In multicellular organisms epithelial and endothelial cells form selective permeable interfaces between tissue compartments of different chemical compositions. Tight junctions which connect adjacent cells, control the passage of molecules across the barrier and, in addition, facilitate active transport processes. The cellular barriers are not static but can be deliberately modulated by exposure to specific external stimuli. In vitro models representing the essential absorption barriers of the body are nowadays available, thus allowing investigation of the parameters that control permeability as well as transport processes across those barriers. Independent of the origin of the barrier forming cells, techniques are needed to quantify their barrier integrity. One simple assay is to measure the permeability for given hydrophilic substrates possessing different molecular weights like sucrose or dextrans. However, this technique is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Moreover, radioactive or fluorescently-labeled substrates are needed to allow easy analytical detection. Finally, if transport processes are investigated, the standard permeant may interfere with the transport process under investigation or might even alter the barrier integrity by itself. Thus, independent, non-invasive techniques are needed to quantify the barrier integrity continuously during the experiment. Such techniques are available and are mainly based on the measurement of the transendothelial or transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) of barrier forming cells grown on porous membranes. Simple devices using two sets of electrodes (so-called Voltohmeters) are widely used. In addition, an easy-to-use physical technique called impedance spectroscopy allows the continuous analysis of both the TEER and the electrical capacitance giving additional information about the barrier properties of cells grown on permeable membranes. This technique is useful as a quality control for barrier forming cells. Another impedance-based approach requires cells to be grown directly on solid, micro-structured electrodes. Here, we will discuss the physical background of the different techniques; advantages, disadvantages, and applications will be scrutinized. The aim is to give the reader a comprehensive understanding concerning the range and limits of the application, mainly focusing on endothelial cells.

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is a treatment option for lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) caused by deficiencies of soluble lysosomal enzymes. ERT depends on receptor-mediated transport of intravenously injected recombinant enzyme to lysosomes of patient cells. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) prevents efficient transfer of therapeutic polypeptides from the blood to the brain parenchyma and thus hinders effective treatment of LSDs with CNS involvement. We compared the potential of five brain-targeting peptides to promote brain delivery of the lysosomal enzyme arylsulfatase A (ASA). Fusion proteins between ASA and the protein transduction domain of the human immunodeficiency virus TAT protein (Tat), an Angiopep peptide (Ang-2), and the receptor-binding domains of human apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and ApoE (two versions, ApoE-I and ApoE-II) were generated. All ASA fusion proteins were enzymatically active and targeted to lysosomes when added to cultured cells. In contrast to wild-type ASA, which is taken up by mannose-6-phosphate receptors, all chimeric proteins were additionally endocytosed via mannose-6-phosphate-independent routes. For ASA-Ang-2, ASA-ApoE-I, and ASA-ApoE-II, uptake was partially due to the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1. Transendothelial transfer in a BBB cell culture model was elevated for ASA-ApoB, ASA-ApoE-I, and ASA-ApoE-II. Brain delivery was, however, increased only for ASA-ApoE-II. ApoE-II was also superior to wild-type ASA in reducing lysosomal storage in the CNS of ASA-knock-out mice treated by ERT. Therefore, the ApoE-derived peptide appears useful to treat metachromatic leukodystrophy and possibly other neurological disorders more efficiently.

No abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) protects the brain from toxic substances within the bloodstream and keeps the brain's homeostasis stable. On the other hand, it also represents the main obstacle in the treatment of many CNS diseases. Among different techniques, nanoparticles have emerged as promising tools to enhance brain drug delivery of therapeutic molecules. For successful drug delivery, nanoparticles may either modulate BBB integrity or exploit transport systems present on the endothelium. In this review, we present two different nanoparticles to enhance brain drug delivery. Poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles were shown to induce a reversible disruption of the BBB in vitro which may be exploited by simultaneous injection of the drug in question. By coating the poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles with, e.g., ApoE, it is also possible to circumvent the BBB via the LDL-receptor. Another example of the use of receptor-mediated endocytosis to enhance brain uptake of nanoparticles are poly(ethylene glycol)-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles which are covalently attached to lactoferrin. These nanoparticles have been shown to facilitate the transport via the lactoferrin receptor, and so could then be used for magnetic resonance imaging.

The use of silver nanoparticles in medical and consumer products such as wound dressings, clothing and cosmetic has increased significantly in recent years. Still, the influence of these particles on our health and especially on our brain, has not been examined adequately up to now. We studied the influence of AgEO-(Ethylene Oxide) and AgCitrate-Nanoparticles (NPs) on the protective barriers of the brain, namely the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (blood-CSF) barrier in vitro. The NPs toxicity was evaluated by examining changes in membrane integrity, cell morphology, barrier properties, oxidative stress and inflammatory reactions. AgNPs decreased cell viability, disturbed barrier integrity and tight junctions and triggered oxidative stress and DNA strand breaks. However, all mentioned effects were, at least partly, suppressed by a Citrate-coating and were most pronounced in the cells of the BBB as compared to the epithelial cells representing the blood-CSF barrier. AgEO-but not AgCitrate-NPs also triggered an inflammatory reaction in porcine brain capillary endothelial cells (PBCEC), which represent the BBB. Our data indicate that AgNPs may cause adverse effects within the barriers of the brain, but their toxicity can be reduced by choosing an appropriate coating material.