Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 220

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microvascular pericyte contractility in vitro: comparison with other cells of the vascular wall.

Open access
Kelley, C, D'Amore, P, Hechtman, H B, Shepro, D·1987·The Journal of cell biology

Abstract

Collagen lattices containing bovine retinal pericytes (RPs), vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs), pulmonary microvessel endothelial cells (PMECs), or aortic endothelial cells (AECs) were prepared and contraction was quantitated by measuring the resulting change in lattice area. VSMCs were the most efficient at lattice contraction followed by RPs and then PMECs. AECs did not contract the lattices. To document further that these observations represent contraction, cells were grown on inert silicone rubber sheets. Substratum wrinkling was indicative of tension development and quantitated as percent of cells contracted. RPs were more contractile than PMECs, and AECs were incapable of developing tension. VSMCs were less contractile than RPs, unlike the comparative contractility observed with the lattice system. Alteration of actin-containing filaments by cytochalasin B significantly reduced RP contraction of silicone rubber and inhibited their contraction of collagen lattices in a dose-dependent manner. Rhodamine-phalloidin staining of contracting RPs revealed microfilament bundle orientations that suggested their association in the force applied for contraction. RP, VSMC and PMEC contraction of collagen lattices was directly proportional to the concentration of fetal calf serum. Also, RP contraction was greater in calf serum than calf plasma-derived serum, an indication that RPs respond to substances that appear continuously and episodically in blood. These in vitro findings support the theory that pericytes in vivo are contractile but that endothelial cells may also contribute to microvascular tonus.

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 · 10.1083/jcb.104.3.483

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 220

Metadata

Authors
Kelley, C., D'Amore, P., Hechtman, H. B., & Shepro, D.
Venue
The Journal of cell biology
Published
1987-03-01
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
483-490
ISSN
  • 0021-9525 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-8140
OpenAlex
W2075478289
Cited by
220
References
1
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Microvascular pericyte contractility in vitro: comparison with other cells of the vascular wall. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1083/jcb.104.3.483
The paper
Kelley, C., D'Amore, P., Hechtman, H. B., & Shepro, D. (1987). Microvascular pericyte contractility in vitro: comparison with other cells of the vascular wall. The Journal of cell biology. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.104.3.483

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.