Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31167667›Full record

ArticleFluids and barriers of the CNS2019

Role of iPSC-derived pericytes on barrier function of iPSC-derived brain microvascular endothelial cells in 2D and 3D.

John J Jamieson, Raleigh M Linville, Yuan Yuan Ding, Sharon Gerecht, Peter C Searson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. HumanTissue barriers · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John J JamiesonDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Raleigh M LinvilleInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, 100 Croft Hall, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Yuan Yuan DingDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Sharon GerechtDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. gerecht@jhu.edu.
Peter C SearsonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, 100 Croft Hall, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. searson@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-0828
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

The Role of Physical Cues in Collective Cell InvasionU54CA210173 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PIENTA, KENNETH J., WIRTZ, DENIS · 2016 to 2020
$9.9M
Mechanisms of cerebrovascular barrier dysfunction caused by APP and PSEN1 mutations and amyloid beta exposureR01NS106008 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEARSON, PETER C · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (US) HDTRA1-15-1-0046Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund MSCRFI-2784NCI NIH HHS U54 CA210173NIH HHS U54CA210173NINDS NIH HHS R01NS106008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPericytes of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) are embedded within basement membrane between brain microvascular endothelial cells (BMECs) and astrocyte end-feet. Despite the direct cell-cell contact observed in vivo, most in vitro BBB models introduce an artificial membrane that separates pericytes from BMECs. In this study, we investigated the effects of pericytes on BMEC barrier function across a range of in vitro platforms with varied spatial orientations and levels of cell-cell contact.

methodsWe differentiated RFP-pericytes and GFP-BMECs from hiPSCs and monitored transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) across BMECs on transwell inserts while pericytes were either directly co-cultured on the membrane, indirectly co-cultured in the basolateral chamber, or embedded in a collagen I gel formed on the transwell membrane. We then incorporated pericytes into a tissue-engineered microvessel model of the BBB and measured pericyte motility and microvessel permeability.

resultsWe found that BMEC monolayers did not require co-culture with pericytes to achieve physiological TEER values (> 1500 Ω cm

conclusionsWe demonstrated that monocultured BMECs do not require co-culture to achieve physiological TEER, but that suboptimal TEER in stressed monolayers can be increased through co-culture with hiPSC-derived pericytes or conditioned media. We also developed the first BBB microvessel model using exclusively hiPSC-derived BMECs and pericytes, which could be used to examine vascular dysfunction in the human CNS.

Indexed as

Blood-Brain BarrierCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedCoculture TechniquesEndothelial CellsHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMicrovesselsPericytesBlood–brain barrierBrain microvascular endothelial cellsInduced pluripotent stem cellsPericytesTissue engineeringTransendothelial electrical resistance

Identifiers

PMID31167667
PMCPMC6551886
OpenAlexW2948607383

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.