4.7 Article

Maintaining Blood-Brain Barrier Integrity: Pericytes Perform Better Than Astrocytes During Prolonged Oxygen Deprivation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 218, 期 3, 页码 612-622

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.21638

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Swiss Stiftung 3R [93/04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The blood-brain barrier (BBB), consisting of specialized endothelial cells surrounded by astrocytes and pericytes, plays a crucial role in brain homeostasis. Many cerebrovascular diseases are associated with BBB breakdown and oxygen (O-2) deprivation constitutes a critical factor that onsets its disruption. We investigated the impact of astrocytes and pericytes on brain endothelial cell permeability and survival during different degrees O-2 deprivation. Prolonged exposure to 1% O-2 caused barrier breakdown and exposure to 0.1% O-2 dramatically accelerated disruption and induced cell death, mediated at least in part via caspase-3 activation. Reoxygenation allowed only cells exposed to 1% O-2 to re-establish barrier function. Notably co-culture with astrocytes and pericytes substantially enhanced barrier function under normoxic conditions, and produced differential responses during O-2 deprivation. At 1% O-2 astrocytes partially maintained barrier integrity whereas pericytes accelerated its disruption in the short-term, having positive effects only after prolonged exposure. Unexpectedly, at 0.1% O-2 pericytes were more effective than astrocytes in preserving barrier function although the protection afforded by both cells involved inhibition of caspase-3 pathways. Furthermore, cell-specific regulation of auto-and paracrine VEGF signaling pathways were also in part responsible for the differential modulation of barrier function. Our data suggests that cellular cross-talk within the neurovascular unit is crucial for preservation of barrier integrity and that pericytes, not astrocytes, play a significant role during severe and prolonged O-2 deprivation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据