Open Access
14 May 2022 Immune–vascular mural cell interactions: consequences for immune cell trafficking, cerebral blood flow, and the blood–brain barrier
Anna Barkaway, David Attwell, Nils Korte
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Brain barriers are crucial sites for cerebral energy supply, waste removal, immune cell migration, and solute exchange, all of which maintain an appropriate environment for neuronal activity. At the capillary level, where the largest area of brain–vascular interface occurs, pericytes adjust cerebral blood flow (CBF) by regulating capillary diameter and maintain the blood–brain barrier (BBB) by suppressing endothelial cell (EC) transcytosis and inducing tight junction expression between ECs. Pericytes also limit the infiltration of circulating leukocytes into the brain where resident microglia confine brain injury and provide the first line of defence against invading pathogens. Brain “waste” is cleared across the BBB into the blood, phagocytosed by microglia and astrocytes, or removed by the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through perivascular routes—a process driven by respiratory motion and the pulsation of the heart, arteriolar smooth muscle, and possibly pericytes. “Dirty” CSF exits the brain and is probably drained around olfactory nerve rootlets and via the dural meningeal lymphatic vessels and possibly the skull bone marrow. The brain is widely regarded as an immune-privileged organ because it is accessible to few antigen-primed leukocytes. Leukocytes enter the brain via the meninges, the BBB, and the blood-CSF barrier. Advances in genetic and imaging tools have revealed that neurological diseases significantly alter immune–brain barrier interactions in at least three ways: (1) the brain’s immune-privileged status is compromised when pericytes are lost or lymphatic vessels are dysregulated; (2) immune cells release vasoactive molecules to regulate CBF, modulate arteriole stiffness, and can plug and eliminate capillaries which impairs CBF and possibly waste clearance; and (3) immune–vascular interactions can make the BBB leaky via multiple mechanisms, thus aggravating the influx of undesirable substances and cells. Here, we review developments in these three areas and briefly discuss potential therapeutic avenues for restoring brain barrier functions.

1.

Introduction

Brain bordering tissues comprise the glia limitans, blood–brain and blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barriers, meninges, and skull bone marrow. They allow communication between the brain and peripheral immune system, facilitate cerebral supply of oxygen, glucose, ions, and various regulatory molecules while promoting the efflux of metabolic waste and limiting the influx of neurotoxic molecules, pathogens, and leukocytes. Over the past 15 years, the proposed existence of the glymphatic system, (re)discovery of the meningeal lymphatics, and advances in our understanding of cerebral immunosurveillance, the blood–brain barrier (BBB), and blood supply have given important new insight into how the brain functions. The brain exhibits an immune-specialized status to minimize damage to its largely non-proliferating (and hence long-lived) cells, and therefore, leukocyte–vascular interactions and trafficking are tightly controlled. Neuroinflammation and microvascular dysfunction are hallmarks of various neurological diseases including, but not limited to, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), stroke, brain tumors, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis (MS). Capillaries are the site of the greatest vascular resistance within the brain1 and provide the largest surface area for solute exchange.2 Control of capillary function is therefore crucial for regulating energy supply, BBB maintenance, and immune trafficking.

Following an overview of the brain vascular network and CSF transport routes, we will review recent advances in immune cell trafficking, immune modulation of cerebral blood flow (CBF), and BBB properties in various neurological diseases.

2.

Overview of the Brain Vasculature and CSF Transport Routes

Blood enters the cerebral cortex from its surface through penetrating arterioles (PAs), goes through a vast network of capillaries for brain–blood and blood–brain solute exchange, and exits via ascending venules (AVs) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Organization of the brain vasculature, proposed waste clearance pathways and immune cells involved in brain surveillance. Blood in pial arteries enters the cerebral cortex parenchyma down PAs, goes through capillaries to supply oxygen and glucose to neurons, and exits the brain via AVs. Blood oxygenation decreases as it passes through the capillary bed, as indicated by the vessel color transitioning from red to blue. The PA is referred to as the zeroth-order vessel, the first branch off the arteriole as the first-order capillary, the branches of the first-order capillary as the second-order capillary and so on. Smooth muscle cells wrapping pial arteries and PAs, and pericytes with contractile processes around capillaries, control CBF by adjusting vessel diameter. CSF, which circulates in the subarachnoid space between the pia mater and arachnoid membrane, enters the perivascular space of PAs. Vessel pulsation driven by the heart, spontaneous vasomotion of SMCs and possibly first- to third-order capillary pericytes, creates a flow of CSF, which drains ISF waste either via reverse perivascular transport in small spaces of the PA wall, or through the brain via the glymphatic system (so called because AQP4 water channels in astroglial endfeet facilitate the exchange of CSF and ISF) possibly exiting via perivenular pathways to the subarachnoid space and dura. ISF might be drained (perineurally) along olfactory nerve rootlets into lymph vessels (not shown), via the dural meningeal lymphatics, across the BBB and/or venous sinuses into the blood and possibly through skull channels into the calvarial marrow. APCs (DCs, MΦ, and B cells) in the dura can capture CSF-derived brain antigens and present them to T cells, which modulate cognitive function by releasing neuromodulatory cytokines. The skull’s hematopoietic niche supplies leukocytes to the meninges. Cerebral waste molecules are also removed across ECs into the blood or phagocytosed by microglia and astrocytes. Microglia scan the brain for damage or infection related signals, prune synapses, at least in part by being programmed by T cells, regulate CBF, and NVC via purinergic signaling, repair damaged vessels by facilitating EC ligation and promote EC tip fusion during development, “anastomosis.” During aging, pericyte contraction and possibly neutrophil plugging (as occurs in AD) lead to a reduction of microvascular blood flow and may contribute to capillaries becoming pruned and phagocytosed by microglia.

NPH_9_3_031914_f001.png

CBF is controlled by smooth muscle cells (SMCs) around arteries and arterioles and by pericytes with contractile processes wrapping circumferentially around capillaries.36 Advances in tools to optogenetically depolarize and transgenically label pericytes, to image their vasomotor tone and intracellular Ca2+ ([Ca2+]i) activity in vivo, have revealed that pericytes throughout the capillary bed are contractile and that those of at least the first to third capillary branching order from PAs (where first-order refers to the first branch) contribute to neuronal activity evoked increases in CBF (Fig. 1).713 Pericytes are endowed with a wide range of ion channels allowing them to sense metabolic stimuli from the blood and brain to control CBF and solute transport appropriately (see Refs. 1415.16 for transcriptome databases and Ref. 17 for a detailed review).

Respiratory motion, ciliary beating, vessel pulsation driven by the heart and spontaneous vasomotion of SMCs, and possibly pericytes of the first to third capillary branching order drive the flow of CSF, which facilitates brain buoyancy, waste clearance, and brain antigen presentation to systemic immune cells.1824 CSF is generated by choroid plexus epithelial cells in the cerebral ventricles and circulates in the subarachnoid space from where it can enter the paravascular space of PAs (Fig. 1). Pulsations or spontaneous vasomotion move CSF either in a “reverse” manner back up the para-arterial spaces of PAs or through the brain via the postulated “glymphatic” system (involving water flow through the vascular endfeet of astrocytes), which drains cerebral interstitial fluid (ISF) possibly along AVs.18,20,2527 This allows CSF to collect waste products and soluble antigens from the brain.

3.

Immune Surveillance and Trafficking in the Brain: Pericytes as Immune Gatekeepers

3.1.

Immune Surveillance

The brain is surveyed by microglia and astrocytes in the parenchyma, macrophages (MΦ) in the perivascular space, and by peripheral immune cells capturing brain antigens in the CSF and blood (Table 1).

Table 1

Types of immune cell discussed in this review.

Peripheral immune cells
Cell typeLocation% of blood leukocytesNumbers in blood (103/μl)Main immunological role
NeutrophilPeripheral blood16* (mice)1.4* (mice)Recruited to sites of infection/injury to kill via phagocytosis, release of granular contents or via pathogen trapping in extracellular traps; usually the first peripheral cells recruited to inflamed tissues.
60** (human)3.4** (human)
MonocytePeripheral blood5* (mice)0.4* (mice)Patrolling phagocytic cells involved in clearance of debris, phagocytosis, capturing and killing microbes once recruited to tissues.
5** (human)0.26** (human)
B lymphocytePeripheral blood77* (mice)Total lymphocyte count : 6.87* (mice)Differentiate into plasma cells or memory B cells upon antigen recognition to produce antigen-specific antibodies for long-lasting immunity against secondary antigen challenges.
CD4+ T lymphocytePeripheral blood and CSF27** (human)1.52** (human)Recognize major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II on APCs and aid recruitment of other immune cell subsets.
CD8+ T lymphocytePeripheral blood and CSFRecognize MHC class I and kill via secretion of cytokines, cytotoxic granules or by inducing apoptosis.
Major tissue immune cell types
Cell typeLocation% of CNS leukocytesPhysiological role
PVMPerivascular space, meninges, and choroid plexus10***Myeloid cells closely associated with the vasculature which scan the perivascular space, phagocytose debris and initiate recruitment of peripheral leukocytes.
MicrogliaBrain parenchyma80***Resident immune cells of the brain that patrol the parenchyma, send out processes toward sites of injury to confine damage; scavenge foreign material, debris and synapses for removal; involved in synaptic pruning, neurogenesis and axonal growth.
DCMeninges and choroid plexus3***Role in antigen capture, processing and presentation to T cells to propagate immune responses.
Mast cellMeninges, choroid plexus, and parenchyma0.5***Derived from haematopoietic stem cells, long lived and resident cells, where they can interact with glia cells to orchestrate inflammation. Role not fully determined.

*8–10 week old male mice.28

**Male adults.29

***2 month old C57BL6 mice as assessed by mass cytometry.30

Microglia are highly ramified cells that constantly survey the brain parenchyma for infection or injury,3133 phagocytose dead neurons,34 monitor and prune synapses,3537 and regulate neuronal activity,38 in part by forming purinergic somatic junctions with neurons39 and also by releasing adenosine onto neuronal A1 receptors.40 By extending and retracting their highly motile processes, microglia screen the entire brain parenchyma every few hours.33 A second mode of process motility called “chemotaxis” occurs when microglia send out processes toward sites of brain injury to confine brain damage, phagocytose cell debris, and limit secondary brain injury.41 Clearance of waste products is facilitated by tunnelling nanotubes connecting neighbouring microglia.42 Moreover, astrocytes, which are also capable of phagocytosis,4347 occupy distinct phagocytic territories from those of microglia to aid in debris removal.48 Microglial immunophenotypic features can vary considerably across brain regions,49 highlighting their heterogenous nature. Microglia also closely associate with capillaries to modulate their functions (Fig. 2), as discussed in detail below.

Fig. 2

Microglia–vascular interactions in the murine cerebral cortex—confocal images from murine brain slices depicting the cortical parenchymal vascular bed. Microglia (green: labeled for Iba1) are often closely associated with the vasculature (magenta: pericytes visualized using NG2-DsRed transgenic mice) and have processes that can directly contact the abluminal vessel wall.

NPH_9_3_031914_f002.png

It is now evident that brain immune surveillance is not restricted to microglia, but also involves brain border-associated immune cells that have phenotypic properties distinct from microglia as revealed by recent high dimensional single-cell cytometry studies.30,50 Border-associated immune cells screen CSF-derived molecules in the perivascular spaces, meninges (dura, arachnoid, and pia), choroid plexus, deep cervical lymph nodes, and possibly the skull.51,52 CSF antigens drained from the brain can enter the dura, where antigen-presenting cells (APC) [including dendritic cells (DCs), MΦ, and B cells] capture brain antigens and present them to patrolling T cells53 (Fig. 3). In the dura, endothelial and mural cells (mainly pericytes and SMCs) recruit T cells by secreting the chemokine CXCL12, which binds to CXCR4 on T cells to promote their migration from the blood through the fenestrated endothelium of the dural venous sinuses.55,56 T cells modulate neuronal function probably by secreting cytokines from the meninges,57,58 or by migrating from the meninges into the brain, for instance, to program microglia to prune synapses59 or regulate neural stem cell proliferation.60 CSF in the dura can also drain through skull channels into the overlying bone marrow, which generates a rich pool of leukocytes that populates the meninges.6166 Moreover, leukocytes may survey the brain in the CSF following their entry from the blood via the choroid plexus and possibly their movement along the perivascular space.67 The architecture of the vasculature, its cellular composition, and its perivascular spaces are diverse across the brain and its bordering tissues, leading to differences in the accessibility to and function of its associated immune cells [for detailed reviews on central nervous system (CNS) tissue immune cell differences see Refs. 68 and 69].

Fig. 3

Dural immune cells survey brain antigens supplied by the draining CSF. CSF antigens may enter the dura through arachnoid granulations and become captured by APCs including DCs, MΦ, and possibly B cells. Endothelial (EC) or mural cell release of CXCL12 recruits T cells across the fenestrated endothelium of dural venous sinuses (on left), allowing T cells to survey antigens presented by APCs. CSF antigens are presented to immune cells in cervical lymph nodes (not shown) by being drained along perineural and dural lymphatic routes. Meningeal immune cells are repopulated by immune cells generated in the skull bone marrow. Figure created using BioRender.54

NPH_9_3_031914_f003.png

In the past, CSF was assumed to leave the brain either across the cribriform plate along (perineural) olfactory nerve rootlets into lymph vessels or by entering the blood via arachnoid villi and granulations somehow connecting to venous sinuses.7072 Recent studies, however, suggest instead that CSF is also drained into the dura (possibly via arachnoid granulations) from where CSF enters the meningeal lymphatics, which project to deep cervical lymph nodes55,7376 (Fig. 3). However, to date, the mechanism by which CSF crosses the arachnoid barrier into the venous sinus or dural lymphatics remains unknown. In fact, tight junctions between epithelial-like cells comprising the arachnoid should hinder the efflux of CSF and its constituents. Arachnoid granulations have thus been proposed to feature specialized structures for efflux, such as one-way valves or vacuole-forming channels.77 Furthermore, the relative contributions of olfactory perineural, venous sinus, and dural lymphatic routes to CSF efflux are unclear and a topic of ongoing discussion.77,78

Peripheral blood leukocytes (Table 1) can also enter the brain across the BBB. Migration occurs across post-capillary vascular segments that connect to AVs. This is a two-step process: passage (1) across the vascular wall into the perivascular space, and subsequently (2) across the glia limitans that comprises the border between the perivascular space and the brain parenchyma.56 In the absence of neuroinflammation, leukocyte migration across the BBB is rare, and restricted to activated T cells, which cross the vasculature in an antigen non-specific manner.79 T cells need to recognize their cognate antigen from APCs in the perivascular space for them to cross the glia limitans.80 Pericytes may also be able to internalize and present antigens to T cells, in addition to stimulating the expansion of and cytokine secretion from T cells already primed by APCs.81,82 During neuroinflammation, however, neutrophils, monocytes, and B cells are also recruited across the BBB into the parenchyma (see Fig. 4). Erythrocytes are also key components of both immunosurveillance and the inflammatory response, by scavenging and sequestering mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) via toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9).90 During inflammation, the binding of DNA from bacteria, plasmodia, and mitochondria to erythrocyte TLR-9 increases neutrophil infiltration into the spleen, enhances interferon signaling and promotes anaemia by erythrophagocytosis.91 Erythrocytes additionally scavenge chemokines, thus regulating chemokine concentrations in the plasma.92

Fig. 4

Interaction of leukocytes with, and entry across, the BBB. The neurovascular unit is comprised of a single layer of ECs, contractile pericytes, and smooth muscle cells embedded in the basement membrane, as well as astrocytes and neurons. Neurons and astrocytes send signals to the mural contractile cells to regulate CBF. Perivascular MΦ reside in the perivascular space that is lined with the end-feet of astrocytes forming the glia limitans. Microglia are present in the brain parenchyma but can make direct contact with pericytes via their numerous processes. Infectious agents and tissue damage are detected by these tissue resident immune cells via pattern recognition receptors such as toll-like receptors, which in turn induce transcription and translation of inflammatory cytokines to activate ECs, promoting leukocyte entry and increasing permeability to small molecules. Leukocyte entry occurs across post-capillary vascular segments adjoining ascending venules, where ECs initially upregulate P and E selectin to capture leukocytes in the blood via their respective carbohydrate ligands (e.g., P selectin/PSGL1 interactions). Rolling reduces the speed of leukocytes, allowing prolonged contact time with the endothelium. Subsequent firm adhesive interactions occur via immobilized chemokine ligation to GPCRs on leukocytes, which switches leukocyte integrins into a high affinity state (e.g., ICAM-1/LFA-1 interactions). In the periphery, the majority of leukocyte migration occurs in a paracellular manner, through the junctions of adjacent ECs.83 However, in the CNS during exacerbated inflammation T cells can migrate through the body of the EC: a transcellular route84 which occurs due to a lack of T cell crawling induced by high ICAM-1 expression.85 Additionally, ACKR1, a non-signaling atypical chemokine receptor, mediates the shuttling of chemokines across the BBB, which could also contribute to the mediation of transcellular migration.86 It is thought the transcellular route is the preferred mode by which neutrophils move through the brain EC layer.87 Approximately 50% of paracellular movement of leukocytes across the vessel wall occurs at tricellular junctions of ECs of the CNS (where three ECs meet).88 After crossing the endothelial layer into the perivascular space, leukocytes must then pass the glia limitans layer89 to enter the brain parenchyma. Figure created using BioRender.54

NPH_9_3_031914_f004.png

3.2.

Pericyte Control of Leukocyte Trafficking

Recruitment of leukocytes into the brain is a key hallmark of numerous CNS disorders.93,94 For example, neutrophils enter the brain parenchyma early in the progression of AD.94,95 Following stroke, neutrophils may extravasate into the parenchyma9698 or become trapped and confined within the neurovascular unit.99 In addition, the parenchymal infiltration of highly activated T and B cells is a probable driver of early MS pathology.100 Upregulation of adhesion molecules by ECs is considered a significant contributing factor to leukocyte influx in CNS disease95,101 and now a role for pericytes in leukocyte recruitment in the CNS is starting to emerge.

Since pericytes embedded in the basement membrane constitute the outermost layer of blood vessels, they are ideally situated to control multiple components of the immune response, as has been highlighted in the periphery. For example, during tumor necrosis factor (TNF) or interleukin (IL)-1β induced inflammation in the murine cremaster muscle, neutrophils are guided via pericyte intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) to pericyte gaps to breach the vessel wall and enter the interstitium.102 In addition, in murine inflamed ear skin, pericytes on capillaries and arterioles aid chemotactic interstitial migration by interacting with neutrophils and monocytes via ICAM-1, and further support neutrophil migratory responses by providing chemokines, including macrophage migration inhibitory factor, C-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 2 (CCL2), and C-X-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 1 (CXCL1).103

Intriguingly, while pericytes orchestrate and facilitate leukocyte entry in the periphery, in the CNS it was recently demonstrated that pericytes reduce the permissiveness of the vasculature to leukocyte entry. Mice lacking the PDGFβ retention motif, Pdgfbret/ret (producing a 75% reduction in the number of pericytes in the brain) exhibit an intense influx of leukocytes in health and disease, presumably mediated by loss of pericyte-evoked suppression of ICAM-1 and vascular adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) expression on ECs.104,105 This raises important questions regarding the function of pericytes during leukocyte recruitment in the brain: do brain pericytes prevent leukocyte entry unlike pericytes in other organs such as the cremaster muscle or ear skin, and mechanistically, how is this mediated? Do pericytes physically hinder the recruitment of leukocytes to the interstitium, or do they produce factors involved in maintaining homeostasis to reduce immune cell entry, which may also impact the endothelial cell (EC) phenotype? This has been previously suggested by a study in the mouse retina, whereby depletion of pericytes induced a pro-inflammatory phenotype in ECs, characterized by increased expression of CCL2 or VCAM-1.106 In this context, one emerging mediator in pericyte biology is IL-33, which is released via PDGFRβ signaling. IL-33 is considered to be an “alarmin” secreted by a wide range of stromal cells, which polarizes microglia toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype in mouse models of AD.107,108 As such, a lack of pericyte-derived IL-33 could further exacerbate immune cell recruitment and impact EC responses—aspects that remain to be investigated.

Furthermore, pericytes are involved in neuronal control of the CNS immune response, by sensing and relaying signals to neurons early in systemic inflammation. Following systemic lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation in mice, PDGFRβ-expressing pericytes express high levels of the chemokine CCL2 during the initial acute phase of inflammation. Importantly, CCL2 acts on CCR2, the chemokine’s receptor on neurons, and enhances excitatory synaptic transmission.109 Given the early release of CCL2 from pericytes in this model, it will be important to define whether this is a transient response and if it is necessary for chronic inflammatory responses. Does pericyte-CCL2 work synergistically with, or independently from, CCL2 produced by microglia? Indeed, CCL2 is also a key factor that recruits monocytes and T cells to sites of inflammation,110,111 suggesting that pericyte-derived CCL2 may also act as a chemotactic molecule in this manner.

Chemokines are presented to leukocytes to facilitate migration into inflamed tissues -a process facilitated in part by the binding of tissue-derived chemokines on the abluminal side of ECs to atypical chemokine receptor 1 (ACKR1), a receptor that facilitates the internalization, transportation, and presentation of chemokines to leukocytes on the luminal aspect of ECs.92,112 For example, in the murine CNS, ACKR1 is upregulated in ECs during inflammation and shuttles chemokines across the BBB to be presented luminally, whereas erythrocyte ACKR1 acts as a chemokine reservoir.86 Other members of the ACKR family are involved in chemokine scavenge and degradation.92 To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated the expression and function of ACKRs on brain pericytes, despite RNAseq data suggesting brain pericytes could express some classes of ACKRs.14,16 Thus, pericytes may play a role in the retention, presentation, or degradation of chemokines via ACKRs, which is yet to be investigated.

In cancer, pericyte deficiency leads to increased leukocyte infiltration in murine experimentally induced tumors, IL-6 upregulation, and hypoxia.113 Importantly, the interaction of glioblastoma cells with human pericytes induces expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and TGF-β, which prevent attack of the tumor by host T cell mechanisms, hence promoting tumor survival.114,115 Furthermore, targeting glioma-derived pericytes can increase chemotherapeutic drug effusion into tumors.116 Hence, not only do pericytes provide a barrier to leukocyte entry in healthy conditions, but they can propagate tumor growth and malignancy by limiting tumor invasion by the host’s immune system. However, pericytes also play key roles in the vascularization of tumors via angiogenesis,117 therefore, suggesting a complicated role for pericytes in cancer.

In summary, it is now clear that pericytes are key mediators in the sensing and propagation of the inflammatory response. However, the role of pericytes seems to be highly organ-specific and dependent on the inflammatory stimulus. Crucially, detailed analysis of pericyte-leukocyte interactions in the CNS is required to understand whether mechanisms are shared between the CNS and the periphery.

4.

Immune Cell Control of Blood Supply to the CNS

Over 100 years after their discovery, which highlighted their association with the vasculature (see Ref. 118 for a historical overview), microglia are beginning to be recognized as an important modulator of microvascular blood flow in the healthy and diseased adult CNS.5,119121 Peripheral immune cells and microglia generate peptides, purines, catecholamines, cytokines, chemokines, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) with established vasoactive properties. These soluble molecules modulate CBF, whether released locally from microglia or invading immune cells, from the perivascular space,122 or into the circulation from distal tissues such as the gut.123,124 Immune cells may also alter CBF by scavenging vasoconstrictors such as noradrenaline and endothelin-1 (as occurs in the periphery125,126), degrading matrix proteins regulating vessel stiffness,127 contributing to the formation of capillary blocks,128131 and eliminating capillaries by phagocytosis.132,133 Here, we review some of these emerging roles of immune cells in CBF control.

4.1.

Microglia form Purinergic Junctions with Capillaries to Control CBF

Microglia can interact with capillaries by sensing purines released from pericytes, ECs or astrocyte endfeet on capillaries and, in pathology, by sensing entry of fibrinogen into the parenchyma from the blood.134136 The purines, mainly adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and its hydrolysis product adenosine diphosphate (ADP), are sensed by microglial P2Y12 receptors (P2Y12Rs).119 Microglia are the only cells expressing P2Y12Rs in the CNS parenchyma,137 although in the blood, ADP also activates P2Y12Rs on platelets, enhancing their aggregation.138 Fibrinogen activates microglia by binding to the integrin receptor Mac1 [cluster of differentiation (CD)11b/CD18].134 P2Y12R stimulation mediates β1 integrin activation in microglial processes required for chemotaxis toward sites of ATP/ADP released from capillaries, as occurs when brain injury releases ATP from damaged cells and raises [ATP]o.139141 Interestingly, microglial processes contact 83% of pericytes on capillaries, and cover 15% of the EC surface, predominantly at sites of mitochondria,120 which provide ATP released via capillary pannexin 1 (PANX1).119 High levels of P2Y12Rs at the bulbous tips of microglial processes likely facilitate these contacts.142 Furthermore, 30% of all microglia somata are closely associated with capillaries.119 Microglia also contact capillary segments where astrocyte endfeet are absent, forming an integral part of the glia limitans,120,143145 and so are ideally placed to modulate CBF.

Contradictory data exist on the role of microglia in CBF control. In P2Y12R or PANX1 deficient mice, microglia-capillary interactions are reduced, and CBF is increased, suggesting that microglia confer vascular tone by a mechanism dependent on purinergic signaling.119 This is consistent with pharmacological microglial depletion increasing capillary diameter and CBF.119 Others, however, did not detect changes in CBF upon microglial depletion,120 possibly reflecting differences in anaesthetics used or brain regions imaged. Conceivably, CBF changes in P2Y12R or PANX1 deficient mice may also be evoked by reductions in platelet aggregation in these mice.146,147 Furthermore, PANX1 modulates a wide range of physiological functions including inflammasome assembly, dendritic spine development, and sleep-wake cycle patterns,148150 which may change CBF. Interestingly, global PANX1 KO in mice protects against cerebral infarction in ischaemia,151153 and this is at least partially mediated by endothelial (but not mural cell) PANX1 KO reducing contractile tone and attenuating leukocyte infiltration.154 In contrast, P2Y12R blockade increases infarct size and microglial elimination reduces CBF after experimental stroke in murine models.39,120 Microglial depletion, P2Y12R knock-out, or pharmacological P2Y12R blockade in mice also reduce neuronally evoked increases in CBF by 16%,120 suggesting that microglia may contribute to neurovascular coupling (NVC). Importantly, P2Y12R expression is reduced in various neurological diseases as shown in humans in AD and MS and in murine models of ischemic stroke,155157 which may therefore alter microglia-capillary interactions132,135,158 and impair NVC159161 in these diseases.

In summary, these studies suggest a role for microglia-mediated CBF control beyond that of vessel growth during development162164 (Fig. 1) and warrant further research into the mechanisms by which PANX1 and P2Y12Rs control CBF.

4.2.

Immune Cells Signal to Mural Cells Directly via the Blood or CSF and Block Capillaries in Disease

Microglia and cerebral perivascular macrophages (PVMs) signal directly to mural cells to modulate CBF. This is facilitated by their close association with mural cells. Unlike microglia, however, PVMs lack ramified processes and P2Y12Rs, and are located outside the glia limitans and within the perivascular space, closely juxtaposed to PAs and capillaries of at least the first to third branching order122,165 (Fig. 1). Peripheral immune cells also regulate mural cell contractile tone, although probably on a slower timescale, by releasing signaling molecules into the blood or CSF.123,166168 Molecules released into the blood may act on ECs at the luminal side of the BBB, whereas those in the CSF may modulate vascular tone by entering the brain through the glia limitans at the pial surface or by being transported along perivascular and glymphatic routes (Figs. 1 and 3). Importantly, the glia limitans, arachnoid mater, and dural vasculature allow the passage of molecules up to 40  kDa in size (e.g., 40-kDa dextran or HRP),25,169171 which is larger than the size of most cytokines (5 to 25 kDa). Leukocytes in the meninges may therefore release molecules into the CSF to modulate CBF.

In the healthy murine brain, circulating leukocytes stall transiently in 0.4% of cerebral capillaries, possibly by interacting with the glycocalyx or selectins on ECs128,172174 (Fig. 4). However in disease, disruption of the glycocalyx, upregulation of selectins and adhesion molecules or any narrowing of the capillary lumen evoked by pericyte contraction or oedema may cause leukocytes, which are less distensible and larger than erythrocytes, to become trapped in CNS capillaries. Neutrophil blocks were shown to occur in rodent models of stroke, diabetic retinopathy, sepsis, cerebral malaria, AD, and subcortical vascular dementia.128131,175180

Similar vascular blocks by leukocytes can be observed in patients with AD95 and stroke,99 although the human leukocyte blood composition is remarkably different from that of mice (Table 1), in that there are more neutrophils and less lymphocytes (Table 1). In stroke patients, live computed tomography imaging of granulocytes labeled with a radioactive tracer revealed that granulocyte accumulation in regions of cerebral infarction correlates with worse neurological outcome and infarct volume.181,182 Since ischaemic stroke or the toxic build-up of Aβ oligomers in AD leads to pericytes constricting capillaries near their somata, where most circumferential processes are located,5,8 leukocytes may become trapped near pericyte somata as suggested by our data in a rodent model of stroke [Fig. 5(a)].183 Formation of capillary blocks may also be enhanced by neutrophils aggregating with platelets, possibly by generating extracellular DNA traps as occurs in arterial clots of ischemic stroke patients184,185 or by the release of inflammatory molecules as described below.

Fig. 5

Mural cell leukocyte interactions modulating blood flow. (a) In vivo two-photon imaging of a neutrophil stalled near a pericyte soma in a cerebral capillary 1.5 h after bilateral common carotid artery occlusion in an adult mouse expressing dsRed under the pericyte NG2 promoter. Blood neutrophils are labeled using an antibody conjugated to Ly6G (0.1  mg/kg i.v.). Arrow indicates the narrowed lumen diameter at the pericyte soma. (b) Major ion channels and GPCRs modulating mural cell contractile tone in response to immune molecules. Stimulation of GPCRs coupled to Gq, G12/13, and Gi and Ca2+ influx through CaVs promotes contraction, whereas GPCRs coupled to Gs, K+ efflux and GC activity reduce contraction. Immune cells may modulate contractility by releasing angiotensin II (Ang II), TNF-α, adenosine, PGE2, and NO. NO generated by nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activates mural cell GC, which promotes vasodilation by enhancing the activity of MLCP. NO levels are increased by IL-1β and reduced by IL-17 and IL-6 negatively regulating eNOS and by O2 reacting with NO. Figure created in part using BioRender.54

NPH_9_3_031914_f005.png

4.3.

Modes of Mural Cell Contraction by Immune Molecules

There are numerous immune-related molecules with known effects on blood flow. They include adenosine, angiotensin II (Ang II), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), IL-1α, and nitric oxide (NO) generated by microglia,120,121,186188 histamine produced by mast cells,189194 fractalkine (FKN) released by neurons,121 IL-17 generated by T helper cells,123 TGF-β released from astrocytes,195,196 IL-10 released from T regulatory cells197 and ROS, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and TNFα generated by various immune cells (Table 2).

Table 2

Possible pathways mediating immune cell regulation of vascular tone in health and disease.

Expected vasomotor effectGenerating cell typeAgonistMechanismReferences
Vasodilation or increased blood flowMicrogliaNOStimulates mural cell GC188,198
adenosineGsPCR-coupled adenosine receptors on mural cells40,120,199
PGE2GsPCR-coupled EP4 receptors on pericytes and Gq-coupled endothelial EP1 receptors11,14,186,200
IL-1βIL-1 receptor mediated release of NO and PGE2141,199,201202.203.204.205
IL-1αPial artery dilation187
Microglia, perivascular MΦ, blood and meningeal leukocytesROSATP-gated and Ca2+-activated K+ channels in SMCs165,206207.208.209
T regulatory cellsIL-10Reduces Ang II evoked release of O2197
Mast cellshistamineCapillary dilation191
Various leukocytesTNFαIncreases blood flow by stimulating NO release210
Vasoconstriction or decreased blood flowMicrogliaThromboxane-A2GqPCR-coupled thromboxane A2 receptors on mural cells7,14
IL-1βInflammation and leukocyte infiltration203,211
Angiotensin IIGi and Gq-coupled Ang II type 1 receptors on mural cells121
Microglia, PVM, blood and meningeal leukocytes, pericytesROSCa2+ release from stores in pericytes; reduces NO bioavailability; stimulates release of endothelin-1 activating Gq-coupled ETA receptors on pericytes165,206207.208,212213.214
NeuronsFKNStimulates microglia to release Ang II acting on Ang II type 1 receptors on mural cells121
Gut T helper cellsIL-17Negatively regulates eNOS by enhancing its Thr495 phosphorylation123,124
Various leukocytesIL-6Negatively regulates eNOS by inhibiting its phosphorylation at Ser1177215,216
Mast cellshistamineDepolarizes and contracts pericytes via histamine (H1) receptors189,192193.194
AstrocytesTGF-βExcessive production reduces CBF possibly by inducing mural cell loss195,196

There are established mechanisms by which these immune molecules may modulate the contractile tone of pericytes and SMCs [Fig. 5(b)]. Molecules may directly act on mural cells or signal through neighboring cells such as ECs to modulate the activity of mural cell ion channels, guanylyl cyclase (GC), or G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). GPCRs coupled to Gq/11, Gs, Gi/o, or G12/13 α subunits can influence a wide range of Ca2+-, Cl-, Na+-, or K+-permeable surface membrane ion channels to regulate mural cell contractile tone. The surface membrane ion channels involved can be broadly divided into those having a hyperpolarizing or depolarizing influence on surface membrane potential (Vm). In addition there are Ca2+-permeable channels in internal stores that are gated by inositol trisphosphate (IP3) generated by Gq/11 activating phospholipase C.

Depolarization evokes Ca2+ influx from the extracellular milieu via voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (CaVs). This [Ca2+]i rise causes Ca2+ to bind to calmodulin (CaM). The Ca2+-CaM complex then activates myosin light chain kinase (MLCK), which in turn phosphorylates the myosin light chain (MLC) of myosin II causing actin-myosin crossbridge cycling and contraction [Fig. 5(b)]. In mural cells, GqPCR agonists activate MLCK by raising [Ca2+]i. Hyperpolarization, on the other hand, is primarily evoked by K+ efflux, for instance, via inward rectifier K+ (Kir2.1 and Kir2.2) or ATP-sensitive K+ (KATP; Kir6.1) channels,14,217219 causing voltage-gated calcium channels to close and vessels to dilate.

Signaling via GC or GPCRs coupled to Gs, Gi/o, or G12/13 modulates the activity of myosin light chain phosphatase (MLCP), which dephosphorylates MLC to reduce contraction. While GC and GsPCRs enhance MLCP activity by facilitating cAMP production via adenylate cyclase (AC), GiPCRs and G12/13PCRs have an opposing effect; they negatively regulate MLCP by inhibiting AC or stimulating rho-associated protein kinase, respectively, thus evoking contraction.220 GsPCR agonists such as adenosine can also hyperpolarize mural cells by evoking K+ efflux via KATP channels.221

4.4.

Microglia and Peripheral Immune Cells Release Vasoactive Molecules to Control Blood Flow

Microglia generate vasodilating adenosine by hydrolyzing ATP using the membrane-bound ectoenzymes CD39 and CD73.39,40 This may facilitate capillary dilation, at least in conditions of hypercapnic CO2 challenge in mice,119,120 and it may also contribute to adenosine-evoked increases in CBF during NVC.222 Adenosine relaxes pericytes via Gs-coupled adenosine receptors [Fig. 5(b)]. In contrast, ATP and ADP contract pericytes by stimulating P2X receptors (ATP-gated channels mediating cation influx) and Gq-coupled P2Y1 and P2Y2 receptors (promoting Ca2+ release from stores), respectively.223227 ATP hydrolysis by microglia may thus attenuate contractile tone.

Microglia can also produce the prostanoid PGE2 via cyclooxygenase (COX)14,186 and IL-1β via the NLRP3 inflammasome.141,201 PGE2 evokes capillary dilation by stimulating Gs-coupled EP4 receptors on pericytes and Gq-coupled endothelial EP1 receptors,11,200 whereas IL-1β activates its receptors predominantly on ECs, which increases CBF by promoting the release of NO.202205 However, prolonged IL-1β application was found to enhance hypoperfusion,211 likely by promoting inflammation and leukocyte infiltration.203

Since microglial [Ca2+]i transients are partly driven by the activity of neurons228 and regulate COX, and NLRP3 and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-mediated cleavage of membrane-bound cytokines into their soluble forms,229233 it is conceivable that neurotransmitters modulate microglial-evoked changes in CBF. Indeed, the factors controlling the release of various vasoactive prostanoids (via COX) and cytokines (via NLRP3 or MMPs) are largely unexplored in immune cells. Transcriptome studies, for instance, suggest that microglia are uniquely endowed14 with the enzyme thromboxane A2 synthase (downstream of COX) that generates the prostanoid thromboxane A2, which contracts pericytes, whereas the cytokine IL-1α is generated in microglia and evokes dilation of pial arteries.7,14,187

Neurons also signal to microglia to alter blood flow via the chemokine fractalkine (FKN/CX3CL1). FKN is predominantly present in neurons (membrane-bound or released in a soluble form) and binds to CX3CR1 selectively expressed in microglia or MΦ.234 In the healthy brain, FKN promotes synaptic strength, neurogenesis, and memory formation and may act as a “find me” signal for microglia to clear neuronal debris,201,235,236 but, after stroke, signaling via FKN reduces CBF, enhances neuronal apoptosis and worsens neurological outcome in mice.120,237,238 In the mouse retina, application of soluble FKN (mimicking its release from damaged neurons239) evokes rapid capillary constriction, possibly by a mechanism involving microglial release of Ang II acting on Gi and Gq-coupled Ang II type 1 receptors.121 Furthermore, our unpublished data show that FKN contracts pericytes and decreases blood flow in the murine cerebral cortex. Blocking CX3CR1 may thus provide a therapeutic approach to reduce the contraction of pericytes that contributes to the no-reflow of blood in capillaries after stroke.8,206,240

ROS generated by NADPH oxidase (NOX2) in immune cells can be released in the brain by microglia, PVMs or infiltrating leukocytes,165,207,208 in the blood by circulating leukocytes such as neutrophils (e.g., after stroke in humans241) or from the meninges into the brain (e.g., after traumatic brain injury170). ROS directly modulate the contractile tone of pericytes and SMCs; in pericytes by stimulating Ca2+ release from stores (possibly via endothelin-1 release5), which raises [Ca2+]i and enhances vasoconstriction206,212 and in SMCs by activating ATP-gated and Ca2+-activated K+ channels, which hyperpolarize Vm and evoke vasodilation.206,209 ROS release following ischemic stroke induces pericyte contraction and contributes to capillary no-reflow, which can be partially reversed with a NOX2 blocker.206

Superoxide (O2) generated by NOX2 can also react with endothelial-derived NO to form peroxynitrite, thus reducing NO bioavailability.213 Indeed, NO-mediated increases in CBF evoked by neuronal activity are impaired by PVMs producing O2, for instance, in response to Ang II binding to AT1 receptors214 or Aβ activating the innate immunity receptor CD36.122 Aβ also evokes release of ROS from pericytes (via NOX4) and from microglia (via NOX2), causing pericyte contraction by a mechanism dependent on downstream release of endothelin-1 activating Gq-coupled ETA receptors.5 ROS and endothelin-1 are also thought to contribute to cerebral hypoperfusion in patients with MS.242,243 The anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 released by T regulatory cells largely prevents the Ang II evoked release of O2 and restores NVC,197 which is consistent with the cerebroprotective function of IL-10 after stroke in mice.244

In mice on a high salt diet, gut T helper (TH17) cell release of IL-17 into the circulation reduces the activity of eNOS, which reduces CBF by 25%.123,124 Elevated levels of IL-17 found in the blood of patients with AD, MS and stroke245 and infiltrating neutrophils releasing IL-17 in the cortex of AD mice95 may reduce endothelial NOS (eNOS) activity in a similar manner. Furthermore, elevated plasma levels of IL-6, which promotes coagulation and negatively regulates eNOS (by inhibiting its phosphorylation at Ser1177),215,216 were associated with CBF decreases in aging individuals, stroke patients, and in patients recovered from COVID-19.246248

Importantly, systemic infection evoked decreases in CBF may enhance cognitive decline in patients. For instance, 62% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients present with a reduction in brain energy supply, most commonly, in the form of an ischemic stroke249 and 34% show neurological and psychiatric deficits in the six months following COVID-19 infection.250 Cerebral ischemia evoked by capillary constriction is thought to be a major cause of brain injury in patients with sepsis,251254 which occurs when the immune system excessively generates cytokines in response to infection. A similar “cytokine storm” occurs in severe COVID-19 patients255 although, similar to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), SARS-CoV-2 induces profound lymphopenia, in particular a reduction in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.256,257 Notably, a decline in CD4+ T cells in HIV patients or in a macaque model of AIDS correlates with a decrease in CBF.258,259 Although respiratory failure is a major risk factor for cerebral ischemia in COVID-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 also impairs the cerebral vasculature directly by inducing pericyte contraction,260 EC death,261 and microthrombi formation.262 Systemic infection also exacerbates cerebral hypoperfusion in AD patients, presumably by inducing the release of cytokines,263 which is expected to accelerate cognitive decline in these patients.264 Interventions aimed at restoring CBF following severe infection may thus help to improve cognition in these patients.

5.

Do Immune Cells Contribute Significantly to the Maintenance and Disruption of the Blood–Brain Barrier?

The BBB is a highly specialized vascular barrier that limits the influx of serum proteins, leukocytes, and toxic substances such as glutamate and ATP into the brain parenchyma and pumps out waste—functions that are primarily mediated by ECs, pericytes, and astrocytes (Fig. 4). The BBB results from: (1) transendothelial tight junctions between ECs that confer a high resistance to paracellular diffusion of solutes, (2) suppression of endocytic vesicle-mediated transcytosis of macromolecules such as proteins and peptides, and (3) solute carriers that transport carbohydrates, vitamins, amino acids, hormones, monocarboxylic acids, and nucleotides.2,265 CNS ECs exhibit a BBB-specific gene expression profile, with similar core changes in gene expression being observed across different CNS disorders.266 This specialized layer of ECs is held together by tight junctions (e.g., occludin and claudin, which link the cytoskeleton through scaffolding proteins such as zonula occludens-1) and adherens junctions (cadherins, which connect intracellular actin filaments via α, β, and γ catenins).267 The BBB maintains low levels of permeability-enhancing proteins on ECs including the Tie2 ligand angiopoietin-2 and the plasmalemma vesicle-associated protein, which is required for endothelial vesicle trafficking. Expression of various leukocyte adhesion molecules (ICAM1, VCAM1, activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule (ALCAM), and galectin-3) are also suppressed. This is to limit leukocyte influx, which can contribute to BBB leakiness caused by disruption of EC junctional molecules and the extracellular matrix via leukocyte release of (1) pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF,268 (2) ROS,269,270 or (3) MMPs.271275 These leukocyte-derived molecules are also able to induce neurotoxicity.276

In the brain, ECs show a lower rate of transcytosis than ECs of any other organ.277 This is in part because the major facilitator superfamily domain—containing 2a (Mfsd2a) protein, a sodium-dependent lysophosphatidylcholine transporter—supresses transcytosis in capillaries (but notably not in arterioles278) because lipids transported by MFSD2a establish a unique lipid composition of CNS EC plasma membranes that inhibits endothelial caveolae vesicle formation.279,280 With age, MFSD2a becomes downregulated, whereas caveolin vesicle density is increased, in association with reduced pericyte coverage and increased BBB permeability.15 In addition, the level of MFSD2a is reduced upon LPS exposure, suggesting its expression can be modulated by inflammation.281 Interestingly, lymphocyte transcellular migration (migration through the EC body) relies on the translocation of ICAM-1 to caveolae-rich domains of ECs, to create a path through which the lymphocyte can migrate,282 and ECs, which exhibit low MFSD2a levels have high ICAM-1 expression.283 Thus, the same factors regulating transcytosis of molecules may also influence transcellular migration of lymphocytes.

Key to the development and maintenance of the BBB are pericytes, which are essential for the development of tight junctions between ECs,105,284,285 the expression of MFSD2a in ECs280 thus suppressing permeability-enhancing proteins,104,105 the stabilization of tight junctions by secretion of angiopoietin-1,286 and inducing growth of the endothelial tube, which is suggested to widen capillary diameters near pericyte somata.5,8 Pericyte deficiency in mutant mice (with low levels of PDGFRβ or lacking the PDGF-BB retention motif) severely impairs the BBB. This results in an influx of toxic blood-borne solutes (e.g., cytokines and serum proteins), impaired NVC,9,284 disrupted expression of leukocyte adhesion molecules,105 activation of microglia, and damage to neurons.285 Accordingly, in AD patients’ brains, pericyte loss correlates with enhanced BBB leakage.287 Additionally, increased soluble PDGFRβ in the CSF correlates with increased measures of BBB dysfunction and cognitive impairment,288,289 highlighting the key importance of this cell type for maintaining a healthy BBB and avoiding pathology. Activation of the CypA-MMP9 pathway in pericytes (e.g., in ApoE4 carriers) can contribute to BBB breakdown, highlighting how crucial this cell type is for barrier function.290,291

Ablation of microglia in the healthy murine CNS does not compromise BBB integrity.103,292294 However, microglia do play a key role in the rapid repair of the vasculature upon BBB impairment. Specifically, in a manner dependent on ADP-sensing P2Y12 receptors, microglia extend processes toward, and aggregate at, sites of vascular damage (as induced by laser injury) and seal the broken vessel using a mechanism dependent on E-cadherin.295 In addition, microglia may also secrete trophic factors to encourage endothelial growth.295 This phenomenon has been further explored in zebrafish with respect to MΦ, where these cells physically repair vessels by pulling two endothelial ends together in a microfilament-dependent manner.296 Thus, immune cells can repair damage by providing adhesive molecules and by physical traction.

Recent data also suggest that microglia play dual roles in the regulation of the BBB, dependent on the timing of the inflammatory response. Initially, following LPS challenge in mice, microglial contact with cerebral blood vessels protects BBB integrity, by increasing expression of the tight junctional protein claudin-5,297 a phenomenon that has also been shown to be mediated by astrocytes.298 However, prolonged inflammation results in a more activated microglial phenotype, resulting in phagocytosis of astrocytic end-feet and BBB integrity loss.297 In mild hypoxia in the spinal cord, microglial depletion enhances tight junction loss and BBB permeability.293 In the brain following stroke in mice, microglia migrate toward the hypoxic vasculature and, in principle, aid repair by phagocytosing and clearing damaged sites. However, this leads to a positive feedback loop, where the vasculature becomes leaky to the blood serum components albumin and fibrinogen, which upregulates expression of inflammatory cytokines, and promotes further recruitment of microglia.132 Indeed, deposition of fibrinogen in the parenchyma as a consequence of BBB dysregulation in mouse models of MS induces vascular microglia clustering, contributing to neuronal damage.135 Therefore, while the primary role of microglia is protective, the consequences of their actions can be damaging to the parenchyma, as occurs following ischaemia and in AD patient brains.299 These studies highlight that the role microglia play, whether protective or destructive, is very much dependent on the type of injury, and the time frame.

While microglia play key roles in the regulation of the BBB, peripheral leukocytes predominantly contribute to BBB breakdown during pathology. These actions can be mediated by ROS and MMP release, which damage EC junctions, for example by interfering with the β-catenin complex.300 Neutrophils are rich sources of these mediators, and contribute to the breakdown of the BBB in various neurological pathologies,95,301,302 and T cells have also been shown to mediate damage in this manner.303 Infiltrating T cells can perturb the BBB via the action of cytokines IL-17 and IL-22,304 which release ROS from ECs, disrupting tight junctions.305

In addition, prolonged stalling of neutrophils in vessels may impair the integrity of the BBB by enhancing endothelial actin depolymerization and the breakdown of adherens junctions between ECs, as occurs in the periphery.306 More recently, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have been observed to form both intravascularly and extravascularly during neurological disease, which may contribute to BBB permeability increases.95,302 NETs are structures formed by highly activated neutrophils that extrude DNA and intracellular contents to capture pathogens, degrade bacterial toxic factors, and kill bacteria.307 Neutrophils from mice subjected to stroke are more likely to form NETs, and removal of NETs reduces BBB leakage and improves pericyte coverage.302 The mechanism by which NETs induce BBB breakdown is not yet clear, but since NETs expose and spill intracellular content (histones, and granule content including proteases), it is likely that proteases and ROS contribute.

In summary, microglia can play protective and detrimental roles in the regulation of the BBB, but peripheral blood leukocytes are predominantly destructive in pathology.

6.

Summary and Possible Therapeutic Avenues

Immune–vascular interactions are a therapeutic target for various neurological diseases. CBF decreases occurring after stroke or early in the progression of AD could, for instance, be therapeutically targeted by inhibiting FKN receptors or blocking ROS production, respectively.5,8,120,308310 This may reduce the plugging of capillaries by blood leukocytes, improve energy supply, and reduce capillary pericyte and neuronal loss in later stages of disease.288,311 Pericyte degeneration also occurs early in human MS, and pericyte-deficiency in an MS mouse model is lethal due to excessive immune cell influx.104,312 A possible therapeutic strategy may thus aim to restore pericyte coverage to improve barrier function in these diseases.

Another clinical approach could involve recruiting immune cell subsets with protective properties to the diseased brain. Promising murine studies highlight that recruitment of regulatory T cells improves cognitive function in AD,313,314 promotes microglia-mediated oligodendrogenesis following stroke,315 prevents Ang II evoked disruption of NVC197 and ameliorates neutrophil MMP-9 mediated BBB breakdown.316 Furthermore, augmenting immunosurveillance of the brain by enhancing lymphatic drainage (promoting antigen exposure to immune cells) facilitates the CD8+ T cell mediated clearance of brain tumors.317 A similar approach could be adopted to manipulate pericytes to allow drug and immune cell access specifically to tumors.

In conclusion, immune–vascular interactions play both homeostatic and pathogenic roles in the CNS depending on the context and injury. This field is currently at an exciting stage, where future work will identify new therapeutic avenues to help combat CNS disease.

Disclosures

No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the European Research Council (Grant No. 740427) and the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 219366/19/Z).

References

1. 

I. G. Gould et al., “The capillary bed offers the largest hemodynamic resistance to the cortical blood supply,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 37 (1), 52 –68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X16671146 Google Scholar

2. 

A. Montagne, Z. Zhao and B. V. Zlokovic, “Alzheimer’s disease: a matter of blood–brain barrier dysfunction?,” J. Exp. Med., 214 (11), 3151 –3169 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20171406 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

3. 

A. Krogh, “Studies on the capillariometer mechanism: I. The reaction to stimuli and the innervation of the blood vessels in the tongue of the frog,” J. Physiol., 53 (6), 399 –419 (1920). https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1920.sp001887 JPHYA7 0022-3751 Google Scholar

4. 

C. M. Peppiatt et al., “Bidirectional control of CNS capillary diameter by pericytes,” Nature, 443 (7112), 700 –704 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05193 Google Scholar

5. 

R. Nortley et al., “Amyloid beta oligomers constrict human capillaries in Alzheimer’s disease via signaling to pericytes,” Science, 365 (6450), eaav9518 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9518 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar

6. 

H. J. Knot and M. T. Nelson, “Regulation of arterial diameter and wall [Ca2+] in cerebral arteries of rat by membrane potential and intravascular pressure,” J. Physiol., 508 (1), 199 –209 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1998.199br.x JPHYA7 0022-3751 Google Scholar

7. 

A. L. Gonzales et al., “Contractile pericytes determine the direction of blood flow at capillary junctions,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 117 (43), 27022 –27033 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922755117 Google Scholar

8. 

C. N. Hall et al., “Capillary pericytes regulate cerebral blood flow in health and disease,” Nature, 508 (7494), 55 –60 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13165 Google Scholar

9. 

K. Kisler et al., “Cerebral blood flow regulation and neurovascular dysfunction in Alzheimer disease,” Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 18 (7), 419 –434 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.48 NRNAAN 1471-003X Google Scholar

10. 

D. A. Hartmann et al., “Brain capillary pericytes exert a substantial but slow influence on blood flow,” Nat. Neurosci., 24 (5), 633 –645 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00793-2 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

11. 

A. Mishra et al., “Astrocytes mediate neurovascular signaling to capillary pericytes but not to arterioles,” Nat. Neurosci., 19 (12), 1619 –1627 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4428 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

12. 

A. R. Nelson et al., “Channelrhodopsin excitation contracts brain pericytes and reduces blood flow in the aging mouse brain in vivo,” Front. Aging Neurosci., 12 108 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00108 Google Scholar

13. 

R. L. Rungta et al., “Vascular compartmentalization of functional hyperemia from the synapse to the pia,” Neuron, 99 (2), 362 –375e4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.06.012 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

14. 

M. Vanlandewijck et al., “A molecular atlas of cell types and zonation in the brain vasculature,” Nature, 554 (7693), 475 –480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25739 Google Scholar

15. 

A. C. Yang et al., “Physiological blood–brain transport is impaired with age by a shift in transcytosis,” Nature, 583 (7816), 425 –430 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2453-z Google Scholar

16. 

A. Zeisel et al., “Molecular architecture of the mouse nervous system,” Cell, 174 (4), 999 –1014e22 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.021 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

17. 

A. Hariharan et al., “The ion channel and GPCR toolkit of brain capillary pericytes,” Front. Cell Neurosci., 14 601324 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2020.601324 Google Scholar

18. 

J. J. Iliff et al., “Cerebral arterial pulsation drives paravascular CSF-interstitial fluid exchange in the murine brain,” J. Neurosci., 33 (46), 18190 –18199 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1592-13.2013 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

19. 

H. Mestre et al., “Flow of cerebrospinal fluid is driven by arterial pulsations and is reduced in hypertension,” Nat. Commun., 9 4878 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07318-3 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

20. 

S. J. van Veluw et al., “Vasomotion as a driving force for paravascular clearance in the awake mouse brain,” Neuron, 105 (3), 549 –561e5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.10.033 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

21. 

J. N. Haidey et al., “Astrocytes regulate ultra-slow arteriole oscillations via stretch-mediated TRPV4-COX-1 feedback,” Cell Rep., 36 (5), 109405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109405 Google Scholar

22. 

W. C. Cole, G. R. Gordon and A. P. Braun, “Cellular and ionic mechanisms of arterial vasomotion,” Adv. Exp. Med. Biol., 1124 297 –312 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5895-1_12 AEMBAP 0065-2598 Google Scholar

23. 

E. W. Olstad et al., “Ciliary beating compartmentalizes cerebrospinal fluid flow in the brain and regulates ventricular development,” Curr. Biol., 29 (2), 229 –241e6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.059 CUBLE2 0960-9822 Google Scholar

24. 

S. Dreha-Kulaczewski et al., “Inspiration is the major regulator of human CSF flow,” J. Neurosci., 35 (6), 2485 –2491 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3246-14.2015 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

25. 

J. J. Iliff et al., “A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid beta,” Sci. Transl. Med., 4 (147), 147ra111 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3003748 STMCBQ 1946-6234 Google Scholar

26. 

A. K. Diem et al., “Arterial pulsations cannot drive intramural periarterial drainage: significance for abeta drainage,” Front. Neurosci., 11 475 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00475 1662-453X Google Scholar

27. 

D. Schley et al., “Mechanisms to explain the reverse perivascular transport of solutes out of the brain,” J. Theor. Biol., 238 (4), 962 –974 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.07.005 JTBIAP 0022-5193 Google Scholar

28. 

Charles River Laboratories, “C57BL6 mouse model information sheet,” (2019). https://www.criver.com/sites/default/files/resources/C57BL6MouseModelInformationSheet.pdf Google Scholar

29. 

S. Melzer et al., “Reference intervals for leukocyte subsets in adults: results from a population-based study using 10-color flow cytometry,” Cytometry B Clin. Cytom., 88 (4), 270 –281 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.21234 Google Scholar

30. 

D. Mrdjen et al., “High-dimensional single-cell mapping of central nervous system immune cells reveals distinct myeloid subsets in health, aging, and disease,” Immunity, 48 (3), 599 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2018.02.014 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar

31. 

D. Davalos et al., “ATP mediates rapid microglial response to local brain injury in vivo,” Nat. Neurosci., 8 (6), 752 –758 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1472 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

32. 

U. K. Hanisch and H. Kettenmann, “Microglia: active sensor and versatile effector cells in the normal and pathologic brain,” Nat. Neurosci., 10 (11), 1387 –1394 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1997 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

33. 

A. Nimmerjahn, F. Kirchhoff and F. Helmchen, “Resting microglial cells are highly dynamic surveillants of brain parenchyma in vivo,” Science, 308 (5726), 1314 –1318 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110647 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar

34. 

S. Koizumi et al., “UDP acting at P2Y6 receptors is a mediator of microglial phagocytosis,” Nature, 446 (7139), 1091 –1095 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05704 Google Scholar

35. 

D. P. Schafer et al., “Microglia sculpt postnatal neural circuits in an activity and complement-dependent manner,” Neuron, 74 (4), 691 –705 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.026 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

36. 

M. E. Tremblay, R. L. Lowery and A. K. Majewska, “Microglial interactions with synapses are modulated by visual experience,” PLoS Biol., 8 (11), e1000527 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000527 Google Scholar

37. 

H. Wake et al., “Resting microglia directly monitor the functional state of synapses in vivo and determine the fate of ischemic terminals,” J. Neurosci., 29 (13), 3974 –3980 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4363-08.2009 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

38. 

Y. Li et al., “Reciprocal regulation between resting microglial dynamics and neuronal activity in vivo,” Dev. Cell., 23 (6), 1189 –1202 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2012.10.027 Google Scholar

39. 

C. Cserep et al., “Microglia monitor and protect neuronal function through specialized somatic purinergic junctions,” Science, 367 (6477), 528 –537 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax6752 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar

40. 

A. Badimon et al., “Negative feedback control of neuronal activity by microglia,” Nature, 586 (7829), 417 –423 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2777-8 Google Scholar

41. 

C. Herzog et al., “Rapid clearance of cellular debris by microglia limits secondary neuronal cell death after brain injury in vivo,” Development, 146 (9), dev174698 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.174698 Google Scholar

42. 

H. Scheiblich et al., “Microglia jointly degrade fibrillar alpha-synuclein cargo by distribution through tunneling nanotubes,” Cell, 184 (20), 5089 –5106e21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.09.007 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

43. 

W. S. Chung et al., “Astrocytes mediate synapse elimination through MEGF10 and MERTK pathways,” Nature, 504 (7480), 394 –400 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12776 Google Scholar

44. 

K. Hakim-Mishnaevski et al., “Glial phagocytic receptors promote neuronal loss in adult drosophila brain,” Cell Rep., 29 (6), 1438 –1448e3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.09.086 Google Scholar

45. 

J. H. Lee et al., “Astrocytes phagocytose adult hippocampal synapses for circuit homeostasis,” Nature, 590 (7847), 612 –617 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03060-3 Google Scholar

46. 

Y. M. Morizawa et al., “Reactive astrocytes function as phagocytes after brain ischemia via ABCA1-mediated pathway,” Nat. Commun., 8 28 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00037-1 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

47. 

P. Prakash et al., “Monitoring phagocytic uptake of amyloid beta into glial cell lysosomes in real time,” Chem. Sci., 12 (32), 10901 –10918 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC03486C 1478-6524 Google Scholar

48. 

E. C. Damisah et al., “Astrocytes and microglia play orchestrated roles and respect phagocytic territories during neuronal corpse removal in vivo,” Sci. Adv., 6 (26), eaba3239 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba3239 STAMCV 1468-6996 Google Scholar

49. 

K. Grabert et al., “Microglial brain region-dependent diversity and selective regional sensitivities to aging,” Nat. Neurosci., 19 (3), 504 –516 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4222 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

50. 

H. Van Hove et al., “A single-cell atlas of mouse brain macrophages reveals unique transcriptional identities shaped by ontogeny and tissue environment,” Nat. Neurosci., 22 (6), 1021 –1035 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0393-4 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

51. 

S. P. das Neves, N. Delivanoglou and S. Da Mesquita, “CNS-draining meningeal lymphatic vasculature: roles, conundrums and future challenges,” Front. Pharmacol., 12 655052 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.655052 Google Scholar

52. 

Z. Papadopoulos, J. Herz and J. Kipnis, “Meningeal lymphatics: from anatomy to central nervous system immune surveillance,” J. Immunol., 204 (2), 286 –293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1900838 JOIMA3 0022-1767 Google Scholar

53. 

T. Korn and A. Kallies, “T cell responses in the central nervous system,” Nat. Rev. Immunol., 17 (3), 179 –194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2016.144 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

55. 

J. Rustenhoven et al., “Functional characterization of the dural sinuses as a neuroimmune interface,” Cell, 184 (4), 1000 –1016e27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.040 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

56. 

B. Engelhardt, P. Vajkoczy and R. O. Weller, “The movers and shapers in immune privilege of the CNS,” Nat. Immunol., 18 (2), 123 –131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3666 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

57. 

N. C. Derecki et al., “Regulation of learning and memory by meningeal immunity: a key role for IL-4,” J. Exp. Med., 207 (5), 1067 –1080 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20091419 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

58. 

A. J. Filiano et al., “Unexpected role of interferon-gamma in regulating neuronal connectivity and social behaviour,” Nature, 535 (7612), 425 –429 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18626 Google Scholar

59. 

E. Pasciuto et al., “Microglia require CD4 T cells to complete the fetal-to-adult transition,” Cell, 182 (3), 625 –640e24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.026 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

60. 

B. W. Dulken et al., “Single-cell analysis reveals T cell infiltration in old neurogenic niches,” Nature, 571 (7764), 205 –210 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1362-5 Google Scholar

61. 

S. Brioschi et al., “Heterogeneity of meningeal B cells reveals a lymphopoietic niche at the CNS borders,” Science, 373 (6553), eabf9277 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf9277 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar

62. 

R. Cai et al., “Panoptic imaging of transparent mice reveals whole-body neuronal projections and skull-meninges connections,” Nat. Neurosci., 22 (2), 317 –327 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0301-3 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

63. 

A. Cugurra et al., “Skull and vertebral bone marrow are myeloid cell reservoirs for the meninges and CNS parenchyma,” Science, 373 (6553), eabf7844 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf7844 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar

64. 

F. Herisson et al., “Direct vascular channels connect skull bone marrow and the brain surface enabling myeloid cell migration,” Nat. Neurosci., 21 (9), 1209 –1217 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0213-2 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

65. 

F. E. Pulous et al., “Cerebrospinal fluid outflow through skull channels instructs cranial hematopoiesis,” (2021). Google Scholar

66. 

H. Yao et al., “Leukaemia hijacks a neural mechanism to invade the central nervous system,” Nature, 560 (7716), 55 –60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0342-5 Google Scholar

67. 

P. Kivisakk et al., “Human cerebrospinal fluid central memory CD4+ T cells: evidence for trafficking through choroid plexus and meninges via P-selectin,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 100 (14), 8389 –8394 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1433000100 Google Scholar

68. 

K. Kierdorf et al., “Macrophages at CNS interfaces: ontogeny and function in health and disease,” Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 20 (9), 547 –562 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0201-x NRNAAN 1471-003X Google Scholar

69. 

D. A. D. Munro, K. Movahedi and J. Priller, “Macrophage compartmentalization in the brain and cerebrospinal fluid system,” Sci. Immunol., 7 (69), eabk0391 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abk0391 Google Scholar

70. 

M. Bear, B. Connors and M. A. Paradiso, Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins(2006). Google Scholar

71. 

R. M. Ransohoff and B. Engelhardt, “The anatomical and cellular basis of immune surveillance in the central nervous system,” Nat. Rev. Immunol., 12 (9), 623 –635 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3265 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

72. 

M. L. Upton and R. O. Weller, “The morphology of cerebrospinal fluid drainage pathways in human arachnoid granulations,” J. Neurosurg., 63 (6), 867 –875 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1985.63.6.0867 JONSAC 0022-3085 Google Scholar

73. 

A. Aspelund et al., “A dural lymphatic vascular system that drains brain interstitial fluid and macromolecules,” J. Exp. Med., 212 (7), 991 –999 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20142290 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

74. 

A. Louveau et al., “Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels,” Nature, 523 (7560), 337 –341 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14432 Google Scholar

75. 

Q. Ma et al., “Outflow of cerebrospinal fluid is predominantly through lymphatic vessels and is reduced in aged mice,” Nat. Commun., 8 1434 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01484-6 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

76. 

G. Ringstad and P. K. Eide, “Cerebrospinal fluid tracer efflux to parasagittal dura in humans,” Nat. Commun., 11 354 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14195-x NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

77. 

S. T. Proulx, “Cerebrospinal fluid outflow: a review of the historical and contemporary evidence for arachnoid villi, perineural routes, and dural lymphatics,” Cell Mol. Life Sci., 78 (6), 2429 –2457 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-020-03706-5 CMLSFI 1420-9071 Google Scholar

78. 

G. Oliver et al., “The lymphatic vasculature in the 21(st) century: novel functional roles in homeostasis and disease,” Cell, 182 (2), 270 –296 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.039 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

79. 

B. Engelhardt, “Molecular mechanisms involved in T cell migration across the blood–brain barrier,” J. Neural Transm. (Vienna), 113 (4), 477 –485 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-005-0409-y Google Scholar

80. 

M. Greter et al., “Dendritic cells permit immune invasion of the CNS in an animal model of multiple sclerosis,” Nat. Med., 11 (3), 328 –334 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1197 1078-8956 Google Scholar

81. 

R. Balabanov, T. Beaumont and P. Dore-Duffy, “Role of central nervous system microvascular pericytes in activation of antigen-primed splenic T-lymphocytes,” J. Neurosci. Res., 55 (5), 578 –587 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4547(19990301)55:5<578::AID-JNR5>3.0.CO;2-E JNREDK 0360-4012 Google Scholar

82. 

C. L. Maier and J. S. Pober, “Human placental pericytes poorly stimulate and actively regulate allogeneic CD4 T cell responses,” Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., 31 (1), 183 –189 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.217117 ATVBFA 1079-5642 Google Scholar

83. 

S. Nourshargh and R. Alon, “Leukocyte migration into inflamed tissues,” Immunity, 41 (5), 694 –707 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2014.10.008 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar

84. 

H. Wolburg, K. Wolburg-Buchholz and B. Engelhardt, “Diapedesis of mononuclear cells across cerebral venules during experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis leaves tight junctions intact,” Acta Neuropathol., 109 (2), 181 –190 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-004-0928-x ANPTAL 1432-0533 Google Scholar

85. 

M. Abadier et al., “Cell surface levels of endothelial ICAM-1 influence the transcellular or paracellular T-cell diapedesis across the blood–brain barrier,” Eur. J. Immunol., 45 (4), 1043 –1058 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.201445125 EJIMAF 0014-2980 Google Scholar

86. 

C. Minten et al., “DARC shuttles inflammatory chemokines across the blood–brain barrier during autoimmune central nervous system inflammation,” Brain, 137 (5), 1454 –1469 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu045 BRAIAK 0006-8950 Google Scholar

87. 

M. von Wedel-Parlow et al., “Neutrophils cross the BBB primarily on transcellular pathways: an in vitro study,” Brain Res., 1367 62 –76 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.076 BRREAP 0006-8993 Google Scholar

88. 

M. Castro Dias et al., “Brain endothelial tricellular junctions as novel sites for T cell diapedesis across the blood–brain barrier,” J. Cell Sci., 134 (8), jcs253880 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.253880 JNCSAI 0021-9533 Google Scholar

89. 

T. M. Mathiisen et al., “The perivascular astroglial sheath provides a complete covering of the brain microvessels: an electron microscopic 3D reconstruction,” Glia, 58 (9), 1094 –1103 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.20990 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

90. 

M. J. Hotz et al., “Red blood cells homeostatically bind mitochondrial DNA through TLR9 to maintain quiescence and to prevent lung injury,” Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 197 (4), 470 –480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201706-1161OC AJCMED 1073-449X Google Scholar

91. 

L. K. M. Lam et al., “DNA binding to TLR9 expressed by red blood cells promotes innate immune activation and anemia,” Sci. Transl. Med., 13 (616), eabj1008 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abj1008 STMCBQ 1946-6234 Google Scholar

92. 

R. J. Nibbs and G. J. Graham, “Immune regulation by atypical chemokine receptors,” Nat. Rev. Immunol., 13 (11), 815 –829 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3544 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

93. 

M. A. Lopes Pinheiro et al., “Immune cell trafficking across the barriers of the central nervous system in multiple sclerosis and stroke,” Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1862 (3), 461 –471 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2015.10.018 BBACAQ 0006-3002 Google Scholar

94. 

S. H. Baik et al., “Migration of neutrophils targeting amyloid plaques in Alzheimer’s disease mouse model,” Neurobiol. Aging, 35 (6), 1286 –1292 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.01.003 NEAGDO 0197-4580 Google Scholar

95. 

E. Zenaro et al., “Neutrophils promote Alzheimer’s disease-like pathology and cognitive decline via LFA-1 integrin,” Nat. Med., 21 (8), 880 –886 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3913 1078-8956 Google Scholar

96. 

R. K. Clark et al., “Reperfusion following focal stroke hastens inflammation and resolution of ischemic injured tissue,” Brain Res. Bull., 35 (4), 387 –392 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-9230(94)90119-8 BRBUDU 0361-9230 Google Scholar

97. 

J. H. Garcia et al., “Influx of leukocytes and platelets in an evolving brain infarct (Wistar rat),” Am. J. Pathol., 144 (1), 188 –199 (1994). AJPAA4 0002-9440 Google Scholar

98. 

J. Neumann et al., “Beware the intruder: real time observation of infiltrated neutrophils and neutrophil-Microglia interaction during stroke in vivo,” PLoS One, 13 (3), e0193970 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193970 POLNCL 1932-6203 Google Scholar

99. 

G. Enzmann et al., “The neurovascular unit as a selective barrier to polymorphonuclear granulocyte (PMN) infiltration into the brain after ischemic injury,” Acta Neuropathol., 125 (3), 395 –412 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-012-1076-3 ANPTAL 1432-0533 Google Scholar

100. 

M. Filippi et al., “Multiple sclerosis,” Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers, 4 (1), 43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-018-0041-4 Google Scholar

101. 

B. Rossi et al., “Vascular inflammation in central nervous system diseases: adhesion receptors controlling leukocyte-endothelial interactions,” J. Leukoc. Biol., 89 (4), 539 –556 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1189/jlb.0710432 JLBIE7 0741-5400 Google Scholar

102. 

D. Proebstl et al., “Pericytes support neutrophil subendothelial cell crawling and breaching of venular walls in vivo,” J. Exp. Med., 209 (6), 1219 –1234 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20111622 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

103. 

K. Stark et al., “Capillary and arteriolar pericytes attract innate leukocytes exiting through venules and ‘instruct’ them with pattern-recognition and motility programs,” Nat. Immunol., 14 (1), 41 –51 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2477 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

104. 

O. Torok et al., “Pericytes regulate vascular immune homeostasis in the CNS,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 118 (10), e2016587118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016587118 Google Scholar

105. 

R. Daneman et al., “Pericytes are required for blood–brain barrier integrity during embryogenesis,” Nature, 468 (7323), 562 –566 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09513 Google Scholar

106. 

S. Ogura et al., “Sustained inflammation after pericyte depletion induces irreversible blood-retina barrier breakdown,” JCI Insight, 2 (3), e90905 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.90905 Google Scholar

107. 

D. Fu et al., “Survival or death: a dual role for autophagy in stress-induced pericyte loss in diabetic retinopathy,” Diabetologia, 59 (10), 2251 –2261 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-016-4058-5 DBTGAJ 0012-186X Google Scholar

108. 

J. Rustenhoven et al., “Brain pericytes as mediators of neuroinflammation,” Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 38 (3), 291 –304 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2016.12.001 TPHSDY 0165-6147 Google Scholar

109. 

L. Duan et al., “PDGFRbeta cells rapidly relay inflammatory signal from the circulatory system to neurons via chemokine CCL2,” Neuron, 100 (1), 183 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.030 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

110. 

M. W. Carr et al., “Monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 acts as a T-lymphocyte chemoattractant,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 91 (9), 3652 –3656 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.9.3652 Google Scholar

111. 

K. Matsushima et al., “Purification and characterization of a novel monocyte chemotactic and activating factor produced by a human myelomonocytic cell line,” J. Exp. Med., 169 (4), 1485 –1490 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.169.4.1485 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

112. 

I. Novitzky-Basso and A. Rot, “Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines and its involvement in patterning and control of inflammatory chemokines,” Front. Immunol., 3 266 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2012.00266 Google Scholar

113. 

J. Hong et al., “Role of tumor pericytes in the recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 107 (10), djv209 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv209 JNCIEQ Google Scholar

114. 

R. Valdor et al., “Glioblastoma progression is assisted by induction of immunosuppressive function of pericytes through interaction with tumor cells,” Oncotarget, 8 (40), 68614 –68626 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19804 Google Scholar

115. 

R. Valdor et al., “Glioblastoma ablates pericytes antitumor immune function through aberrant up-regulation of chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116 (41), 20655 –20665 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903542116 Google Scholar

116. 

W. Zhou et al., “Targeting glioma stem cell-derived pericytes disrupts the blood-tumor barrier and improves chemotherapeutic efficacy,” Cell Stem Cell, 21 (5), 591 –603e4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.10.002 Google Scholar

117. 

K. Huizer et al., “Periostin is expressed by pericytes and is crucial for angiogenesis in glioma,” J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol., 79 (8), 863 –872 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnen/nlaa067 JNENAD 0022-3069 Google Scholar

118. 

A. Sierra et al., “The “Big-Bang” for modern glial biology: translation and comments on Pio del Rio-Hortega 1919 series of papers on microglia,” Glia, 64 (11), 1801 –1840 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.23046 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

119. 

K. Bisht et al., “Capillary-associated microglia regulate vascular structure and function through PANX1-P2RY12 coupling in mice,” Nat. Commun., 12 5289 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25590-8 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

120. 

E. Császár et al., “Microglia modulate blood flow, neurovascular coupling, and hypoperfusion via purinergic actions,” J. Exp. Med., 219 (3), e20211071 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20211071 Google Scholar

121. 

S. A. Mills et al., “Fractalkine-induced microglial vasoregulation occurs within the retina and is altered early in diabetic retinopathy,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A, 118 (51), e2112561118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112561118 Google Scholar

122. 

L. Park et al., “Brain perivascular macrophages initiate the neurovascular dysfunction of Alzheimer abeta peptides,” Circ. Res., 121 (3), 258 –269 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.311054 CIRUAL 0009-7330 Google Scholar

123. 

G. Faraco et al., “Dietary salt promotes neurovascular and cognitive dysfunction through a gut-initiated TH17 response,” Nat. Neurosci., 21 (2), 240 –249 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017-0059-z NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

124. 

G. Faraco et al., “Dietary salt promotes cognitive impairment through tau phosphorylation,” Nature, 574 (7780), 686 –690 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1688-z Google Scholar

125. 

R. M. Pirzgalska et al., “Sympathetic neuron-associated macrophages contribute to obesity by importing and metabolizing norepinephrine,” Nat. Med., 23 (11), 1309 –1318 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4422 1078-8956 Google Scholar

126. 

A. Czopek et al., “A novel role for myeloid endothelin-B receptors in hypertension,” Eur. Heart. J., 40 (9), 768 –784 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy881 EHJODF 0195-668X Google Scholar

127. 

H. Y. Lim et al., “Hyaluronan receptor LYVE-1-expressing macrophages maintain arterial tone through hyaluronan-mediated regulation of smooth muscle cell collagen,” Immunity, 49 (2), 326 –341e7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2018.06.008 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar

128. 

J. C. Cruz Hernandez et al., “Neutrophil adhesion in brain capillaries reduces cortical blood flow and impairs memory function in Alzheimer’s disease mouse models,” Nat. Neurosci., 22 (3), 413 –420 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0329-4 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

129. 

M. El Amki et al., “Neutrophils obstructing brain capillaries are a major cause of no-reflow in ischemic stroke,” Cell Rep., 33 (2), 108260 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108260 Google Scholar

130. 

S. E. Erdener et al., “Dynamic capillary stalls in reperfused ischemic penumbra contribute to injury: a hyperacute role for neutrophils in persistent traffic jams,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 41 (2), 236 –252 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X20914179 Google Scholar

131. 

L. Rolfes et al., “Neutrophil granulocytes promote flow stagnation due to dynamic capillary stalls following experimental stroke,” Brain Behav. Immun., 93 322 –330 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2021.01.011 Google Scholar

132. 

V. Jolivel et al., “Perivascular microglia promote blood vessel disintegration in the ischemic penumbra,” Acta Neuropathol., 129 (2), 279 –295 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-014-1372-1 ANPTAL 1432-0533 Google Scholar

133. 

E. M. F. Mehina et al., “Invasion of phagocytic Galectin 3 expressing macrophages in the diabetic brain disrupts vascular repair,” Sci. Adv., 7 (34), eabg2712 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg2712 STAMCV 1468-6996 Google Scholar

134. 

R. A. Adams et al., “The fibrin-derived gamma377-395 peptide inhibits microglia activation and suppresses relapsing paralysis in central nervous system autoimmune disease,” J. Exp. Med., 204 (3), 571 –582 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20061931 JEMEAV 0022-1007 Google Scholar

135. 

D. Davalos et al., “Fibrinogen-induced perivascular microglial clustering is required for the development of axonal damage in neuroinflammation,” Nat. Commun., 3 1227 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2230 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

136. 

M. Merlini et al., “Fibrinogen induces microglia-mediated spine elimination and cognitive impairment in an Alzheimer’s disease model,” Neuron, 101 (6), 1099 –1108e6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.014 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

137. 

Y. Sasaki et al., “Selective expression of Gi/o-coupled ATP receptor P2Y12 in microglia in rat brain,” Glia, 44 (3), 242 –250 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.10293 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

138. 

R. T. Dorsam and S. P. Kunapuli, “Central role of the P2Y12 receptor in platelet activation,” J. Clin. Invest., 113 (3), 340 –345 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI20986 JCINAO 0021-9738 Google Scholar

139. 

K. Ohsawa et al., “P2Y12 receptor-mediated integrin-beta1 activation regulates microglial process extension induced by ATP,” Glia, 58 (7), 790 –801 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.20963 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

140. 

S. E. Haynes et al., “The P2Y12 receptor regulates microglial activation by extracellular nucleotides,” Nat. Neurosci., 9 (12), 1512 –1519 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1805 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

141. 

C. Madry et al., “Microglial ramification, surveillance, and interleukin-1beta release are regulated by the two-pore domain K(+) channel THIK-1,” Neuron, 97 (2), 299 –312e6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.002 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

142. 

L. Dissing-Olesen et al., “Activation of neuronal NMDA receptors triggers transient ATP-mediated microglial process outgrowth,” J. Neurosci., 34 (32), 10511 –10527 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0405-14.2014 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

143. 

E. Mondo et al., “A developmental analysis of juxtavascular microglia dynamics and interactions with the vasculature,” J. Neurosci., 40 (34), 6503 –6521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3006-19.2020 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

144. 

E. Joost et al., “Microglia contribute to the glia limitans around arteries, capillaries and veins under physiological conditions, in a model of neuroinflammation and in human brain tissue,” Brain Struct. Funct., 224 (3), 1301 –1314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01834-8 Google Scholar

145. 

H. Lassmann et al., “Microglial cells are a component of the perivascular glia limitans,” J. Neurosci. Res., 28 (2), 236 –243 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.490280211 JNREDK 0360-4012 Google Scholar

146. 

P. Andre et al., “P2Y12 regulates platelet adhesion/activation, thrombus growth, and thrombus stability in injured arteries,” J. Clin. Invest., 112 (3), 398 –406 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI17864 JCINAO 0021-9738 Google Scholar

147. 

K. A. Taylor et al., “Amplification of human platelet activation by surface pannexin-1 channels,” J. Thromb. Haemost., 12 (6), 987 –998 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12566 Google Scholar

148. 

W. R. Silverman et al., “The pannexin 1 channel activates the inflammasome in neurons and astrocytes,” J. Biol. Chem., 284 (27), 18143 –18151 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.004804 JBCHA3 0021-9258 Google Scholar

149. 

J. C. Sanchez-Arias et al., “Pannexin 1 regulates network ensembles and dendritic spine development in cortical neurons,” eNeuro, 6 (3), ENEURO.0503-18.2019 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0503-18.2019 Google Scholar

150. 

V. M. Kovalzon et al., “Sleep-wakefulness cycle and behavior in pannexin1 knockout mice,” Behav. Brain Res., 318 24 –27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.10.015 BBREDI 0166-4328 Google Scholar

151. 

P. Bargiotas et al., “Pannexins in ischemia-induced neurodegeneration,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 108 (51), 20772 –20777 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018262108 Google Scholar

152. 

N. L. Weilinger et al., “Metabotropic NMDA receptor signaling couples Src family kinases to pannexin-1 during excitotoxicity,” Nat. Neurosci., 19 (3), 432 –442 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4236 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

153. 

M. Freitas-Andrade et al., “Pannexin1 knockout and blockade reduces ischemic stroke injury in female, but not in male mice,” Oncotarget, 8 (23), 36973 –36983 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16937 Google Scholar

154. 

M. E. Good et al., “Endothelial cell Pannexin1 modulates severity of ischemic stroke by regulating cerebral inflammation and myogenic tone,” JCI Insight, 3 (6), e96272 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.96272 Google Scholar

155. 

A. Mildner et al., “P2Y12 receptor is expressed on human microglia under physiological conditions throughout development and is sensitive to neuroinflammatory diseases,” Glia, 65 (2), 375 –387 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.23097 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

156. 

M. G. Kluge et al., “Spatiotemporal analysis of impaired microglia process movement at sites of secondary neurodegeneration post-stroke,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 39 (12), 2456 –2470 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X18797346 Google Scholar

157. 

T. Zrzavy et al., “Loss of ‘homeostatic’ microglia and patterns of their activation in active multiple sclerosis,” Brain, 140 (7), 1900 –1913 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx113 BRAIAK 0006-8950 Google Scholar

158. 

T. Tanaka et al., “Early-life stress induces the development of Alzheimer’s disease pathology via angiopathy,” Exp. Neurol., 337 113552 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113552 EXNEAC 0014-4886 Google Scholar

159. 

A. Krainik et al., “Regional impairment of cerebrovascular reactivity and BOLD signal in adults after stroke,” Stroke, 36 (6), 1146 –1152 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000166178.40973.a7 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

160. 

R. Pineiro et al., “Altered hemodynamic responses in patients after subcortical stroke measured by functional MRI,” Stroke, 33 (1), 103 –109 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1161/hs0102.100482 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

161. 

B. Ongali et al., “Transgenic mice overexpressing APP and transforming growth factor-beta1 feature cognitive and vascular hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease,” Am. J. Pathol., 177 (6), 3071 –3080 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.100339 AJPAA4 0002-9440 Google Scholar

162. 

D. Checchin et al., “Potential role of microglia in retinal blood vessel formation,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 47 (8), 3595 –3602 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-1522 IOVSDA 0146-0404 Google Scholar

163. 

T. Dudiki et al., “Microglia control vascular architecture via a TGFbeta1 dependent paracrine mechanism linked to tissue mechanics,” Nat. Commun., 11 986 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14787-y NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

164. 

A. Fantin et al., “Tissue macrophages act as cellular chaperones for vascular anastomosis downstream of VEGF-mediated endothelial tip cell induction,” Blood, 116 (5), 829 –840 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-12-257832 BLOOAW 0006-4971 Google Scholar

165. 

G. Faraco et al., “Perivascular macrophages mediate the neurovascular and cognitive dysfunction associated with hypertension,” J. Clin. Invest., 126 (12), 4674 –4689 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI86950 JCINAO 0021-9738 Google Scholar

166. 

F. Gongora-Rivera et al., “In neurocysticercosis, CSF cytokines correlate with cerebral blood flow velocities,” Neurology, 71 (14), 1119 –1122 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000326961.34868.5b NEURAI 0028-3878 Google Scholar

167. 

K. Fassbender et al., “Inflammatory cytokines in CSF in bacterial meningitis: association with altered blood flow velocities in basal cerebral arteries,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 61 (1), 57 –61 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.61.1.57 JNNPAU 0022-3050 Google Scholar

168. 

K. Fassbender et al., “Inflammatory cytokines in subarachnoid haemorrhage: association with abnormal blood flow velocities in basal cerebral arteries,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 70 (4), 534 –537 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.70.4.534 JNNPAU 0022-3050 Google Scholar

169. 

B. J. Balin et al., “Avenues for entry of peripherally administered protein to the central nervous system in mouse, rat, and squirrel monkey,” J. Comp. Neurol., 251 (2), 260 –280 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902510209 JCNEAM 0021-9967 Google Scholar

170. 

T. L. Roth et al., “Transcranial amelioration of inflammation and cell death after brain injury,” Nature, 505 (7482), 223 –228 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12808 Google Scholar

171. 

M. L. Rennels et al., “Evidence for a ‘paravascular’ fluid circulation in the mammalian central nervous system, provided by the rapid distribution of tracer protein throughout the brain from the subarachnoid space,” Brain Res., 326 (1), 47 –63 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(85)91383-6 BRREAP 0006-8993 Google Scholar

172. 

P. Sundd et al., “Biomechanics of leukocyte rolling,” Biorheology, 48 (1), 1 –35 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3233/BIR-2011-0579 BRHLAU 0006-355X Google Scholar

173. 

S. Reitsma et al., “The endothelial glycocalyx: composition, functions, and visualization,” Pflugers Arch., 454 (3), 345 –359 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-007-0212-8 Google Scholar

174. 

J.-H. Yoon et al., “Increased capillary stalling is associated with endothelial glycocalyx loss in subcortical vascular dementia,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 271678X221076568 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X221076568 Google Scholar

175. 

P. Cabrales et al., “Murine cerebral malaria is associated with a vasospasm-like microcirculatory dysfunction, and survival upon rescue treatment is markedly increased by nimodipine,” Am. J. Pathol., 176 (3), 1306 –1315 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.090691 AJPAA4 0002-9440 Google Scholar

176. 

S. Schroder, W. Palinski and G. W. Schmid-Schonbein, “Activated monocytes and granulocytes, capillary nonperfusion, and neovascularization in diabetic retinopathy,” Am. J. Pathol., 139 (1), 81 –100 (1991). AJPAA4 0002-9440 Google Scholar

177. 

G. J. del Zoppo et al., “Polymorphonuclear leukocytes occlude capillaries following middle cerebral artery occlusion and reperfusion in baboons,” Stroke, 22 (10), 1276 –1283 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.22.10.1276 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

178. 

P. A. Reis et al., “Statins prevent cognitive impairment after sepsis by reverting neuroinflammation, and microcirculatory/endothelial dysfunction,” Brain Behav. Immun., 60 293 –303 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2016.11.006 Google Scholar

179. 

A. Pamplona et al., “Heme oxygenase-1 and carbon monoxide suppress the pathogenesis of experimental cerebral malaria,” Nat. Med., 13 (6), 703 –710 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1586 1078-8956 Google Scholar

180. 

L. S. Ritter et al., “Leukocyte accumulation and hemodynamic changes in the cerebral microcirculation during early reperfusion after stroke,” Stroke, 31 (5), 1153 –1161 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.31.5.1153 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

181. 

S. E. Akopov, N. A. Simonian and G. S. Grigorian, “Dynamics of polymorphonuclear leukocyte accumulation in acute cerebral infarction and their correlation with brain tissue damage,” Stroke, 27 (10), 1739 –1743 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.27.10.1739 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

182. 

P. Y. Wang, “Leukocyte infiltration in acute hemispheric ischemic stroke,” Stroke, 24 (2), 236 –240 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.24.2.236 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

183. 

N. Korte et al., “The Ca2+-gated Cl channel TMEM16A amplifies capillary pericyte contraction reducing cerebral blood flow after ischemia,” J. Clin. Invest, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI154118 Google Scholar

184. 

C. Ducroux et al., “Thrombus neutrophil extracellular traps content impair tPA-induced thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke,” Stroke, 49 (3), 754 –757 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019896 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

185. 

S. Staessens et al., “Structural analysis of ischemic stroke thrombi: histological indications for therapy resistance,” Haematologica, 105 (2), 498 –507 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2019.219881 HAEMAX 0390-6078 Google Scholar

186. 

D. Zhang et al., “Prostaglandin E2 released from activated microglia enhances astrocyte proliferation in vitro,” Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 238 (1), 64 –70 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2009.04.015 TXAPA9 0041-008X Google Scholar

187. 

M. Shibata, C. W. Leffler and D. W. Busija, “Recombinant human interleukin 1 alpha dilates pial arterioles and increases cerebrospinal fluid prostanoids in piglets,” Am. J. Physiol., 259 (5 Pt 2), H1486 –H1491 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1990.259.5.H1486 AJPHAP 0002-9513 Google Scholar

188. 

K. M. Boje and P. K. Arora, “Microglial-produced nitric oxide and reactive nitrogen oxides mediate neuronal cell death,” Brain Res., 587 (2), 250 –256 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(92)91004-X BRREAP 0006-8993 Google Scholar

189. 

C. Kelley et al., “Vasoactive hormones and cAMP affect pericyte contraction and stress fibres in vitro,” J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil., 9 (2), 184 –194 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01773740 JMRMD3 0142-4319 Google Scholar

190. 

N. Markhotina, G. J. Liu and D. K. Martin, “Contractility of retinal pericytes grown on silicone elastomer substrates is through a protein kinase A-mediated intracellular pathway in response to vasoactive peptides,” IET Nanobiotechnol., 1 (3), 44 –51 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt:20060019 Google Scholar

191. 

U. Schonfelder et al., “In situ observation of living pericytes in rat retinal capillaries,” Microvasc. Res., 56 (1), 22 –29 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1006/mvre.1998.2086 MIVRA6 0026-2862 Google Scholar

192. 

D. D. Murphy and R. C. Wagner, “Differential contractile response of cultured microvascular pericytes to vasoactive agents,” Microcirculation, 1 (2), 121 –128 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3109/10739689409148267 MCCRD8 0275-4177 Google Scholar

193. 

U. Wagner and M. Wiederholt, “Membrane voltage and whole-cell currents in cultured pericytes of control rats and rats with retinal dystrophy,” Curr. Eye Res., 15 (10), 1045 –1053 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3109/02713689609017654 CEYRDM 0271-3683 Google Scholar

194. 

H. Helbig et al., “Membrane potentials in retinal capillary pericytes: excitability and effect of vasoactive substances,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 33 (7), 2105 –2112 (1992). IOVSDA 0146-0404 Google Scholar

195. 

R. F. Gaertner et al., “Reduced brain tissue perfusion in TGF-beta 1 transgenic mice showing Alzheimer’s disease-like cerebrovascular abnormalities,” Neurobiol. Dis., 19 (1-2), 38 –46 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2004.11.008 NUDIEM 0969-9961 Google Scholar

196. 

T. Kato et al., “Excessive production of transforming growth factor beta1 causes mural cell depletion from cerebral small vessels,” Front. Aging Neurosci., 12 151 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00151 Google Scholar

197. 

M. F. Iulita et al., “CD4(+) regulatory T lymphocytes prevent impaired cerebral blood flow in angiotensin II-induced hypertension,” J. Am. Heart Assoc., 8 (1), e009372 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.009372 Google Scholar

198. 

S. A. Zambach et al., “Precapillary sphincters and pericytes at first-order capillaries as key regulators for brain capillary perfusion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 118 (26), e2023749118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023749118 Google Scholar

199. 

C. Madry et al., “Effects of the ecto-ATPase apyrase on microglial ramification and surveillance reflect cell depolarization, not ATP depletion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 115 (7), E1608 –E1617 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715354115 Google Scholar

200. 

T. A. Longden et al., “Local IP3 receptor-mediated Ca(2+) signals compound to direct blood flow in brain capillaries,” Sci. Adv., 7 (30), eabh0101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh0101 STAMCV 1468-6996 Google Scholar

201. 

A. K. Clark et al., “Selective activation of microglia facilitates synaptic strength,” J. Neurosci., 35 (11), 4552 –4570 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2061-14.2015 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

202. 

C. Cao et al., “Pyrogenic cytokines injected into the rat cerebral ventricle induce cyclooxygenase-2 in brain endothelial cells and also upregulate their receptors,” Eur. J. Neurosci., 13 (9), 1781 –1790 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01551.x EJONEI 0953-816X Google Scholar

203. 

X. Liu et al., “Interleukin 1 type 1 receptor restore: a genetic mouse model for studying interleukin 1 receptor-mediated effects in specific cell types,” J. Neurosci., 35 (7), 2860 –2870 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3199-14.2015 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

204. 

M. Monroy et al., “Role of nitric oxide in the cerebrovascular and thermoregulatory response to interleukin-1 beta,” Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 280 (4), H1448 –H1453 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.2001.280.4.H1448 Google Scholar

205. 

M. Shibata et al., “Nitric oxide regulates NMDA-induced dopamine release in rat striatum,” Neuroreport, 7 (2), 605 –608 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199601310-00055 NERPEZ 0959-4965 Google Scholar

206. 

M. Yemisci et al., “Pericyte contraction induced by oxidative-nitrative stress impairs capillary reflow despite successful opening of an occluded cerebral artery,” Nat. Med., 15 (9), 1031 –1037 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2022 1078-8956 Google Scholar

207. 

V. D. Bianca et al., “Beta-amyloid activates the O–2 forming NADPH oxidase in microglia, monocytes, and neutrophils. A possible inflammatory mechanism of neuronal damage in Alzheimer’s disease,” J. Biol. Chem., 274 (22), 15493 –15499 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.274.22.15493 JBCHA3 0021-9258 Google Scholar

208. 

O. Mossad et al., “Gut microbiota drives age-related oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage in microglia via the metabolite N(6)-carboxymethyllysine,” Nat. Neurosci., 25 (3), 295 –305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01027-3 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

209. 

E. P. Wei, H. A. Kontos and J. S. Beckman, “Mechanisms of cerebral vasodilation by superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and peroxynitrite,” Am. J. Physiol., 271 (3 Pt 2), H1262 –H1266 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1996.271.3.H1262 AJPHAP 0002-9513 Google Scholar

210. 

E. Farkas et al., “Tumor necrosis factor-alpha increases cerebral blood flow and ultrastructural capillary damage through the release of nitric oxide in the rat brain,” Microvasc. Res., 72 (3), 113 –119 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mvr.2006.05.007 MIVRA6 0026-2862 Google Scholar

211. 

C. O. Maher et al., “Interleukin-1beta and adverse effects on cerebral blood flow during long-term global hypoperfusion,” J. Neurosurg., 99 (5), 907 –912 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2003.99.5.0907 JONSAC 0022-3085 Google Scholar

212. 

M. Kamouchi et al., “Hydrogen peroxide-induced Ca2+ responses in CNS pericytes,” Neurosci. Lett., 416 (1), 12 –16 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.01.039 NELED5 0304-3940 Google Scholar

213. 

H. Girouard et al., “Cerebrovascular nitrosative stress mediates neurovascular and endothelial dysfunction induced by angiotensin II,” Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., 27 (2), 303 –309 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.ATV.0000253885.41509.25 ATVBFA 1079-5642 Google Scholar

214. 

K. Kazama et al., “Angiotensin II impairs neurovascular coupling in neocortex through NADPH oxidase-derived radicals,” Circ. Res., 95 (10), 1019 –1026 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000148637.85595.c5 CIRUAL 0009-7330 Google Scholar

215. 

M. J. Hung et al., “Interleukin-6 inhibits endothelial nitric oxide synthase activation and increases endothelial nitric oxide synthase binding to stabilized caveolin-1 in human vascular endothelial cells,” J. Hypertens., 28 (5), 940 –951 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833992ef JOHYD3 0263-6352 Google Scholar

216. 

J. M. Stouthard et al., “Interleukin-6 stimulates coagulation, not fibrinolysis, in humans,” Thromb. Haemost., 76 (5), 738 –742 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1650653 THHADQ 0340-6245 Google Scholar

217. 

C. Gluck et al., “Distinct signatures of calcium activity in brain mural cells,” Elife, 10 e70591 (2021). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70591 Google Scholar

218. 

T. A. Longden and M. T. Nelson, “Vascular inward rectifier K+ channels as external K+ sensors in the control of cerebral blood flow,” Microcirculation, 22 (3), 183 –196 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/micc.12190 MCCRD8 0275-4177 Google Scholar

219. 

J. A. Filosa et al., “Local potassium signaling couples neuronal activity to vasodilation in the brain,” Nat. Neurosci., 9 (11), 1397 –1403 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1779 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

220. 

Y. Fukata, M. Amano and K. Kaibuchi, “Rho-rho-kinase pathway in smooth muscle contraction and cytoskeletal reorganization of non-muscle cells,” Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 22 (1), 32 –39 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01596-0 TPHSDY 0165-6147 Google Scholar

221. 

Q. Li and D. G. Puro, “Adenosine activates ATP-sensitive K(+) currents in pericytes of rat retinal microvessels: role of A1 and A2a receptors,” Brain Res., 907 (1-2), 93 –99 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02607-5 BRREAP 0006-8993 Google Scholar

222. 

U. Dirnagl et al., “Coupling of cerebral blood flow to neuronal activation: role of adenosine and nitric oxide,” Am. J. Physiol., 267 (1 Pt 2), H296 –H301 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1994.267.1.H296 AJPHAP 0002-9513 Google Scholar

223. 

S. Horlyck et al., “ATP induces contraction of cultured brain capillary pericytes via activation of P2Y-type purinergic receptors,” Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 320 (2), H699 –H712 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00560.2020 Google Scholar

224. 

B. S. Khakh et al., “International union of pharmacology. XXIV. Current status of the nomenclature and properties of P2X receptors and their subunits,” Pharmacol. Rev., 53 (1), 107 –118 (2001). PAREAQ 0031-6997 Google Scholar

225. 

H. Kawamura et al., “ATP: a vasoactive signal in the pericyte-containing microvasculature of the rat retina,” J. Physiol., 551 (3), 787 –799 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2003.047977 JPHYA7 0022-3751 Google Scholar

226. 

C. Cai et al., “Impaired dynamics of brain precapillary sphincters and pericytes at first order capillaries explains reduced neurovascular functions in aging,” (2021). Google Scholar

227. 

T. Sugiyama et al., “Regulation of P2X7-induced pore formation and cell death in pericyte-containing retinal microvessels,” Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol., 288 (3), C568 –C576 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00380.2004 1522-1563 Google Scholar

228. 

A. D. Umpierre et al., “Microglial calcium signaling is attuned to neuronal activity in awake mice,” Elife, 9 e56502 (2020). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56502 Google Scholar

229. 

H. B. Choi et al., “Differential activation of subtype purinergic receptors modulates Ca(2+) mobilization and COX-2 in human microglia,” Glia, 43 (2), 95 –103 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.10239 GLIAEJ 1098-1136 Google Scholar

230. 

C. Hundhausen et al., “Regulated shedding of transmembrane chemokines by the disintegrin and metalloproteinase 10 facilitates detachment of adherent leukocytes,” J. Immunol., 178 (12), 8064 –8072 (2007). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.178.12.8064 JOIMA3 0022-1767 Google Scholar

231. 

S. A. Jones et al., “Shedding of the soluble IL-6 receptor is triggered by Ca2+ mobilization, while basal release is predominantly the product of differential mRNA splicing in THP-1 cells,” Eur. J. Immunol., 28 (11), 3514 –3522 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4141(199811)28:11<3514::AID-IMMU3514>3.0.CO;2-T EJIMAF 0014-2980 Google Scholar

232. 

G. S. Lee et al., “The calcium-sensing receptor regulates the NLRP3 inflammasome through Ca2+ and cAMP,” Nature, 492 (7427), 123 –127 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11588 Google Scholar

233. 

S. M. Le Gall et al., “ADAMs 10 and 17 represent differentially regulated components of a general shedding machinery for membrane proteins such as transforming growth factor alpha, L-selectin, and tumor necrosis factor alpha,” Mol. Biol. Cell, 20 (6), 1785 –1794 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e08-11-1135 MBCEEV 1059-1524 Google Scholar

234. 

C. Madry and D. Attwell, “Receptors, ion channels, and signaling mechanisms underlying microglial dynamics,” J. Biol. Chem., 290 (20), 12443 –12450 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.R115.637157 JBCHA3 0021-9258 Google Scholar

235. 

J. T. Rogers et al., “CX3CR1 deficiency leads to impairment of hippocampal cognitive function and synaptic plasticity,” J. Neurosci., 31 (45), 16241 –16250 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3667-11.2011 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

236. 

J. D. Sokolowski et al., “Fractalkine is a ‘find-me’ signal released by neurons undergoing ethanol-induced apoptosis,” Front. Cell Neurosci., 8 360 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2014.00360 Google Scholar

237. 

A. Denes et al., “Role of CX3CR1 (fractalkine receptor) in brain damage and inflammation induced by focal cerebral ischemia in mouse,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 28 (10), 1707 –1721 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2008.64 Google Scholar

238. 

J. Wang et al., “Ischemia-induced neuronal cell death is mediated by chemokine receptor CX3CR1,” Sci. Rep., 8 (1), 556 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18774-0 SRCEC3 2045-2322 Google Scholar

239. 

D. B. Re and S. Przedborski, “Fractalkine: moving from chemotaxis to neuroprotection,” Nat. Neurosci., 9 (7), 859 –861 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0706-859 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

240. 

R. B. Guo et al., “Iptakalim improves cerebral microcirculation in mice after ischemic stroke by inhibiting pericyte contraction,” Acta Pharmacol. Sin., 1 –11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-021-00784-4 Google Scholar

241. 

D. Weisenburger-Lile et al., “Harmful neutrophil subsets in patients with ischemic stroke: association with disease severity,” Neurol. Neuroimmunol. Neuroinflamm., 6 (4), e571 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000571 Google Scholar

242. 

M. D’Haeseleer et al., “Cerebral hypoperfusion in multiple sclerosis is reversible and mediated by endothelin-1,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110 (14), 5654 –5658 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222560110 Google Scholar

243. 

S. Shahrampour et al., “N-acetyl cysteine administration affects cerebral blood flow as measured by arterial spin labeling MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis,” Heliyon, 7 (7), e07615 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07615 Google Scholar

244. 

A. Liesz et al., “Intracerebral interleukin-10 injection modulates post-ischemic neuroinflammation: an experimental microarray study,” Neurosci. Lett., 579 18 –23 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2014.07.003 NELED5 0304-3940 Google Scholar

245. 

J. Milovanovic et al., “Interleukin-17 in chronic inflammatory neurological diseases,” Front. Immunol., 11 947 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00947 Google Scholar

246. 

B. Hotter et al., “IL-6 plasma levels correlate with cerebral perfusion deficits and infarct sizes in stroke patients without associated infections,” Front. Neurol., 10 83 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00083 Google Scholar

247. 

K. N. Warren et al., “Elevated markers of inflammation are associated with longitudinal changes in brain function in older adults,” J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., 73 (6), 770 –778 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glx199 Google Scholar

248. 

Y. Qin et al., “Long-term microstructure and cerebral blood flow changes in patients recovered from COVID-19 without neurological manifestations,” J. Clin. Invest., 131 (8), e147329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI147329 JCINAO 0021-9738 Google Scholar

249. 

A. Varatharaj et al., “Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study,” Lancet Psychiatr., 7 (10), 875 –882 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30287-X Google Scholar

250. 

M. Taquet et al., “6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records,” Lancet Psychiatr., 8 (5), 416 –427 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00084-5 Google Scholar

251. 

T. Sharshar et al., “The neuropathology of septic shock,” Brain Pathol., 14 (1), 21 –33 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3639.2004.tb00494.x BRPAE7 1015-6305 Google Scholar

252. 

A. Polito et al., “Pattern of brain injury in the acute setting of human septic shock,” Crit. Care, 17 (5), R204 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12899 Google Scholar

253. 

F. S. Taccone et al., “Cerebral microcirculation is impaired during sepsis: an experimental study,” Crit. Care, 14 (4), R140 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9205 Google Scholar

254. 

F. S. Taccone et al., “Sepsis is associated with altered cerebral microcirculation and tissue hypoxia in experimental peritonitis,” Crit. Care Med., 42 (2), e114 –e122 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a641b8 CCMDC7 0090-3493 Google Scholar

255. 

J. G. Wilson et al., “Cytokine profile in plasma of severe COVID-19 does not differ from ARDS and sepsis,” JCI Insight, 5 (17), e140289 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.140289 Google Scholar

256. 

J. Liu et al., “Lymphopenia predicted illness severity and recovery in patients with COVID-19: a single-center, retrospective study,” PLoS One, 15 (11), e0241659 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241659 POLNCL 1932-6203 Google Scholar

257. 

L. Tan et al., “Lymphopenia predicts disease severity of COVID-19: a descriptive and predictive study,” Signal Transduct. Target Ther., 5 (1), 33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-0148-4 Google Scholar

258. 

L. Chang et al., “Perfusion MRI detects rCBF abnormalities in early stages of HIV-cognitive motor complex,” Neurology, 54 (2), 389 –389 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.54.2.389 NEURAI 0028-3878 Google Scholar

259. 

C. Li et al., “Longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging and perfusion MRI investigation in a macaque model of neuro-AIDS: a preliminary study,” Neuroimage, 58 (1), 286 –292 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.068 NEIMEF 1053-8119 Google Scholar

260. 

C. Hirunpattarasilp et al., “SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 triggers pericyte-mediated angiotensin-evoked cerebral capillary constriction,” (2021). Google Scholar

261. 

J. Wenzel et al., “The SARS-CoV-2 main protease M(pro) causes microvascular brain pathology by cleaving NEMO in brain endothelial cells,” Nat. Neurosci., 24 (11), 1522 –1533 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00926-1 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

262. 

L. He et al., “Pericyte-specific vascular expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2—implications for microvascular inflammation and hypercoagulopathy in COVID-19 patients,” (2020). Google Scholar

263. 

D. Asby et al., “Systemic infection exacerbates cerebrovascular dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease,” Brain, 144 (6), 1869 –1883 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab094 BRAIAK 0006-8950 Google Scholar

264. 

N. Korte, R. Nortley and D. Attwell, “Cerebral blood flow decrease as an early pathological mechanism in Alzheimer’s disease,” Acta Neuropathol., 140 (6), 793 –810 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-020-02215-w ANPTAL 1432-0533 Google Scholar

265. 

N. J. Abbott et al., “Structure and function of the blood–brain barrier,” Neurobiol. Dis., 37 (1), 13 –25 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2009.07.030 NUDIEM 0969-9961 Google Scholar

266. 

R. N. Munji et al., “Profiling the mouse brain endothelial transcriptome in health and disease models reveals a core blood–brain barrier dysfunction module,” Nat. Neurosci., 22 (11), 1892 –1902 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0497-x NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar

267. 

S. Tietz and B. Engelhardt, “Brain barriers: crosstalk between complex tight junctions and adherens junctions,” J. Cell Biol., 209 (4), 493 –506 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201412147 JCLBA3 0021-9525 Google Scholar

268. 

B. Wojciak-Stothard et al., “Regulation of TNF-alpha-induced reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton and cell-cell junctions by Rho, Rac, and Cdc42 in human endothelial cells,” J. Cell Physiol., 176 (1), 150 –165 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4652(199807)176:1<150::AID-JCP17>3.0.CO;2-B Google Scholar

269. 

G. Schreibelt et al., “Reactive oxygen species alter brain endothelial tight junction dynamics via RhoA, PI3 kinase, and PKB signaling,” FASEB J., 21 (13), 3666 –3676 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-8329com FAJOEC 0892-6638 Google Scholar

270. 

C. E. Walder et al., “Ischemic stroke injury is reduced in mice lacking a functional NADPH oxidase,” Stroke, 28 (11), 2252 –2258 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.28.11.2252 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

271. 

J. M. Gidday et al., “Leukocyte-derived matrix metalloproteinase-9 mediates blood–brain barrier breakdown and is proinflammatory after transient focal cerebral ischemia,” Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 289 (2), H558 –H568 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.01275.2004 Google Scholar

272. 

A. M. Stowe et al., “Neutrophil elastase and neurovascular injury following focal stroke and reperfusion,” Neurobiol. Dis., 35 (1), 82 –90 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2009.04.006 NUDIEM 0969-9961 Google Scholar

273. 

R. G. Rempe, A. M. S. Hartz and B. Bauer, “Matrix metalloproteinases in the brain and blood–brain barrier: versatile breakers and makers,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 36 (9), 1481 –1507 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X16655551 Google Scholar

274. 

E. Candelario-Jalil, Y. Yang and G. A. Rosenberg, “Diverse roles of matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in neuroinflammation and cerebral ischemia,” Neuroscience, 158 (3), 983 –994 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.06.025 Google Scholar

275. 

A. Rosell et al., “MMP-9-positive neutrophil infiltration is associated to blood–brain barrier breakdown and basal lamina type IV collagen degradation during hemorrhagic transformation after human ischemic stroke,” Stroke, 39 (4), 1121 –1126 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.500868 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

276. 

H. X. Nguyen, T. J. O’Barr and A. J. Anderson, “Polymorphonuclear leukocytes promote neurotoxicity through release of matrix metalloproteinases, reactive oxygen species, and TNF-alpha,” J. Neurochem., 102 (3), 900 –912 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04643.x JONRA9 0022-3042 Google Scholar

277. 

J. A. Siegenthaler, F. Sohet and R. Daneman, “‘Sealing off the CNS’: cellular and molecular regulation of blood–brain barriergenesis,” Curr. Opin. Neurobiol., 23 (6), 1057 –1064 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.06.006 COPUEN 0959-4388 Google Scholar

278. 

B. W. Chow et al., “Caveolae in CNS arterioles mediate neurovascular coupling,” Nature, 579 (7797), 106 –110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2026-1 Google Scholar

279. 

B. J. Andreone et al., “Blood–brain barrier permeability is regulated by lipid transport-dependent suppression of caveolae-mediated transcytosis,” Neuron, 94 (3), 581 –594e5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.03.043 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

280. 

A. Ben-Zvi et al., “Mfsd2a is critical for the formation and function of the blood–brain barrier,” Nature, 509 (7501), 507 –511 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13324 Google Scholar

281. 

M. B. Chen et al., “Brain endothelial cells are exquisite sensors of age-related circulatory cues,” Cell Rep., 30 (13), 4418 –4432e4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.012 Google Scholar

282. 

J. Millan et al., “Lymphocyte transcellular migration occurs through recruitment of endothelial ICAM-1 to caveola- and F-actin-rich domains,” Nat. Cell Biol., 8 (2), 113 –123 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1356 NCBIFN 1465-7392 Google Scholar

283. 

M. A. Mae et al., “Single-cell analysis of blood–brain barrier response to pericyte loss,” Circ. Res., 128 (4), e46 –e62 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317473 CIRUAL 0009-7330 Google Scholar

284. 

A. Armulik et al., “Pericytes regulate the blood–brain barrier,” Nature, 468 (7323), 557 –561 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09522 Google Scholar

285. 

R. D. Bell et al., “Pericytes control key neurovascular functions and neuronal phenotype in the adult brain and during brain aging,” Neuron, 68 (3), 409 –427 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.043 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

286. 

S. W. Lee et al., “Angiopoietin-1 reduces vascular endothelial growth factor-induced brain endothelial permeability via upregulation of ZO-2,” Int. J. Mol. Med., 23 (2), 279 –284 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm_00000128 Google Scholar

287. 

M. R. Halliday et al., “Accelerated pericyte degeneration and blood–brain barrier breakdown in apolipoprotein E4 carriers with Alzheimer’s disease,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 36 (1), 216 –227 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2015.44 Google Scholar

288. 

A. Montagne et al., “Blood–brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus,” Neuron, 85 (2), 296 –302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.032 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

289. 

D. A. Nation et al., “Blood–brain barrier breakdown is an early biomarker of human cognitive dysfunction,” Nat. Med., 25 (2), 270 –276 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0297-y 1078-8956 Google Scholar

290. 

A. Montagne et al., “APOE4 leads to blood–brain barrier dysfunction predicting cognitive decline,” Nature, 581 (7806), 71 –76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2247-3 Google Scholar

291. 

R. G. Underly et al., “Pericytes as inducers of rapid, matrix metalloproteinase-9-dependent capillary damage during ischemia,” J. Neurosci., 37 (1), 129 –140 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2891-16.2016 JNRSDS 0270-6474 Google Scholar

292. 

M. R. Elmore et al., “Colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor signaling is necessary for microglia viability, unmasking a microglia progenitor cell in the adult brain,” Neuron, 82 (2), 380 –397 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.040 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar

293. 

S. K. Halder and R. Milner, “Mild hypoxia triggers transient blood–brain barrier disruption: a fundamental protective role for microglia,” Acta Neuropathol. Commun., 8 (1), 175 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-020-01051-z Google Scholar

294. 

C. N. Parkhurst et al., “Microglia promote learning-dependent synapse formation through brain-derived neurotrophic factor,” Cell, 155 (7), 1596 –1609 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.030 CELLB5 0092-8674 Google Scholar

295. 

N. Lou et al., “Purinergic receptor P2RY12-dependent microglial closure of the injured blood–brain barrier,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 113 (4), 1074 –1079 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520398113 Google Scholar

296. 

C. Liu et al., “Macrophages mediate the repair of brain vascular rupture through direct physical adhesion and mechanical traction,” Immunity, 44 (5), 1162 –1176 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.03.008 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar

297. 

K. Haruwaka et al., “Dual microglia effects on blood brain barrier permeability induced by systemic inflammation,” Nat. Commun., 10 5816 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13812-z NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

298. 

S. Horng et al., “Astrocytic tight junctions control inflammatory CNS lesion pathogenesis,” J. Clin. Invest., 127 (8), 3136 –3151 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI91301 JCINAO 0021-9738 Google Scholar

299. 

J. K. Ryu and J. G. McLarnon, “A leaky blood–brain barrier, fibrinogen infiltration and microglial reactivity in inflamed Alzheimer’s disease brain,” J. Cell Mol. Med., 13 (9A), 2911 –2925 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00434.x Google Scholar

300. 

K. A. Tran et al., “Endothelial beta-catenin signaling is required for maintaining adult blood–brain barrier integrity and central nervous system homeostasis,” Circulation, 133 (2), 177 –186 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015982 CIRCAZ 0009-7322 Google Scholar

301. 

I. Moxon-Emre and L. C. Schlichter, “Neutrophil depletion reduces blood–brain barrier breakdown, axon injury, and inflammation after intracerebral hemorrhage,” J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol., 70 (3), 218 –235 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1097/NEN.0b013e31820d94a5 JNENAD 0022-3069 Google Scholar

302. 

L. Kang et al., “Neutrophil extracellular traps released by neutrophils impair revascularization and vascular remodeling after stroke,” Nat. Commun., 11 2488 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16191-y NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

303. 

V. H. Brait et al., “Importance of T lymphocytes in brain injury, immunodeficiency, and recovery after cerebral ischemia,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 32 (4), 598 –611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2012.6 Google Scholar

304. 

H. Kebir et al., “Human TH17 lymphocytes promote blood–brain barrier disruption and central nervous system inflammation,” Nat. Med., 13 (10), 1173 –1175 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1651 1078-8956 Google Scholar

305. 

J. Huppert et al., “Cellular mechanisms of IL-17-induced blood–brain barrier disruption,” FASEB J., 24 (4), 1023 –1034 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.09-141978 FAJOEC 0892-6638 Google Scholar

306. 

J. E. Meegan et al., “Neutrophil-mediated vascular barrier injury: role of neutrophil extracellular traps,” Microcirculation, 24 (3), e12352 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/micc.12352 MCCRD8 0275-4177 Google Scholar

307. 

V. Papayannopoulos, “Neutrophil extracellular traps in immunity and disease,” Nat. Rev. Immunol., 18 (2), 134 –147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2017.105 NRIABX 1474-1733 Google Scholar

308. 

Y. Iturria-Medina et al., “Early role of vascular dysregulation on late-onset Alzheimer’s disease based on multifactorial data-driven analysis,” Nat. Commun., 7 11934 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11934 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar

309. 

E. F. Hauck et al., “Capillary flow and diameter changes during reperfusion after global cerebral ischemia studied by intravital video microscopy,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 24 (4), 383 –391 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-200404000-00003 Google Scholar

310. 

A. E. Baird et al., “Reperfusion after thrombolytic therapy in ischemic stroke measured by single-photon emission computed tomography,” Stroke, 25 (1), 79 –85 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.25.1.79 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

311. 

F. Fernandez-Klett et al., “Early loss of pericytes and perivascular stromal cell-induced scar formation after stroke,” J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab., 33 (3), 428 –439 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2012.187 Google Scholar

312. 

L. Claudio, C. S. Raine and C. F. Brosnan, “Evidence of persistent blood–brain barrier abnormalities in chronic-progressive multiple sclerosis,” Acta Neuropathol., 90 (3), 228 –238 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00296505 ANPTAL 1432-0533 Google Scholar

313. 

S. Alves et al., “Interleukin-2 improves amyloid pathology, synaptic failure and memory in Alzheimer’s disease mice,” Brain, 140 (3), 826 –842 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww330 BRAIAK 0006-8950 Google Scholar

314. 

C. Dansokho et al., “Regulatory T cells delay disease progression in Alzheimer-like pathology,” Brain, 139 (4), 1237 –1251 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv408 BRAIAK 0006-8950 Google Scholar

315. 

L. Shi et al., “Treg cell-derived osteopontin promotes microglia-mediated white matter repair after ischemic stroke,” Immunity, 54 (7), 1527 –1542e8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2021.04.022 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar

316. 

P. Li et al., “Essential role of program death 1-ligand 1 in regulatory T-cell-afforded protection against blood–brain barrier damage after stroke,” Stroke, 45 (3), 857 –864 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004100 SJCCA7 0039-2499 Google Scholar

317. 

E. Song et al., “VEGF-C-driven lymphatic drainage enables immunosurveillance of brain tumours,” Nature, 577 (7792), 689 –694 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1912-x Google Scholar

Biography

Anna Barkaway studied biochemistry at the University of Reading, and completed her PhD in the Laboratory of Professor Sussan Nourshargh at Queen Mary, University of London, where she studied the impact of aging on neutrophil–vessel wall interactions. For her post-doctoral work, in Professor David Attwell’s Laboratory, she is investigating the impact of immune–vascular cell interactions on CBF in health and disease.

David Attwell studied physics at Oxford, before carrying out a PhD in neurophysiology. After a post-doctoral fellowship in Berkeley, he moved to University College London. He works on interactions between neurons, glial cells, and the vasculature, focussing on the role of contractile pericytes as regulators of capillary blood flow.

Nils Korte studied physiology in Glasgow and Melbourne, and did his PhD at University College London on the regulation of CBF in health, stroke, and AD. His post-doctoral work involves studying on vascular–immune interactions in the brain and brain-bordering tissues.

CC BY: © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.
Anna Barkaway, David Attwell, and Nils Korte "Immune–vascular mural cell interactions: consequences for immune cell trafficking, cerebral blood flow, and the blood–brain barrier," Neurophotonics 9(3), 031914 (14 May 2022). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.9.3.031914
Received: 29 November 2021; Accepted: 13 April 2022; Published: 14 May 2022
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 11 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
KEYWORDS
Brain

Capillaries

Blood brain barrier

Blood

Receptors

Molecules

Modulation

Back to Top