Natural aging and Alzheimer’s disease pathology increase susceptibility to focused ultrasound-induced blood–brain barrier opening
Open accessAbstract
Focused Ultrasound (FUS) paired with systemically-injected microbubbles (μB) is capable of transiently opening the blood–brain barrier (BBBO) for noninvasive and targeted drug delivery to the brain. FUS-BBBO is also capable of modulating the neuroimmune system, further qualifying its therapeutic potential for neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Natural aging and AD impose significant strain on the brain and particularly the BBB, modifying its structure and subsequently, its functionality. The emerging focus on treating neurodegenerative diseases with FUS-BBBO necessitates an investigation into the extent that age and AD affect the BBB’s response to FUS. FUS-BBBO was performed with a 1.5-MHz, geometrically focused transducer operated at 450 kPa and paired with a bolus microbubble injection of 8 × 10 8 μB/mL. Here we quantify the BBBO, BBB closing (BBBC) timeline, and BBB permeability (BBBP) following FUS-BBBO in male mice with and without AD pathology, aged 10 weeks, one year, or two years. The data presented herein indicates that natural aging and AD pathology may increase initial BBBO volume by up to 34.4% and 40.7% respectively, extend BBBC timeline by up to 1.3 and 1.5 days respectively, and increase BBBP as measured by average K trans values up to 80% and 86.1% respectively in male mice. This characterization of the BBB response to FUS-BBBO with age and AD further clarifies the nature and extent of the functional impact of these factors and may offer new considerations for planning FUS-BBBO interventions in aged and AD populations.
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
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Blood-brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus
Montagne, A., Barnes, S. R., Sweeney, M. D., Halliday, M. R., Sagare, A. P., Zhao, Z., Toga, A. W., Jacobs, R. E., Liu, C. Y., Amezcua, L., et al. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.032 · Cited by 2,102 · see citing works
The blood-brain barrier in aging and neurodegeneration
Knox, E. G., Aburto, M. R., Clarke, G., Cryan, J. F., & O’Driscoll, C. M. (2022) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01511-z · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Blood–Brain Barrier Dysfunction as a Cause and Consequence of Alzheimer's Disease
Erickson, M. A., & Banks, W. A. (2013) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2013.135 · Cited by 572 · see citing works
Burgess, A., Dubey, S., Yeung, S., Hough, O., Eterman, N., Aubert, I., & Hynynen, K. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14140245 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Vascular Cell Senescence Contributes to Blood–Brain Barrier Breakdown
Yamazaki, Y., Baker, D. J., Tachibana, M., Liu, C.-C., van Deursen, J. M., Brott, T. G., Bu, G., & Kanekiyo, T. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.010835 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Sterniczuk, R., Antle, M. C., LaFerla, F. M., & Dyck, R. H. (2010) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.06.011 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Noel, R. L., Batts, A. J., Ji, R., Pouliopoulos, A. N., Bae, S., Kline-Schoder, A. R., & Konofagou, E. E.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Noel, R. L.
- Konofagou, E. E.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2023-04-25
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6757-6757
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10130033
- OpenAlex
- W4366984937
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 2.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01AG038961)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
- Keywords
- focused ultrasound, blood-brain barrier opening, Alzheimer's disease, normal aging, microbubbles, blood-brain barrier permeability, Ktrans, neurodegenerative diseases, brain drug delivery, aged mice
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Biological Transport, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Ultrasonic Therapy, Drug Delivery Systems, Microbubbles, 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