PreprintCited by 162

Pericyte-derived fibrotic scarring is conserved across diverse central nervous system lesions.

Dias, David O., Kalkitsas, Jannis, Kelahmetoglu, Yildiz, Estrada, Cynthia P., Tatarishvili, Jemal, Ernst, Aurélie, Huttner, Hagen B., Kokaia, Zaal +4 more·2020·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

Abstract Fibrotic scar tissue limits central nervous system regeneration in adult mammals. The extent of fibrotic tissue generation and distribution of stromal cells across different lesions in the brain and spinal cord has not been systematically investigated in mice and humans. Furthermore, it is unknown whether scar-forming stromal cells have the same origin throughout the central nervous system and in different types of lesions. In the current study, we compared fibrotic scarring in human pathological tissue and corresponding mouse models of penetrating and non-penetrating spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, ischemic stroke, multiple sclerosis and glioblastoma. We show that the extent and distribution of stromal cells are specific to the type of lesion and, in most cases, similar between mice and humans. Employing in vivo lineage tracing, we report that in all mouse models developing fibrotic tissue, the primary source of scar-forming fibroblasts is a discrete subset of perivascular cells, termed type A pericytes. We uncover pericyte-derived fibrosis as a conserved mechanism that may be explored as a therapeutic target to improve recovery after central nervous system lesions.

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 · 10.1101/2020.04.30.068965

Cites

50 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Increased number of PDGFRβ-expressing cells are detected in human MS pathology samples and increased ECM protein deposition is a common pathological feature of MS lesions.

    “Increased number of PDGFRβ-expressing cells are detected in human MS pathology samples”

    From Living on the Edge of the CNS: Meninges Cell Diversity in Health and Disease (2021) · cites this paper as Dias et al., 2020

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dias, D. O., Kalkitsas, J., Kelahmetoglu, Y., Estrada, C. P., Tatarishvili, J., Ernst, A., Huttner, H. B., Kokaia, Z., Lindvall, O., Brundin, L., Frisén, J., & Göritz, C.
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-05-02
References
49
Type
Preprint

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