Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24391755›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Gene expression and functional annotation of the human and mouse choroid plexus epithelium.

Sarah F Janssen, Sophie J F van der Spek, Jacoline B Ten Brink, Anke H W Essing, Theo G M F Gorgels, Peter J van der Spek, Nomdo M Jansonius, Arthur A B Bergen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Choroid plexus inflammation in bipolar disorder.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cadaverine and Spermine Elicit CaJournal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cilia-driven flows in the brain third ventricle.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah F JanssenDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sophie J F van der SpekDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacoline B Ten BrinkDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anke H W EssingDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Theo G M F GorgelsDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter J van der SpekDepartment of Bioinformatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nomdo M JansoniusDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arthur A B BergenDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Ophthalmogenetics, the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands ; Department of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Centre (AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands ; Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Centre (AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences · NLNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience · NLErasmus MC · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choroid plexus epithelium (CPE) is a lobed neuro-epithelial structure that forms the outer blood-brain barrier. The CPE protrudes into the brain ventricles and produces the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which is crucial for brain homeostasis. Malfunction of the CPE is possibly implicated in disorders like Alzheimer disease, hydrocephalus or glaucoma. To study human genetic diseases and potential new therapies, mouse models are widely used. This requires a detailed knowledge of similarities and differences in gene expression and functional annotation between the species. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare gene expression and functional annotation of healthy human and mouse CPE.

methodsWe performed 44k Agilent microarray hybridizations with RNA derived from laser dissected healthy human and mouse CPE cells. We functionally annotated and compared the gene expression data of human and mouse CPE using the knowledge database Ingenuity. We searched for common and species specific gene expression patterns and function between human and mouse CPE. We also made a comparison with previously published CPE human and mouse gene expression data.

resultsOverall, the human and mouse CPE transcriptomes are very similar. Their major functionalities included epithelial junctions, transport, energy production, neuro-endocrine signaling, as well as immunological, neurological and hematological functions and disorders. The mouse CPE presented two additional functions not found in the human CPE: carbohydrate metabolism and a more extensive list of (neural) developmental functions. We found three genes specifically expressed in the mouse CPE compared to human CPE, being ACE, PON1 and TRIM3 and no human specifically expressed CPE genes compared to mouse CPE.

conclusionHuman and mouse CPE transcriptomes are very similar, and display many common functionalities. Nonetheless, we also identified a few genes and pathways which suggest that the CPE between mouse and man differ with respect to transport and metabolic functions.

Indexed as

AgedAnimalsAryldialkylphosphataseBlood-Brain BarrierCarbohydrate MetabolismCarrier ProteinsChoroid PlexusEpitheliumGene ExpressionGene Regulatory NetworksHumansIon ChannelsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMiddle AgedAryldialkylphosphataseCarrier ProteinsIon ChannelsPeptidyl-Dipeptidase APON1 protein, mouseTRIM3 protein, mouse

Identifiers

PMID24391755
PMCPMC3877019
OpenAlexW2143121108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.