4.5 Article

In vitro discrimination of the role of LRP1 at the BBB cellular level: Focus on brain capillary endothelial cells and brain pericytes

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1594, 期 -, 页码 15-26

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.10.047

关键词

AD; A beta; BBB; LRP1; Brain capillary endothelial cells; Brain pericytes

资金

  1. French Coeur et Areeres foundation [06T6]
  2. Ligue Europ'eenne Contre la Maladie d'Alzheimer (LECMA) charity [74409752]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have demonstrated that the blood-brain barrier (BBB) (dynamic cellular complex composed by brain capillary endothelial cells (BCECs) and surrounded by astrocytic end feet and pericytes) regulates the exchanges of amyloid p (All) peptide between the blood and the brain. Deregulation of these exchanges seems to be a key trigger for the brain accumulation of A beta peptide observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Whereas the involvement of receptor for advanced glycation end-products in A beta peptide transcytosis has been demonstrated in our laboratory, low-density lipoprotein receptor's role at the cellular level needs to be clarified. For this, we used an in vitro BBB model that consists of a co-culture of bovine BCECs and rat glial cells. This model has already been used to characterize low-density lipoprotein receptor-related peptide (LRP)'s involvement in the transcytosis of molecules such as tPA and angiopep-2. Our results suggest that A beta peptide efflux across the BCEC monolayer involves a transcellular transport. However, the experiments with RAP discard an involvement of LRP family members at BCECs level. In contrast, our results show a strong transcriptional expression of LRP1 in pericytes and suggest its implication in A beta endocytosis. Moreover, the observations of pericytes contraction and local downregulation of LRP1 in response to A beta treatment opens up perspectives for studying this cell type with respect to A beta peptide metabolism and AD. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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