Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33668807›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Are In Vitro Human Blood-Brain-Tumor-Barriers Suitable Replacements for In Vivo Models of Brain Permeability for Novel Therapeutics?

Archana Prashanth, Heather Donaghy, Shihani P Stoner, Amanda L Hudson, Helen R Wheeler, Connie I Diakos, Viive M Howell, Georges E Grau, Kelly J McKelvey

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Current neuropharmacology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Astrocytes and human artificial blood-brain barrier models.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. On the quest of reliable 3D dynamicFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Archana PrashanthBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5481-9439
Heather DonaghyBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8280-5333
Shihani P StonerBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Amanda L HudsonBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Helen R WheelerBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Connie I DiakosBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8877-3440
Viive M HowellBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2356-3231
Georges E GrauVascular Immunology, Department of Pathology, School of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
Kelly J McKelveyBill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4923-791X
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Hunter Medical Research Institute 1096Hunter Medical Research Institute 1357Hunter Medical Research Institute 780
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh grade gliomas (HGG) are incapacitating and prematurely fatal diseases. To overcome the poor prognosis, novel therapies must overcome the selective and restricted permeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). This study critically evaluated whether in vitro human normal BBB and tumor BBB (BBTB) are suitable alternatives to "gold standard" in vivo models to determine brain permeability.

methodsA systematic review utilizing the PRISMA guidelines used English and full-text articles from the past 5 years in the PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus databases. Experimental studies employing human cell lines were included.

resultsOf 1335 articles, the search identified 24 articles for evaluation after duplicates were removed. Eight in vitro and five in vivo models were identified with the advantages and disadvantages compared within and between models, and against patient clinical data where available. The greatest in vitro barrier integrity and stability, comparable to in vivo and clinical permeability data, were achieved in the presence of all cell types of the neurovascular unit: endothelial cells, astrocytes/glioma cells, pericytes and neurons.

conclusionsIn vitro co-culture BBB models utilizing stem cell-derived or primary cells are a suitable proxy for brain permeability studies in order to reduce animal use in medical research.

Indexed as

blood brain barrierbrain cancerbrain microvascular endothelial cellsdiffuse intrinsic pontine gliomaglioblastomainduced pluripotent stem cellsneurovascular unitpermeabilitytight junctionstransendothelial electrical resistance

Identifiers

PMID33668807
PMCPMC7956470
OpenAlexW3132107856

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.