The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Blood‐spinal cord barrier after spinal cord injury: Relation to revascularization and wound healing
Open accessAbstract
Spinal cord injury produces prominent disruption of the blood‐spinal cord barrier. We have defined the blood‐spinal cord barrier breakdown to the protein luciferase (61 kDa) in the acutely injured murine spinal cord and during revascularization. We show that newly formed and regenerating blood vessels that have abnormal permeability exhibit differential expression of the glucose‐1 transporter (Glut‐1), and that its expression is dependent on astrocytes. There was overt extravasation of luciferase within the first hour after injury, a period that coincided with marked tissue disruption within the epicenter of the lesion. Although there was a significant reduction in the number of blood vessels relative to controls by 24 hr after injury, abnormal barrier permeability remained significantly elevated. A second peak of abnormal barrier permeability at 3–7 days postinjury coincided with prominent revascularization of the epicenter. The barrier to luciferase was restored by 21 days postinjury and vascularity was similar to that of controls. During wound‐healing process, the cord was reorganized into distinct domains. Between 14 and 21 days postinjury, each domain consisted primarily of nonneuronal cells, including macrophages. Astrocytes were limited characteristically to the perimeter of each domain. Only blood vessels affiliated closely with astrocytes in the perimeter expressed Glut‐1, whereas blood vessels within each domain of the repairing cord did not express it. Together, these data demonstrate that both injured and regenerating vessels exhibit abnormal permeability and suggest that Glut‐1 expression during revascularization is dependent on the presence of astrocytes. © 2003 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some reports suggest that SCI generates a biphasic opening of the barrier. The first peak of abnormal leakage occurs within several hours after injury, whereas the second peak is evident between 3 and 7 days post-injury (644).”
From Blood-Brain Barrier: From Physiology to Disease and Back (2019) · cites this paper as [644]
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
Dvorak, H. F., Brown, L. F., Detmar, M. J., & Dvořàk, A. M. (1995) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 3,100
FINE STRUCTURAL LOCALIZATION OF A BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER TO EXOGENOUS PEROXIDASE
Reese, T. S., & Karnovsky, M. J. (1967) · The Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.34.1.207 · Cited by 2,629
Secretory products of macrophages.
Nathan, C. F. (1987) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci112815 · Cited by 2,615
Astrocytes induce blood–brain barrier properties in endothelial cells
Janzer, R. C., & RAFF, M. C. (1987) · Nature · doi:10.1038/325253a0 · Cited by 1,613
(1991) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,512
Bush, T. G., Puvanachandra, N., Horner, C. H., Polito, A., Ostenfeld, T., Svendsen, C. N., Mucke, L., Johnson, M. H., & Sofroniew, M. V. (1999) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80781-3 · Cited by 1,116
A cell culture model of the blood-brain barrier.
Rubin, L. L., Hall, D. E., Porter, S., Barbu, K., Cannon, C., Horner, H. C., Janatpour, M. J., Liaw, C. W., Manning, K., & Morales, J. (1991) · The Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.115.6.1725 · Cited by 765
Drug Transporters in the Central Nervous System: Brain Barriers and Brain Parenchyma Considerations
Lee, G. S., Dallas, S., Hong, M., & Bendayan, R. (2001) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0031-6997(24)01513-8 · Cited by 547
Neurotrophic and Neuroprotective Actions of Estrogens and Their Therapeutic Implications
Lee, S. H., & McEwen, B. S. (2001) · The Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.41.1.569 · Cited by 533
Noble‐Haeusslein, L. J., Donovan, F. M., Igarashi, T., Goussev, S., & Werb, Z. (2002) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-17-07526.2002 · Cited by 502
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Cancilla PA, 1993, Brain endothelial‐astrocyte interactions
- Pardridge WM, 1993, Molecular cloning and regulation of gene expression of blood‐brain barrier glucose transporter
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blood-Brain Barrier: From Physiology to Disease and Back
Sweeney, M. D., Zhao, Z., Montagne, A., Nelson, A. R., & Zlokovic, B. V. (2019) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00050.2017 · Cited by 2,312
Donnelly, D. J., & Popovich, P. G. (2008) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.06.009 · Cited by 995
Wallerian degeneration: gaining perspective on inflammatory events after peripheral nerve injury
Gaudet, A. D., Popovich, P. G., & Ramer, M. S. (2011) · Journal of Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1186/1742-2094-8-110 · Cited by 903
Blood–brain barrier breakdown as a therapeutic target in traumatic brain injury
Shlosberg, D., Benifla, M., Kaufer, D., & Friedman, A. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.74 · Cited by 897
Degenerative cervical myelopathy — update and future directions
Badhiwala, J. H., Ahuja, C. S., Akbar, M. A., Witiw, C. D., Nassiri, F., Furlan, J. C., Curt, A. E. P., Wilson, J. R., & Fehlings, M. G. (2020) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0303-0 · Cited by 581
Metadata
- Authors
- Whetstone, W. D., Hsu, J. C., Eisenberg, M., Werb, Z., & Noble‐Haeusslein, L. J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Noble‐Haeusslein, Linda J.
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-08-25
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 227-239
- ISSN
- 0360-4012 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4547
- PMC
- PMC2837839
- OpenAlex
- W2141244009
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 39847, NS39278, R01NS039847, R01NS039278)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Keywords
- blood-spinal cord barrier, spinal cord injury, revascularization, wound healing, vascular permeability, glucose transporter 1, astrocytes, macrophages, vascular regeneration
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Astrocytes, Blood Vessels, Blood-Brain Barrier, Gliosis, Luciferases, Macrophages, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Spinal Cord, Spinal Cord Injuries, Wound Healing, Glutamic Acid, Neovascularization, Physiologic, Excitatory Amino Acid Transporter 2, Mice
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
