Cited by 636Barrier Structure and Function StudiesNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms

Lipopolysaccharide-induced blood-brain barrier disruption: Roles of cyclooxygenase, oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and elements of the neurovascular unit

Open access
Banks, William A., Gray, Alicia M., Erickson, Michelle A., Salameh, Therese S., Damodarasamy, Mamatha, Sheibani, Nader, Meabon, James S., Wing, Emily E. +3 more·2015·Journal of Neuroinflammation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) occurs in many diseases and is often mediated by inflammatory and neuroimmune mechanisms. Inflammation is well established as a cause of BBB disruption, but many mechanistic questions remain. METHODS: We used lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to induce inflammation and BBB disruption in mice. BBB disruption was measured using (14)C-sucrose and radioactively labeled albumin. Brain cytokine responses were measured using multiplex technology and dependence on cyclooxygenase (COX) and oxidative stress determined by treatments with indomethacin and N-acetylcysteine. Astrocyte and microglia/macrophage responses were measured using brain immunohistochemistry. In vitro studies used Transwell cultures of primary brain endothelial cells co- or tri-cultured with astrocytes and pericytes to measure effects of LPS on transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER), cellular distribution of tight junction proteins, and permeability to (14)C-sucrose and radioactive albumin. RESULTS: In comparison to LPS-induced weight loss, the BBB was relatively resistant to LPS-induced disruption. Disruption occurred only with the highest dose of LPS and was most evident in the frontal cortex, thalamus, pons-medulla, and cerebellum with no disruption in the hypothalamus. The in vitro and in vivo patterns of LPS-induced disruption as measured with (14)C-sucrose, radioactive albumin, and TEER suggested involvement of both paracellular and transcytotic pathways. Disruption as measured with albumin and (14)C-sucrose, but not TEER, was blocked by indomethacin. N-acetylcysteine did not affect disruption. In vivo, the measures of neuroinflammation induced by LPS were mainly not reversed by indomethacin. In vitro, the effects on LPS and indomethacin were not altered when brain endothelial cells (BECs) were cultured with astrocytes or pericytes. CONCLUSIONS: The BBB is relatively resistant to LPS-induced disruption with some brain regions more vulnerable than others. LPS-induced disruption appears is to be dependent on COX but not on oxidative stress. Based on in vivo and in vitro measures of neuroinflammation, it appears that astrocytes, microglia/macrophages, and pericytes play little role in the LPS-mediated disruption of the BBB.

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 · 10.1186/s12974-015-0434-1

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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
Banks, W. A., Gray, A. M., Erickson, M. A., Salameh, T. S., Damodarasamy, M., Sheibani, N., Meabon, J. S., Wing, E. E., Morofuji, Y., Cook, D. G., & Reed, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Nagasaki (JP)
Corresponding author
Banks, William A.
Venue
Journal of Neuroinflammation
Published
2015-11-25
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
223-223
ISSN
1742-2094 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2175869408
Cited by
636
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
15.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroinflammation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Nagasaki University's Academic Output SITE (Nagasaki University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • va
  • National Institutes of Health (AG029839)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Keywords
blood-brain barrier disruption, lipopolysaccharide, cyclooxygenase, indomethacin, oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, neurovascular unit, astrocytes, microglia/macrophages, pericytes, brain endothelial cells, tight junctions, regional brain vulnerability, neuroimmune mechanisms
MeSH terms
Animals, Astrocytes, Blood-Brain Barrier, Cell Line, Transformed, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Inflammation, Lipopolysaccharides, Male, Prostaglandin-Endoperoxide Synthases, Oxidative Stress, Inflammation Mediators, Coculture Techniques, Endothelial Cells, 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