Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CNS pericytes: Concepts, misconceptions, and a way out

Krueger, Martin, Bechmann, Ingo·2010·Glia

Abstract

Rouget, in 1873, was the first to describe a population of cells surrounding capillaries, which he regarded as contractile elements. Fifty years later, Zimmermann termed these cells “pericytes” and distinguished three subtypes along the vascular tree. Since then, the discussion concerning the contractile ability of pericytes has never ceased. Current concepts of pericyte biology rather suggest critical roles in the maintenance of homeostasis, blood–brain barrier (BBB) integrity, angiogenesis, and neovascularization. In addition, data from models of brain pathology suggest that novel pericytes are recruited from the bone marrow, but their respective precursor remains enigmatic. Recent data also suggest an important role in the regulation of cerebral blood flow, thus confirming Rouget's original idea. However, comparison of data from different studies is often constrained by the fact that pericytes were questionably identified. Although a clear‐cut definition exists, defining pericytes as part of the vascular wall being enclosed in its basement membrane, pericytes are often mixed up with adjacent cell types of the vascular wall, the perivascular space, and the juxtavascular parenchyma. In fact, their identification is difficult—if not impossible—in standard histological sections. An unambiguous distinction, however, is possible at the ultrastructural level and in semi‐thin sections, where their location within the vascular basement membrane can be displayed. Using these techniques in combination with immunological staining methods allows demarking their unique morphology and location. Here, we review original papers describing pericytes, briefly outline their topography within the vascular compartments, describe methods for their identification, and summarize current concepts of their function. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/glia.20898

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Krueger, M., & Bechmann, I.
Venue
Glia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06-16
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 0894-1491 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1136
OpenAlex
W2126232130
Cited by
247
References
7
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CNS pericytes: Concepts, misconceptions, and a way out. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/glia.20898
The paper
Krueger, M., & Bechmann, I. (2010). CNS pericytes: Concepts, misconceptions, and a way out. Glia. https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.20898

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.