Mean Ghim1,2, Yumnah Mohamied1,3,4, Peter D Weinberg5. 1. Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. 2. School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. 4. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale Cardiovascular Research Centre, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. p.weinberg@imperial.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transport of water and solutes across vascular endothelium is important in normal physiology and critical in the development of various diseases, including atherosclerosis. However, there is debate about the routes for such transport. We recently showed that an albumin-sized tracer crossed endothelium at bicellular and tricellular junctions, a tracer having the size of high density lipoprotein crossed only through tricellular junctions, and a tracer with the size of low density lipoprotein was unable to cross by either route and instead traversed the cells themselves. Here we review previous work on the structure and function of tricellular junctions. We then describe a study in which we assessed the role of such junctions in the transport of an albumin-sized tracer. METHODS: We examined normal endothelial monolayers, the effect of agonists that modify their permeability, and the influence of different patterns of shear stress. RESULTS: Under normal conditions, approximately 85% of transendothelial transport occurred through tricellular junctions. This fraction was unchanged when permeability was reduced by sphingosine-1-phosphate or increased by thrombin, and also did not differ between endothelium exposed to multidirectional as opposed to uniaxial shear stress despite a > 50% difference in permeability. CONCLUSION: These data show that tricellular junctions dominate normal transport of this tracer and largely determine influences of agonists and shear. The effects were attributable to changes in both the number and conductivity of the junctions. Further investigation of these structures will lead to increased understanding of endothelial barrier function and may suggest new therapeutic strategies in disease.
PURPOSE: Transport of water and solutes across vascular endothelium is important in normal physiology and critical in the development of various diseases, including atherosclerosis. However, there is debate about the routes for such transport. We recently showed that an albumin-sized tracer crossed endothelium at bicellular and tricellular junctions, a tracer having the size of high density lipoprotein crossed only through tricellular junctions, and a tracer with the size of low density lipoprotein was unable to cross by either route and instead traversed the cells themselves. Here we review previous work on the structure and function of tricellular junctions. We then describe a study in which we assessed the role of such junctions in the transport of an albumin-sized tracer. METHODS: We examined normal endothelial monolayers, the effect of agonists that modify their permeability, and the influence of different patterns of shear stress. RESULTS: Under normal conditions, approximately 85% of transendothelial transport occurred through tricellular junctions. This fraction was unchanged when permeability was reduced by sphingosine-1-phosphate or increased by thrombin, and also did not differ between endothelium exposed to multidirectional as opposed to uniaxial shear stress despite a > 50% difference in permeability. CONCLUSION: These data show that tricellular junctions dominate normal transport of this tracer and largely determine influences of agonists and shear. The effects were attributable to changes in both the number and conductivity of the junctions. Further investigation of these structures will lead to increased understanding of endothelial barrier function and may suggest new therapeutic strategies in disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Endothelial cell; Epithelium; FITC-avidin; Hemodynamics; Intercellular cleft; Swirling well
Authors: Christina M Warboys; R Eric Berson; Giovanni E Mann; Jeremy D Pearson; Peter D Weinberg Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Cibelle Mariano; Inês Palmela; Pedro Pereira; Adelaide Fernandes; Ana Sofia Falcão; Filipa Lourenço Cardoso; Ana Rita Vaz; Alexandre Rainha Campos; António Gonçalves-Ferreira; Kwang Sik Kim; Dora Brites; Maria Alexandra Brito Journal: Cell Tissue Res Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Susanne M Krug; Salah Amasheh; Jan F Richter; Susanne Milatz; Dorothee Günzel; Julie K Westphal; Otmar Huber; Jörg D Schulzke; Michael Fromm Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 4.138
Authors: Yumnah Mohamied; Ethan M Rowland; Emma L Bailey; Spencer J Sherwin; Martin A Schwartz; Peter D Weinberg Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Mean Ghim; Sung-Wook Yang; Kamilah R Z David; Joel Eustaquio; Christina M Warboys; Peter D Weinberg Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 6.208