↓ Skip to main content

Markers for blood-brain barrier integrity: how appropriate is Evans blue in the twenty-first century and what are the alternatives?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
513 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Markers for blood-brain barrier integrity: how appropriate is Evans blue in the twenty-first century and what are the alternatives?
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norman R. Saunders, Katarzyna M. Dziegielewska, Kjeld Møllgård, Mark D. Habgood

Abstract

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in brain barriers and various roles their intrinsic mechanisms may play in neurological disorders. Such studies require suitable models and markers to demonstrate integrity and functional changes at the interfaces between blood, brain, and cerebrospinal fluid. Studies of brain barrier mechanisms and measurements of plasma volume using dyes have a long-standing history, dating back to the late nineteenth-century. Their use in blood-brain barrier studies continues in spite of their known serious limitations in in vivo applications. These were well known when first introduced, but seem to have been forgotten since. Understanding these limitations is important because Evans blue is still the most commonly used marker of brain barrier integrity and those using it seem oblivious to problems arising from its in vivo application. The introduction of HRP in the mid twentieth-century was an important advance because its reaction product can be visualized at the electron microscopical level, but it also has limitations. Advantages and disadvantages of these markers will be discussed together with a critical evaluation of alternative approaches. There is no single marker suitable for all purposes. A combination of different sized, visualizable dextrans and radiolabeled molecules currently seems to be the most appropriate approach for qualitative and quantitative assessment of barrier integrity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 513 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 504 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 134 26%
Researcher 78 15%
Student > Master 58 11%
Student > Bachelor 50 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 5%
Other 68 13%
Unknown 99 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 121 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 56 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 27 5%
Other 83 16%
Unknown 118 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,080
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,660
of 295,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#59
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,440 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.