Cited by 148Barrier Structure and Function StudiesDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus

A quantitative analysis of blood-brain barrier ultrastructure in the aging human.

Stewart, P.A., Magliocco, M., Hayakawa, K., Farrell, C.L., Del Maestro, R.F., Girvin, J., Kaufmann, J.C.E., Vinters, H.V. +1 more·1987·Microvascular Research

Abstract

The unique ultrastructure of brain endothelial cells restricts nonspecific leakage of blood-borne molecules across the blood-brain barrier (bbb). Human barrier ultrastructure has not been studied extensively because of the rapid ultrastructural degeneration that takes place after death. We have obtained living, structurally normal neocortex and underlying white matter at biopsy from patients of various ages, and have quantitated ultrastructural features that are associated with the bbb so that we could characterize human barrier ultrastructure and determine whether it changes with age. We found that gray matter capillaries have thinner walls than white matter capillaries, and that during aging white matter capillary walls became thinner until they approached the dimensions of those in gray matter. Thinning is due to loss of pericytes and thinning of the endothelial cytoplasm. The mitochondrial density was found to be higher in gray matter than in white matter, but this is a consequence of there being a smaller cytoplasmic volume and not more (or larger) mitochondria. The mitochondrial population did not change with age. Presumptive nonspecific permeability routes (endothelial vesicles, junctional gaps) did not change with age; therefore we found no morphological substrate for increased nonspecific bbb permeability in the aging human. The loss of pericytes, however, suggests that the bbb in the elderly may be less able to compensate for transient leaks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0026-2862(87)90022-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 BBB is not a perfect barrier, and perijunctional gaps of 0.5 μm have been reported.

    “The BBB is not a perfect barrier, and perijunctional gaps of 0.5 μm have been reported (Stewart et al., 1987; Fraser and Dallas, 1993).”

    From Human Brain/Cloud Interface (2019) · cites this paper as Stewart et al., 1987

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, P. A., Magliocco, M., Hayakawa, K., Farrell, C. L., Del Maestro, R. F., Girvin, J., Kaufmann, J. C. E., Vinters, H. V., & Gilbert, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Stewart, P.A.
Venue
Microvascular Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1987-03
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
270-282
ISSN
0026-2862 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024175982
Cited by
148
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Microvascular Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Keywords
blood-brain barrier, aging, brain endothelial cells, capillary ultrastructure, pericytes, mitochondrial density, gray matter, white matter, endothelial vesicles, tight junctions, human neocortex
MeSH terms
Aging, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Brain Neoplasms, Capillaries, Capillary Permeability, Endothelium, Epilepsy, Humans, Microscopy, Electron, Mitochondria

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