4.6 Article

Arterial Pulsations cannot Drive Intramural Periarterial Drainage: Significance for Aβ Drainage

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00475

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; cerebral blood flow; perivascular drainage; intramural periarterial drainage; cerebral lymphatics

Categories

Funding

  1. EPSRC Doctoral Training Center grant [EP/G03690X/1]
  2. EPSRC Doctoral Training Partnership grant [EP/N509747/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and to date there is no cure or efficient prophylaxis. The cognitive decline correlates with the accumulation of amyloid-beta) (A beta) in the walls of capillaries and arteries. Our group has demonstrated that interstitial fluid and A beta are eliminated from the brain along the basement membranes of capillaries and arteries, the intramural periarterial drainage (IPAD) pathway. With advancing age and arteriosclerosis, the stiffness of arterial walls, this pathway fails in its function and A beta, accumulates in the walls of arteries. In this study we tested the hypothesis that arterial pulsations drive IPAD and that a valve mechanism ensures the net drainage in a direction opposite to that of the blood flow. This hypothesis was tested using a mathematical model of the drainage mechanism. We demonstrate firstly that arterial pulsations are not strong enough to produce drainage velocities comparable to experimental observations. Secondly, we demonstrate that a valve mechanism such as directional permeability of the IPAD pathway is necessary to achieve a net reverse flow. The mathematical simulation results are confirmed by assessing the pattern of IPAD in mice using pulse modulators, showing no significant alteration of IPAD. Our results indicate that forces other than the cardiac pulsations are responsible for efficient IPAD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available