Dataset Information

Pitfalls in assessing microvascular endothelial barrier function: impedance-based devices versus the classic macromolecular tracer assay.

ABSTRACT: The most frequently used parameters to describe the barrier properties of endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro are (i) the macromolecular permeability, indicating the flux of a macromolecular tracer across the endothelium, and (ii) electrical impedance of ECs grown on gold-film electrodes reporting on the cell layer's tightness for ion flow. Due to the experimental differences between these approaches, inconsistent observations have been described. Here, we present the first direct comparison of these assays applied to one single cell type (human microvascular ECs) under the same experimental conditions. The impact of different pharmacological tools (histamine, forskolin, Y-27632, blebbistatin, TRAP) on endothelial barrier function was analyzed by Transwell(®) tracer assays and two commercial impedance devices (xCELLigence(®), ECIS(®)). The two impedance techniques provided very similar results for all compounds, whereas macromolecular permeability readings were found to be partly inconsistent with impedance. Possible reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. We conclude that the complementary combination of both approaches is highly recommended to overcome the restrictions of each assay. Since the nature of the growth support may contribute to the observed differences, structure-function relationships should be based on cells that are consistently grown on either permeable or impermeable growth supports in all experiments.

SUBMITTER: Bischoff I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4877919 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pitfalls in assessing microvascular endothelial barrier function: impedance-based devices versus the classic macromolecular tracer assay.

Bischoff Iris I Hornburger Michael C MC Mayer Bettina A BA Beyerle Andrea A Wegener Joachim J Fürst Robert R

Scientific reports 20160330

The most frequently used parameters to describe the barrier properties of endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro are (i) the macromolecular permeability, indicating the flux of a macromolecular tracer across the endothelium, and (ii) electrical impedance of ECs grown on gold-film electrodes reporting on the cell layer's tightness for ion flow. Due to the experimental differences between these approaches, inconsistent observations have been described. Here, we present the first direct comparison of the ...[more]

PMID: 27025965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDisease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier.MethodsAerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac.ResultsVapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator.ConclusionsBarrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment.Editor’s perspective

Dataset Information

Pitfalls in assessing microvascular endothelial barrier function: impedance-based devices versus the classic macromolecular tracer assay.

Publications

Pitfalls in assessing microvascular endothelial barrier function: impedance-based devices versus the classic macromolecular tracer assay.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets