4.6 Review Book Chapter

Biology and Models of the Blood-Brain Barrier

期刊

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-082120-042814

关键词

blood-brain barrier; organ-on-a-chip; tissue engineering; self-assembly; organoids; neurological diseases

资金

  1. Ludwig Center for Molecular Oncology Graduate Fellowship
  2. National Cancer Institute [U01 CA202177]
  3. National Science Foundation [CBET-0939511]
  4. Biomedical Engineering Department of Tel Aviv University
  5. Azrieli Foundation
  6. Israel Science Foundation [2248/19]
  7. European Research Council [851765]
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [851765] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article provides a general overview of the major features of the blood-brain barrier and describes various models designed to replicate this barrier and associated neurological pathologies. It emphasizes the need for consensus in measuring the fundamental properties of the barrier and proposes key parameters and design characteristics for creating physiologically relevant models of the blood-brain interface.
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is one of the most selective endothelial barriers. An understanding of its cellular, morphological, and biological properties in health and disease is necessary to develop therapeutics that can be transported from blood to brain. In vivo models have provided some insight into these features and transport mechanisms adopted at the brain, yet they have failed as a robust platform for the translation of results into clinical outcomes. In this article, we provide a general overview of major BBB features and describe various models that have been designed to replicate this barrier and neurological pathologies linked with the BBB. We propose several key parameters and design characteristics that can be employed to engineer physiologically relevant models of the blood-brain interface and highlight the need for a consensus in the measurement of fundamental properties of this barrier.

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

4.6
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