Experimental Physiology
90.3 pp 269
© The Physiological Society 2005
Author's response to P. G. Guyenet's commentary
G. B. Richerson
1
1 Departments of Neurology and Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Most of the points raised by Guyenet et al. have already been addressed in our commentary on their accompanying review. We will not elaborate here, except to say that our analysis of the existing data is quite different than theirs. However, where we do agree is that more data are needed to fully understand central respiratory chemoreception. Thus, now is not the time to make firm conclusions, but to gather more data. We disagree that data from an in vivo approach has greater validity, but instead strongly believe that a complete understanding of CO2/pH chemoreception will only come from the use of a variety of approaches at all levels – from molecules to the network. When the data obtained at different levels is not concordant, we need to reassess the assumptions made in interpreting the data, rather than discarding results from a particular approach. Until we in the field of respiratory control can offer the scientific community a detailed understanding of central respiratory chemoreception, it is prudent to carefully and objectively evaluate the evidence for and against each of the current hypotheses. We appreciate the participation of Dr Guyenet and colleagues in this fruitful debate, and share their enthusiasm for further investigations to enhance our understanding of central respiratory chemoreception.
