3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Effects of hypoxia on endothelial/pericytic co-culture model of the blood-brain barrier

Journal

REGULATORY PEPTIDES
Volume 123, Issue 1-3, Pages 77-83

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.regpep.2004.05.023

Keywords

blood-brain barrier; pericyte; endothelial cell; hypoxia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is composed of endothelial cells, pericytes and astrocytic foot processes. Most research for the in vitro BBB is performed endothelial cells with or without astrocytes. Hypoxia damage to the BBB induces vasogenic brain edema. We have generated a new model of the BBB with brain endothelial cells and pericytes and have examined the effects of hypoxia using this model. Brain microvascular endothelial cells and pericytes were isolated from three-week-old male Wister rats using enzyme and mechanical homogenization. Three models (A: only endothelial monolayer, B: endothelial monolayer with pericytes non-contact condition, and C: contact condition) were made by culturing these cells using Transwell co-culture system and were exposed to hypoxic condition. We evaluated barrier function with transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) and permeability of Evans blue-albumin and sodium fluorescein. The tightest barrier was observed in the endothelial/pericytic contact model. Despite hypoxia-induced disruption of the barrier in endothelial monolayer and non-contact co-culture models, a minimum of dysfunction was seen in the contact co-culture model. Therefore, it is considered that pericytes effect on the endothelia by secreting factors or through a gap junction. In short, pericytes induce endothelial maturation and a tighter barrier function, which supports the function against the hypoxic injury. Intercellular communication might be important to keep the BBB functional and stabilize in hypoxia. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available