Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30514389›Full record

ReviewFluids and barriers of the CNS2018

Benchmarking in vitro tissue-engineered blood-brain barrier models.

Jackson G DeStefano, John J Jamieson, Raleigh M Linville, Peter C Searson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Permeability Benchmarking: Guidelines for ComparingJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 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

4 authors.

Jackson G DeStefanoInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John J JamiesonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Raleigh M LinvilleInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter C SearsonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. searson@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-0828

Funding

T32: Predoctoral and Postdoctoral Training Program in Nanotechnology for Cancer ResearchT32CA153952 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Denis Wirtz · 2015 to 2026
$3.5M
T-32 NIH Postdoctoral Training Program in Nanotechnology for Cancer Medicine NTCMT32CA130840 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WIRTZ, DENIS · 2008 to 2012
$1.2M
DTRA HDTRA1-15-1-0046NCI NIH HHS T32 CA130840NCI NIH HHS T32 CA153952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) plays a key role in regulating transport into and out of the brain. With increasing interest in the role of the BBB in health and disease, there have been significant advances in the development of in vitro models. The value of these models to the research community is critically dependent on recapitulating characteristics of the BBB in humans or animal models. However, benchmarking in vitro models is surprisingly difficult since much of our knowledge of the structure and function of the BBB comes from in vitro studies. Here we describe a set of parameters that we consider a starting point for benchmarking and validation. These parameters are associated with structure (ultrastructure, wall shear stress, geometry), microenvironment (basement membrane and extracellular matrix), barrier function (transendothelial electrical resistance, permeability, efflux transport), cell function (expression of BBB markers, turnover), and co-culture with other cell types (astrocytes and pericytes). In suggesting benchmarks, we rely primarily on imaging or direct measurements in humans and animal models.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalTissue EngineeringAnimalsBenchmarkingBlood-Brain BarrierCapillary PermeabilityHumansIn Vitro TechniquesBenchmarkingBlood–brain barrierBrain microvascular endothelial cellsInduced pluripotent stem cellsIn vitro modelingTissue-engineering

Identifiers

PMID30514389
PMCPMC6280508

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.