Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27025965›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Pitfalls in assessing microvascular endothelial barrier function: impedance-based devices versus the classic macromolecular tracer assay.

Iris Bischoff, Michael C Hornburger, Bettina A Mayer, Andrea Beyerle, Joachim Wegener, Robert Fürst

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Faricimab Reverts VEGF-AInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Iris BischoffInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Biocenter, Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Michael C HornburgerPharmaceutical Biology, Department of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Research, University of Munich, Germany.
Bettina A MayerPharmaceutical Biology, Department of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Research, University of Munich, Germany.
Andrea BeyerleInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Biocenter, Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Joachim WegenerInstitute of Analytical Chemistry, Chemo- and Biosensing, University of Regensburg, Germany.
Robert FürstInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Biocenter, Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most frequently used parameters to describe the barrier properties of endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro are (i) the macromolecular permeability, indicating the flux of a macromolecular tracer across the endothelium, and (ii) electrical impedance of ECs grown on gold-film electrodes reporting on the cell layer's tightness for ion flow. Due to the experimental differences between these approaches, inconsistent observations have been described. Here, we present the first direct comparison of these assays applied to one single cell type (human microvascular ECs) under the same experimental conditions. The impact of different pharmacological tools (histamine, forskolin, Y-27632, blebbistatin, TRAP) on endothelial barrier function was analyzed by Transwell(®) tracer assays and two commercial impedance devices (xCELLigence(®), ECIS(®)). The two impedance techniques provided very similar results for all compounds, whereas macromolecular permeability readings were found to be partly inconsistent with impedance. Possible reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. We conclude that the complementary combination of both approaches is highly recommended to overcome the restrictions of each assay. Since the nature of the growth support may contribute to the observed differences, structure-function relationships should be based on cells that are consistently grown on either permeable or impermeable growth supports in all experiments.

Indexed as

AmidesBiological AssayCapillary PermeabilityCells, CulturedElectric ImpedanceEndothelial CellsEndothelium, VascularHistamineHumansPyridinesAmidesHistaminePyridinesY 27632

Identifiers

PMID27025965
PMCPMC4877919

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.