4.0 Article

Electrophysiological Measurements of Isolated Blood Vessels

期刊

BIO-PROTOCOL
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

BIO-PROTOCOL
DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.4359

关键词

Endothelium; Vasculature; Transendothelial resistance; TEER; Vein; Artery; Dilution potential

类别

资金

  1. DFG [SFB914 A02]
  2. [R01-HL137112]
  3. [R01-AA025854]
  4. [R01-HL120840]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The permeability of blood vessels is regulated by endothelial cells. This permeability is influenced by factors such as the type of blood vessel and the specific disease state. Most studies on endothelial permeability have been conducted using isolated cells in culture, which may not accurately reflect the native cell environment. In this study, the authors describe a method that allows for the measurement of endothelial properties in intact blood vessels, providing a more accurate analysis of the response to various stresses in the context of the intact vessel.
The lumen of blood vessels is covered by endothelial cells, which regulate their permeability to ions and solutes. Endothelial permeability depends on the vascular bed and cell phenotype, and is influenced by different disease states. Most characterization of endothelial permeability has been carried out using isolated cells in culture. While analysis of cultured cells is a valuable approach, it does not account for factors of the native cell environment. Building on Ussing chamber studies of intact tissue specimens, here we describe a method to measure the electrophysiological properties of intact arteriole and venule endothelia, including transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) and ion permselectivity. As an example, vessels isolated from the mesentery were treated ex vivo, then mounted in a custom-made tissue cassette that enable their analysis by classical approaches with an Ussing chamber. This method enables a detailed analysis of electrophysiological vessel responses to stresses such as proinflammatory cytokines, in the context of an intact vessel.

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

4.0
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