend with inspirations and relax with expiration. This review thus strongly supports the speculation that airway smooth muscle is indeed a vestigial organ (1), analogous to the appendix, which also has no known function, but can cause serious medical problems.
Such being the case, if there were a way to treat airway smooth like an inflamed appendix, that is, to effectively cut it out, then asthma, like appendicitis, could be cured. Airway inflammation with associated secretions may still be present, but without an ability to translate inflammatory signals into airway smooth muscle contraction, dyspnea would be greatly minimized. Such procedures would obviously not involve surgical excision but may possibly involve pharmacologically targeting airway smooth muscle with a directed toxin, genetically impairing the contractile apparatus of airway smooth muscle, or physicochemical disruption of the airway wall. Future therapies directed to this goal may provide alternative and effective new treatments for asthma.
Conflict of Interest Statement : W.M. has an NIH grant to examine the potential side effects of thermal injury of the airways and the grant has a subcontract to
Broncus Technologies that makes the device that is used for this purpose, but
W.M. receives no financial compensation from the company.
References
1. Seow CY, Fredberg JJ. Historical perspective on airway smooth muscle: the saga of a frustrated cell.
J Appl Physiol 2001;91:938–952.
2. Macklin CC. The musculature of the bronchi and lungs.
Physiol Rev
1929;9:1–60.
3. Miller WS. The musculature of the finer division of the bronchial tree and its relation to certain pathological conditions.
Am Rev Tuberculosis
1921;5:689–704.
4. Kondo T, Kobayashi I, Hayama N, Tazaki G, Bishop B. Effect of the respiratory-related bronchial rhythmic constriction on alveolar ventilation in the dog.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2003;139:63–74.
5. Bullowa JGM, Gottlieb C. Additional experimental studies in bronchial function.
Laryngoscope 1922;32:284–289.
6. Reinberg SA. Toentgen-ray studies on the physiology and pathology of the tracheo-bronchial tree.
Br J Radiol 1925;30:451–455.
7. Fleischner FG. Bronchial peristalsis.
Am J Roentgenol 1949;62:65–69.
8. Widdicombe JG. Regulation of tracheobronchial smooth muscle.
Physiol
Rev 1963;43:1–37.
9. Schittny JC, Miserocchi G, Sparrow MP. Spontaneous peristaltic airway contractions propel lung liquid through the bronchial tree of intact and fetal lung explants.
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2000;23:11–18.
10. Harding R, Hooper SB. Regulation of lung expansion and lung growth before birth.
J Appl Physiol 1996;81:209–224.
11. Kitterman JA. The effects of mechanical forces on fetal lung growth.
Clin Perinatol 1996;23:727–740.
12. Krahl V. Anatomy of the mammalian lung. In: Fenn WO, Rahn H, editors. Handbook of physiology. Washington, DC: The American
Physiological Society; 1964. p. 213–284.
13. Albelda SM, Hansen-Flaschen JH, Lanken PN, Fishman AP. Effects of increased ventilation on lung lymph flow in unanesthetized sheep.
J Appl Physiol 1986;60:2063–2070.
14. Keith A. The mechanism of respiration in man. In: Hill L, editor. Further advances in physiology. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.; 1909.
p. 182–207.
15. Kaise A, Freed AN, Mitzner W. Interaction between CO
2 concentration and flow rate on peripheral airway resistance.
J Appl Physiol 1991;70:
2514–2521.
16. Severinghaus JW, Swenson EW, Finley TN, Lategola MT, Williams J.

790
Unilateral hypoventilation produced in dogs by occluding one pulmonary artery.
J Appl Physiol 1961;16:53–60.
17. West J. Respiratory physiology: the essentials, 6th ed. Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000.
18. Crawford AB, Makowska M, Engel LA. Effect of bronchomotor tone on static mechanical properties of lung and ventilation distribution.
J Appl Physiol 1987;63:2278–2285.
19. Engel LA, Landau L, Taussig L, Martin RR, Sybrecht G. Influence of bronchomotor tone on regional ventilation distribution at residual volume.
J Appl Physiol 1976;40:411–416.
20. Siegler D, Fukuchi Y, Engel L. Influence of bronchomotor tone on ventilation distribution and airway closure in asymptomatic asthma.
Am Rev Respir Dis 1976;114:123–130.
21. Nadel JA. Aerosol effects on smooth muscle and airway visualization technique.
Arch Intern Med 1973;131:83–87.
22. Wright JL, Sun JP, Churg A. Cigarette smoke exposure causes constriction of rat lung.
Eur Respir J 1999;14:1095–1099.
23. Nicholls PJ, Skidmore JW. Comparative study of the smooth muscle contractor activity of airborne dusts and of dustiness in cotton, flax, and jute mills.
Br J Ind Med 1975;32:289–296.
24. Salter H. On asthma: its pathology and treatment. New York: William
Wood and Co.; 1882.
25. Goldberg IS, Lourenco RV. Deposition of aerosols in pulmonary disease.
Arch Intern Med 1973;131:88–91.
26. Macklem PT, Hogg WE, Brunton J. Peripheral airway obstruction and particulate deposition in the lung.
Arch Intern Med 1973;131:93–97.
27. Perez Fontan JJ. On lung nerves and neurogenic injury.
Ann Med
2002;34:226–240.
28. James AL, Hogg JC, Dunn LA, Pare PD. The use of the internal perime-
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE VOL 169 2004 ter to compare airway size and to calculate smooth muscle shortening.
Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;138:136–139.
29. Brown RH, Mitzner W. Effect of lung inflation and airway muscle tone on airway diameter in vivo.
J Appl Physiol 1996;80:1581–1588.
30. Armour CL, Black JL, Berend N, Woolcock AJ. The relationship between bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine and airway smooth muscle structure and reactivity.
Respir Physiol 1984;58:223–233.
31. De Jonste JC, Sterk PJ, Willems LNA, Mons H, Timmers MC, Kerrebijn
KT. Comparison of maximal bronchoconstriction in vivo and airway smooth muscle responses in vitro in non-asthmatic humans.
Am Rev
Respir Dis 1988;138:321–326.
32. Brown RH, Mitzner W. The myth of maximal airway responsiveness in vivo.
J Appl Physiol 1998;85:2012–2017.
33. Olsen CR, Stevens AE, McIlroy MB. Rigidity of tracheae and bronchi during muscular constriction.
J Appl Physiol 1967;23:27–34.
34. Coburn RF, Thornton D, Arts R. Effect of trachealis muscle contraction on tracheal resistance to airflow.
J Appl Physiol 1972;32:397–403.
35. Okazawa M, Pare PD, Lambert RK. Compliance of peripheral airways deduced from morphometry.
J Appl Physiol 2000;89:2373–2381.
36. Leith D. Cough. In: Brain JD, Proctor DF, and Reid LM, editors. Respiratory defense mechanisms. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1977. p. 545–592.
37. Mead J, Turner JM, Macklem PT, Little JB. Significance of the relationship between lung recoil and maximum expiratory flow.
J Appl Physiol
1967;22:95–108.
38. Huizinga E. The “tussive squeeze” and the “bechic blast” of the Jacksons.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1967;76:923–934.
39. Widdicombe JG. Respiratory reflexes and defense. In: Brain JD, Proctor
DF, and Reid LM, editors. Respiratory defense mechanisms. New
York: Marcel Dekker; 1977. p. 593–630.
40. Macklem PT, Fraser RG, Brown WG. Bronchial pressure measurements in emphysema and bronchitis.
J Clin Invest 1965;44:897–905.
41. Von Hayek H. The human lung. New York: Hafner Publishing; 1960.