Cited by 168Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesBarrier Structure and Function StudiesDiffusion Coefficients in Liquids

Diffusion of Epidermal Growth Factor in Rat Brain Extracellular Space Measured by Integrative Optical Imaging

Thorne, Robert G., Hrabětová, Sabina, Nicholson, Charles·2004·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Epidermal growth factor (EGF) stimulates proliferation, process outgrowth, and survival in the CNS. Understanding the actions of EGF necessitates characterizing its distribution in brain tissue following drug delivery or release from cellular sources. We used the integrative optical imaging (IOI) method to measure diffusion of fluorescently labeled EGF (6,600 M r; 4 μg/ml) in the presence of excess unlabeled EGF (90 μg/ml) to compete off specific receptor binding and reveal the “true” EGF diffusion coefficient following injection in rat brain slices (400 μm). The effective diffusion coefficient was 5.18 ± 0.16 × 10−7(SE) cm 2/s ( n = 22) in rat somatosensory cortex and the free diffusion coefficient, determined in dilute agarose gel, was 16.6 ± 0.12 × 10−7 cm 2/s ( n = 27). Tortuosity (λ), a parameter representing the hindrance imposed on EGF by the convoluted brain extracellular space (ECS), was 1.8, the lowest yet measured by IOI for a protein in brain. Control experiments with fluorescent dextran of similar molecular weight and tetramethylammonium confirmed EGF did not affect local ECS structure. We conclude that transport of smaller growth factors such as EGF through brain ECS is less hindered than that of larger proteins (>10,000 M r, e.g., nerve growth factor) where typically λ > 2.1. Modeling was used to predict that low λ will allow EGF sources in the brain to be further from target cells and still elicit a biological response. High λ values for larger growth factors imply more constrained local biological effects than with smaller proteins such as EGF.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00352.2004

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thorne, R. G., Hrabětová, S., & Nicholson, C.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2004-12
Volume
92
Issue
6
Pages
3471-3481
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1969375579
Cited by
168
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-28642, R01NS028642)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Diffusion Coefficients in Liquids
Keywords
epidermal growth factor, diffusion coefficient, brain extracellular space, tortuosity, growth factor transport, somatosensory cortex, receptor binding, growth factor delivery, rat brain slices
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Dextrans, Diffusion, Epidermal Growth Factor, Extracellular Space, Female, Fluoresceins, Fluorescent Dyes, Iontophoresis, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Models, Biological, Molecular Sequence Data, Molecular Weight, Somatosensory Cortex, Xanthenes, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, In Vitro Techniques

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