4.7 Article

The use of bacterial cellulose as a basement membrane improves the plausibility of the static in vitro blood-brain barrier model

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.257

关键词

Bacterial cellulose; Blood-brain barrier; in vitro model

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [216M542, 116Z964]
  2. TUBITAK 2211-C Domestic Graduate Scholarship Program
  3. Ege University Scientific Research Projects Council [16FBE003]
  4. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development [EGE MATAL] [2010K120810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are several blood-brain barrier (BBB) models available for pharmaceutical research, but none of those are able to properly imitate the permeability of this special barrier. In this study, it is aimed to produce different BBB models with different cellular combinations and different basement membrane polymers, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and bacterial cellulose (BC), which has not been used for BBB models before, to compare their barrier properties. Primary human brain microvascular endothelial cells were seeded on the luminal side and primary human astrocytes and/or primary human brain microvascular pericytes were seeded on the abluminal side of the membranes. Immunofluorescence (IF) staining results indicate that the expression of tight and adherence junction proteins increases on the 5th day of the cultivation. In accordance with Live Dead staining results, IF images show that cells in the model lose their viability before the 10th day. Transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements indicate that BC membrane leads to statistically higher (p < 0.05) TEER values than the standard Transwell PET insert membrane. Sucrose and caffeine permeability values of all models are close to in vivo values. BC shows potential to be used as a more reliable basement membrane for BBB models for pharmaceutical research. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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