Cited by 19Barrier Structure and Function StudiesIon Transport and Channel RegulationTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Permeability of disrupted cerebral microvessels in the frog.

Open access
Fraser, P A, Dallas, A D·1993·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. This study reports the results of varying the hydrostatic pressure on measurements of permeability coefficient to the low molecular weight impermeant dye carboxyfluorescein (MW = 376) in single leaky cerebral microvessels. A mathematical model, that solved the convective diffusion equations used to analyse the measurements, showed that the measurements were consistent with leakiness being due to 22 nm wide parallel-sided slits between endothelial cells. 2. Microvessels on the surface of the frog's brain were cannulated with a micropipette and perfused with an artificial cerebrospinal fluid containing the dye. Vessels were occluded with a glass microneedle and the rate of change in dye concentration in a 12 microns length section was measured using video-intensified microscopy. 3. It was found that the rate of dye loss at all points along the occluded microvessel segment could be accounted for by a model for convection and diffusion, and that changes in dye concentration at a point remote from the segment entrance can give a good measure of diffusive permeability. 4. When series of measurements were carried out on a single vessel, permeability rose over the course of 20 min. Mean permeability for all measurements was 3.01 x 10(-5) cm sec-1, n = 64 (mode, 2.0; range, 0.48-9.6). The hydrostatic pressure applied during the perfusion had no effect on the measured permeability. 5. The dye concentration along the vessel axis was measured at the steady state and was shown to respo…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.1993.sp019532

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 Fraser and Dallas, 1993

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fraser, P. A., & Dallas, A. D.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-02
Volume
461
Issue
1
Pages
619-632
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W1988492062
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ion Transport and Channel Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
carboxyfluorescein, hydrostatic pressure, advection-diffusion, transendothelial channels, bulk flow, frog brain
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Fluoresceins, Hydrostatic Pressure, Microcirculation, Models, Cardiovascular, Rana pipiens

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