Skip to main content
Alzheimer's & Dementia logoLink to Alzheimer's & Dementia
. 2025 Mar 27;21(3):e70104. doi: 10.1002/alz.70104

Biomarkers of blood–brain barrier and neurovascular unit integrity in human cognitive impairment and dementia

Scott R French 1, Briana P Meyer 2, Juan C Arias 1, Swati Rane Levendovzsky 2, Craig C Weinkauf 1,
PMCID: PMC11947770  PMID: 40145342

Abstract

Blood–brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction is recognized as an early step in the development of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Biomarkers are needed to monitor BBB integrity over time, better understand the role of the BBB in neurodegeneration, potentially help define long‐term ADRD risk, and monitor effects of therapeutics. In this review, we discuss the current biomarkers used to detect human BBB dysfunction in the context of cognitive decline and dementia. We also discuss promising candidate fluid biomarkers to detect BBB dysfunction in blood.

Highlights

  • BBB permeability occurs during normal aging and is further exacerbated in ADRD.

  • In this review, we discuss in vivo imaging and CSF biomarkers of BBB dysfunction currently used in the setting of aging and ADRD in humans.

  • We also review promising candidate blood‐based biomarkers that may represent BBB dysfunction.

Keywords: biomarker, blood‐based biomarkers, blood–brain barrier, cognitive impairment, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, imaging biomarkers, neurodegeneration, neurovascular unit

1. THE BLOOD‐BRAIN BARRIER AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ADRD PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

The blood–brain barrier (BBB) is a semipermeable and highly selective barrier that regulates the flow of ions, molecules, and cells between the bloodstream and cerebral parenchyma. 1 , 2 The integrity of the BBB is attributed to the complex interactions of its neuronal and vascular components, known collectively as the neurovascular unit (NVU). 3 , 4 The NVU consists of continuous endothelial cells connected by tight junctions and surrounded by pericytes and astrocytic endfeet, and includes neurons and microglia (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Schematic representation of blood–brain barrier (BBB). The BBB is a selective barrier in capillaries of the brain, 2 also known as the neurovascular unit (NVU). It is composed of pericytes (blue), astrocytes (green), endothelial cells (dark red) connected by tight junctions (circled in yellow), and neurons (tan). The key differences between capillaries in the brain and the rest of the body are that brain capillary endothelial cells are continuously joined by tight junctions and lack fenestrations. 1 Brain capillaries are surrounded by astrocyte endfeet, providing a direct link between blood vessels and neurons of the central nervous system (CNS). Pericytes are roughly 100× more abundant in capillaries of the CNS compared to the rest of the body. 3 , 4

An intact BBB allows for O2 and other small hydrophobic molecules to freely diffuse across the membrane, while water, glucose, and ion flux is largely regulated by specific transporters or channels. 5 BBB dysfunction is characterized by a disruption of one or more cell types within the NVU, resulting in impaired clearance of neurotoxic compounds (such as amyloid beta [Aβ] peptides and iron), impaired transporter function, and increased cerebral infiltration of peripheral immune cells, which can promote neuroinflammation. 6 While some increased permeability of the BBB occurs in normal aging, 7 it can be exacerbated in vascular conditions like hypertension or diabetes. 8 , 9 , 10 This dysfunction allows potentially harmful substances to cross into the brain, triggering inflammatory responses and oxidative stress that can damage neurons and glial cells and subsequently promote the development of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 11 , 12 , 13 BBB dysfunction is an early step of ADRD progression, occurring prior to morphological changes in the hippocampus and Aβ/neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) accumulation and is worsened by the APOE ε4 allele independently of pathological markers of AD or vascular risk factors. 11 , 12 Early detection of BBB dysfunction could lead to innovative strategies to avert ADRD onset and progression in high‐risk individuals. For these reasons, biomarkers to measure BBB integrity are critically needed in both clinical and research settings. 14 In this review, we discuss the current state of in vivo imaging and fluid biomarkers of BBB dysfunction in human subjects and highlight their utility and limitations and the extent to which each biomarker may be reflective of different subtypes of BBB dysfunction. A summary of the biomarkers discussed is shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Summary of in vivo biomarkers of blood–brain barrier integrity in humans.

2. IMAGING BIOMARKERS

2.1. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

BBB integrity is measured by MRI in humans through quantification of BBB regional permeability using both contrast‐ and non‐contrast‐based MRI techniques. Contrast‐based methods use intravenous gadolinium‐based contrast agents (GBCAs) with molecular sizes too large to cross an intact BBB (∼559 to 1058 da). 15 GBCAs can cross the BBB through paracellular transport when damage occurs to junctional complexes (tight, adherens, gap junctions) on the endothelium. 16 Non‐contrast‐based methods measure permeability by magnetically labeling water molecules. Water has a small molecular size (∼18 da) and can cross the BBB paracellularly or through transcellular mechanisms of active cotransport and free diffusion across the endothelial membrane and facilitates diffusion through aquaporin‐4 (AQP4) water channels expressed in astrocytic endfeet. 17 , 18

RESEARCH IN CONTEXT

  1. Systematic review: We reviewed the literature using online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar, meeting abstracts, and preprint servers with a focus on in vivo imaging, CSF, and blood‐based biomarkers of BBB dysfunction. We focused primarily on studies conducted in humans, within the setting of aging and ADRD.

  2. Interpretation: Since BBB dysfunction is an early mechanism in the development of ADRD, in vivo biomarkers are increasingly sought to measure BBB dysfunction in humans. Our review describes the current state of human BBB biomarkers, including their strengths and limitations and their implications in normal aging and ADRD.

  3. Future directions: We discuss candidate blood‐based biomarkers of BBB dysfunction that warrant further investigation. Further studies incorporating a multimodal approach to the investigation of BBB integrity will provide meaningful information on the clinical utility of these biomarkers and provide tools to better understand vascular involvement in ADRD.

2.1.1. Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI

Dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI collects dynamic images to measure the signal change following an intravenous injection of GBCA. Using pharmacokinetic modeling, the rate of GBCA extravasation from the bloodstream into the cerebral tissue is quantified as the transfer constant Ktrans. 19 As GBCAs do not cross an intact BBB due to their large molecular size, an elevated Ktrans is representative of a dysfunctional BBB. While this technique has been widely used to measure large changes in BBB permeability, such as in patients with tumors or strokes, an emphasis has been placed on developing DCE‐MRI techniques to measure subtle changes in BBB integrity, as seen in patients with cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) 20 , 21 , 22 and ADRD. 19 Modifications to the acquisition and post‐processing methods can significantly improve the contrast‐to‐noise ratio for detection of small changes in Ktrans and improve the accuracy of measurements. 23 , 24

BBB dysfunction measured by DCE‐MRI has been shown with normal aging, 7 , 11 , 25 vascular disease, 8 , 26 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 11 , 27 cSVD, 20 , 21 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 and AD. 32 , 33 Structural equation modeling shows that vascular risk factors such as hypertension increase whole‐brain Ktrans, which in turn is associated with white matter injury and decreased scores on tests of processing speed and executive function 34 ; these data highlight a potential early mechanism behind the high rates of cognitive decline observed in the vascular population. 35 , 36 Regional analysis demonstrates that hippocampal Ktrans is increased in individuals with MCI and AD, especially in carriers of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. 11 , 12 , 33 , 37 Elevated hippocampal Ktrans was independent of inflammatory status, vascular risk factors, or pathological markers of AD, which could signify earlier BBB disruption of relevance in neurodegeneration. 8 Another study employing regional analysis of Ktrans in patients with cSVD found that iron deposition in the temporal pole and caudate nucleus positively correlates with Ktrans and cognitive decline. 31 Altogether, these data suggest that BBB injury is a common mechanism in aging and ADRD that could promote cerebral accumulation of neurotoxic substances (i.e., iron) that may contribute to cognitive decline. 38 , 39 , ,

In summary, DCE MRI is a widely available imaging technique with documented sensitivity to both large and subtle changes in BBB function in the setting of ADRD. However, extended scan times and larger sample sizes are needed to detect subtle BBB disruption with high accuracy, which is limited by patient tolerance, cost, and availability of scan time. 22 There is also a need for a standardized protocol for optimal acquisition and data processing, as evidenced by high inter‐site variation in Ktrans, before DCE‐MRI can be utilized in a widespread clinical setting. 40

2.1.2. Dynamic susceptibility contrast

Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI is a technique used clinically to assess perfusion by capturing images at different time points during injection of GBCAs. 41 DSC sequences can also be adapted to represent the leakage of GBCAs across a dysfunctional BBB. In patients with a dysfunctional BBB, GBCAs accumulate in the cerebral parenchyma, reducing the DSC MRI signal due to a T2* shortening. 42 K2, a measure of BBB permeability, can be estimated using tissue with an intact BBB as a reference. 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 K2 is positively associated with Ktrans, 47 , 48 suggesting that DSC and DCE techniques may be representative of similar measures of BBB dysfunction. However, quantification of K2 using DSC MRI has mainly been performed in subjects with a large degree of BBB disruption, such as those with a history of stroke or cancerous tumors. 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 These patients display elevated K2 values, representing increased distortion of the DSC signal due to elevated GBCA flow across the BBB. 42 , 47 , 49 , 50 While DSC MRI has potential to be a beneficial technique for measuring BBB dysfunction in human cognitive decline and dementia due to having significantly shorter scan times than DCE MRI, it is currently limited by low signal‐to‐noise ratios, and its ability to measure subtle BBB disruption has been questioned. 51 Thus, DCE MRI remains the current standard for BBB evaluation with MRI. Future work and validation are warranted to improve the sensitivity of DSC MRI permeability metrics before they can be reliably utilized in the context of ADRD.

2.1.3. Arterial spin labeling

Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a non‐contrast‐based MRI technique used to quantify perfusion by magnetically labeling water molecules in flowing arteries. ASL can be used to measure BBB permeability (BBB ASL) 52 , 53 by modeling an intravascular (capillary) and extravascular (tissue) compartment. The most widely used techniques are diffusion‐prepared ASL (DP ASL) 54 and multi‐echo ASL (ME ASL), 55 , 56 and both exploit the differing physical properties of blood and tissue to separate the compartments. The diffusion coefficient of water molecules in the blood is ∼100 times greater than that of the tissue and DP ASL uses a diffusion gradient preparation to derive the ratio of the intravascular and extravascular compartments and determine the water exchange rate (kw) between compartments. 52 Alternatively, ME ASL uses the difference in transverse relaxation (T 2) between the blood and tissue to calculate the water exchange time (Tex), which is the inverse of Kw. 55

Using DP ASL, Kw values have been found to be negatively associated with age 57 , 58 and positively associated with cerebrospinal (CSF) Aβ42 concentrations in cognitively unimpaired participants, indicating that early Aβ accumulation in the brain may be associated with BBB ASL measurements. 59 This was confirmed by Uchida et al., who observed decreased Kw in APOE ε4 carriers and a negative correlation of Kw with iron concentrations and Aβ deposition (Pittsburgh Compound B [PiB] PET) in the frontal and medial temporal lobes, further supporting the hypothesis that iron and Aβ accumulation are related to a dysfunctional BBB. 38 , 39 , 60 , 61 In contrast to DP ASL, an increase in Kw was found in older adults with ME ASL (also reported as a decrease in Tex). 18 , 62 , 63

In a recent study comparing different BBB ASL modalities in the same cohort, DP ASL and ME ASL methods yielded significantly different Kw values and had opposite correlations with age. 64 DP ASL showed a non‐significant negative correlation, while ME ASL had a significant positive correlation with age. 64 While acquisition parameters and modeling methods could contribute, the authors also proposed physiological changes in BBB permeability that might explain the discrepancy between ASL methods. 64 Increased Kw could result from increased paracellular water transport via tight junction permeability, while decreased Kw could result from decreased transcellular water transport from the loss of AQP4 water channels. 65 However, future studies utilizing CSF AQP4 concentrations are warranted to disentangle mechanisms governing the BBB ASL signal.

BBB ASL and DCE MRI may also measure different aspects of BBB breakdown, as they measure the permeability to different molecules. Contrast‐based approaches measure paracellular transport of gadolinium across the endothelium, representing the permeability of larger solutes. In contrast, ASL methods use MRI‐labeled water as an endogenous contrast, representing water permeability through the endothelium via numerous paracellular and transcellular transport mechanisms. Recent studies show that DP ASL Kw and DCE's Ktrans are weakly correlated in a few distinct regions. 66 , 67 Ying et al. compared Kw and Ktrans in subjects with different subtypes of cSVD, showing that individual cSVD subtypes were characterized by differential manifestations of BBB dysfunction. 66 These data highlight the need for a multifaceted evaluation of BBB dysfunction.

Altogether, these data indicate that BBB ASL is a promising technique and could have relevance in aging and neurodegeneration. Despite this, BBB ASL is currently limited by extensive scan times and low signal‐to‐noise ratios. Like contrast‐enhanced methods of quantifying BBB dysfunction, there is a need for standardization of acquisition and post‐processing methods. As of yet, there is no consensus in the field regarding the best BBB ASL methodology. Coordinated efforts, such as the DEBBIE‐AD consortium, 68 are under way to address these issues with large, multicenter prospective studies in aging and ADRD.

2.2. Positron emission tomography

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging detects the decay of intravenously administered radiopharmaceuticals to deliver functional information about metabolic and physiological processes occurring in the brain. Specific radiopharmaceuticals can be used to target molecular transporters responsible for their transport across the BBB. Measures of uptake and permeability can then be calculated during post‐processing, enabling estimation of BBB dysfunction. 69 , 70 , 71

2.2.1. (R)‐[11C]verapamil

P‐glycoprotein (P‐gp) is an ATP‐binding cassette (ABC) efflux transporter protein expressed on the luminal side of endothelial cells. 72 P‐gp plays a key role in maintaining homeostasis in the CNS through the transport of a broad spectrum of substances from the brain to the bloodstream. 73 , 74 Preclinical and post mortem studies show that Aβ is one of the substrates for P‐gp, suggesting that dysfunctional P‐gp‐mediated transport across the BBB may contribute to cerebral amyloid accumulation in AD. 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 P‐gp function in vivo can be measured with low test–retest variability using (R)‐[11C]verapamil and PET, which passively diffuses across the BBB and acts as a substrate for P‐gp. 80 , 81 The retention of (R)‐[11C]verapamil in the brain is directly associated with dysfunctional P‐gp transport across the BBB. P‐gp function is impaired with age, as demonstrated by significantly increased volume of distribution of (R)‐[11C]verapamil in healthy older adults compared to younger adults. 80 Another study demonstrated that P‐gp function was further impaired in AD patients compared to age‐matched controls without cognitive impairment, though no relationship was observed between (R)‐[11C]verapamil and [11C]PiB, a tracer for Aβ plaques. 81 The authors attribute this lack of an association to a ceiling effect of [11C]PiB. Future studies should further explore the association between P‐gp function and amyloid accumulation in vivo by utilizing plasma or CSF Aβ42/40, which may be more sensitive to early changes in ADRD. 82 , 83

In summary, PET imaging allows for visualization and quantification of transport mechanisms relevant in BBB function. However, the potential for widespread clinical utilization of PET for BBB dysfunction is limited because of its use of ionizing radiation and cost. Another fundamental limitation of PET is a lack of spatial resolution relative to other imaging modalities. To combat this limitation, PET is often paired with computed tomography (CT) or MRI to obtain high‐resolution structural images and improve spatial resolution. This practice further raises the cost and/or radiation exposure of PET, decreasing the potential utility of this technique in evaluating the BBB in a clinical setting.

2.3. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

CSF biomarkers are cost‐effective alternatives to imaging techniques in assessing BBB integrity. When the BBB is disrupted, specific proteins or molecules originating either from the bloodstream or cells of the NVU can appear in the CSF, providing an opportunity to obtain biochemical rather than spatial information related to BBB dysfunction. The most significant limitation to CSF biomarkers overall is that lumbar puncture is required, which is invasive and can be more difficult to perform in an aging population.

2.3.1. CSF/Serum albumin ratio (Q‐Alb)

The most widely used fluid biomarker of BBB dysfunction is the CSF/serum albumin ratio (Q‐Alb). Since albumin originates from the blood and is not normally present at high concentrations in the CSF, Q‐Alb provides direct information regarding BBB permeability. Q‐Alb is positively correlated with age 84 and is elevated in MCI, 11 patients with vascular risk factors 85 , and several other neurodegenerative diseases such as Lewy body dementia (LBD), AD, Parkinson's disease, and vascular dementia (VAD), 10 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 highlighting BBB dysfunction as a common mechanism in human aging, cognitive decline, and dementia. Despite these associations between Q‐Alb and neurodegenerative diseases, a recent study found no direct association between Q‐Alb and amyloid‐PET or APOE genotype, suggesting that this increase in Q‐Alb may occur independently of AD pathology or be reflective of BBB physiology less related to certain types/stages of neurodegeneration. 10 One potential indirect mechanism of APOE ε4 on Q‐Alb was outlined in Bonomi et al., who showed that vascular risk factors increased Q‐Alb, leading to cognitive decline, 85 specifically in APOE ε4 carriers. 90 Furthermore, recent work has found no correlation between Q‐Alb and Ktrans, suggesting that they may measure different aspects of BBB injury. 33 , 91 While Ktrans is associated with white matter injury, Q‐Alb is associated with biomarkers of inflammation, vascular remodeling, and endothelial activation. 10 , 84 , 91 , 92 These data demonstrate the heterogeneity of BBB pathophysiology and the physiological link between BBB dysfunction, endothelial activation, and neuroinflammation that promotes cognitive decline. 10 , 91 , 93

2.3.2. CSF/Serum immunoglobulin G ratio

CSF/serum ratios of immunoglobulin G (Q‐IgG) are used in a similar fashion to Q‐Alb, where a higher value can indicate increased BBB permeability. 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 Elevated Q‐IgG has been reported in VAD compared to patients with AD and controls. 94 , 95 Some have researchers have reported increased Q‐IgG in AD, 97 while others have found no significant change 94 , 95 , 96 ; this inconsistency could be due to the small sample sizes utilized in these studies. Still more, higher Q‐IgG is associated with atrophy of the middle temporal lobe and strongly correlates with Q‐Alb in AD patients. 98 , 99 Despite these data, Q‐IgG interpretation can be clouded by intrathecal antibody synthesis. Future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to fully understand the relationship between Q‐IgG and other biomarkers of BBB integrity as well as its relevance in aging and ADRD.

2.3.3. Platelet‐derived growth factor receptor‐β

Soluble platelet‐derived growth factor receptor‐β (PDGFRβ) is released during pericyte injury, a cell type of the NVU with a crucial role in maintaining normal BBB function through mechanisms including regulation of cerebral blood flow. 100 Pericyte coverage is reduced by approximately 25% to 45% in the hippocampi and frontal lobes of patients with VAD and AD, and reduced pericyte coverage correlates with decreased tissue‐level expression of PDGFRβ. 101 , 102 PDGFRβ is shed from pericytes into the surrounding tissues in response to hypoxia and Aβ, 103 which can be detected in both serum and CSF, helping to explain the inverse relationship between soluble PDGFRβ levels and pericyte coverage. 11 , 12 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 CSF PDGFRβ increases with age and is associated with tau pathology 33 , 105 , 107 , 108 , 109 and neuroinflammatory 33 , 104 , 107 , 110 markers measured in CSF, independent of APOE status or Aβ42, and strengthens the effect of Aβ42 on tau hyperphosphorylation. 108 This suggests that CSF PDGFRβ may represent BBB dysfunction related to neuroinflammation and pericyte loss. Recent evidence shows that elevated baseline CSF PDGFRβ is associated with increased hippocampal Ktrans and predicts future cognitive decline in APOE ε4 carriers. 12 Another study found a significant positive correlation between CSF PDGFRβ and Q‐Alb, but not between PDGFRβ and whole‐brain Ktrans, which may be due to an underpowered sample for these comparisons. 33 Indeed, a recent study containing a larger sample size showed that CSF PDGFRβ increased linearly with the severity of BBB damage defined by Q‐Alb. 111 Elevated CSF PDGFRβ is associated with decreased functional connectivity in the default mode network, a collection of brain regions that are both structurally and functionally affected by AD. 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 While pericyte loss leading to elevated PDGFRβ may initially be an age‐related process, 108 the resulting damage to the BBB is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline, especially in patients at the highest risk of ADRD. 12

2.3.4. Angiopoietin‐2

Angiopoietin‐2 (ANGPT‐2) is another biomarker thought to represent BBB injury. 116 ANGPT‐2 is a regulator of endothelial permeability and angiogenesis, counteracting the activity of ANGPT‐1 and Tie2. 117 ANGPT‐2 is released from endothelial cells in response to unfavorable conditions such as hypoxia, 118 resulting in reduced structural integrity, pericyte loss, and increased permeability of the BBB. 116 , 117 , 119 , 120 , 121 CSF ANGPT‐2 was found to be elevated in patients with MCI and AD, and had positive associations with tau pathology and CSF PDGFRβ. 116 Furthermore, CSF ANGPT‐2 correlated positively with markers of neuronal injury (neurogranin and α‐synuclein), astrocytic neuroinflammation (YKL‐40), and BBB dysfunction (Q‐Alb). 116 These data suggest that CSF ANGPT‐2 may be a biomarker of BBB dysfunction associated with neuroinflammation, endothelial activation, and pericyte loss, though further studies are needed to confirm this. Furthermore, the relationships between CSF ANGPT‐2 and longitudinal cognitive decline and APOE ε4 carriership are still undetermined and warrant further exploration.

2.3.5. YKL‐40

YKL‐40 is a glycoprotein secreted by many cell types, including macrophages, chondrocytes, endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, and various cancer cells. 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 YKL‐40 is abundantly expressed in reactive astrocytes during neuroinflammation. 126 , 127 CSF YKL‐40 increases with age, which occurs at a significantly higher rate in APOE ε4 carriers compared with non‐carriers. 128 Interestingly, higher CSF YKL‐40 levels are associated with gray matter atrophy in APOE ε4 carriers, but not in non‐carriers. This suggests that while increases in CSF YKL‐40 are common as one ages, this process may be further exacerbated and detrimental in the setting of AD pathology. 128 , 129 This is further supported by data showing elevated CSF YKL‐40 levels in individuals with MCI and AD and significant relationships with CSF measures of tau pathology. 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 Furthermore, CSF YKL‐40 has been shown to positively correlate with pericyte loss, as measured by PDGFRβ. 104 Altogether, these data indicate that elevated CSF YKL‐40 may serve as a biomarker of BBB dysfunction given the role of astrocytes in maintaining BBB integrity. Additional studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to further elucidate the relationship between CSF YKL‐40 and BBB dysfunction and its relevance in ADRD.

2.3.6. Vascular‐endothelial cadherin

Vascular‐endothelial cadherin (VE‐Cadherin) is a calcium‐dependent cell adhesion receptor expressed exclusively on endothelial cells and has a critical role in regulating endothelial permeability and cell–cell communication through adherens junctions, 136 angiogenesis, 137 and leukocyte adhesion/extravasation. 138 Recent studies utilizing both animal models and human tissue show reduced cerebral expression of VE‐Cadherin in AD brains, which translates to increased levels in CSF. 139 Higher levels of tau and APOE found in AD brains have been associated with reduced cerebral expression of VE‐Cadherin in post mortem studies. 140 Indeed, a large cross‐sectional ADRC study shows that CSF VE‐Cadherin levels are elevated in cognitively unimpaired patients with preclinical AD and correlates positively with CSF ADRD biomarkers including Aβ42/40, ptau‐181, total‐tau, and neurofilament light chain (NfL). 139 Furthermore, CSF VE‐Cadherin levels are associated with worse scores on individual cognitive tests of executive function (Digit–Symbol), language (Animal Fluency), and episodic memory (FCSRT‐Free) among preclinical AD patients, even after adjusting for the effects of potential confounders such as age, sex, education, APOE ε4, and white matter injury. 139 CSF VE‐Cadherin also partially mediates the effect of amyloid and tau on cognitive performance, supporting the hypothesis that endothelial dysfunction is relevant in early stages of neurodegeneration. 139 While these data support the potential utility of CSF VE‐Cadherin in early AD, it has not been compared to other imaging or fluid biomarkers of BBB dysfunction; thus, additional studies are warranted to understand how CSF VE‐Cadherin relates to established biomarkers of BBB dysfunction and to confirm its role in the progression of ADRD.

2.3.7. Aquaporin‐4

Aquaporin‐4 (AQP4) is a water channel that plays a key role in the clearance of solute from the cerebral parenchyma by facilitating the exchange of CSF for interstitial fluid, commonly referred to as the glymphatic system. 141 AQP4 is mainly expressed in astrocytic endfeet, 142 and post mortem studies have demonstrated that altered AQP4 expression is associated with AD. 143 CSF AQP4 increases with age 144 and is elevated in MCI and AD. 111 , 144 , 145 , 146 In addition, CSF AQP4 was shown to positively correlate with the severity of BBB dysfunction (as defined by Q‐Alb) 111 and CSF biomarkers of tau pathology. 144 , 145 , 146 Altogether, these data indicate that CSF AQP4 may be a useful biomarker of BBB dysfunction in ADRD related to astrocyte function. Future studies should place increased emphasis on comparing CSF AQP4 levels to ASL‐derived Kw and Tex to further elucidate the mechanisms governing the ASL signals.

2.4. Future directions: blood‐based biomarkers of BBB/NVU integrity

Blood‐based biomarkers are beneficial due to their accessibility, affordability, and lack of invasiveness compared to CSF, contrast‐enhanced MRI, and PET biomarkers but tend to have limited or unknown sensitivity and specificity because they have mostly not been compared to established methodologies of quantifying BBB dysfunction. Promising candidates for detecting BBB dysfunction in peripheral blood include soluble factors that are related to various structural, cellular, or physiological components of the BBB. 106 , 116 , 147 The development and validation of blood‐based biomarkers of BBB integrity would have meaningful clinical and experimental implications as a non‐invasive means of monitoring disease progression and BBB pathology in the primary and secondary care of patients with ADRD, 11 stroke, 106 and even COVID‐19. 148 , 149

2.4.1. Glial fibrillary acidic protein

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a biomarker of reactive astrocytosis, which is an evolutionarily conserved defensive mechanism for astrocytes. 150 Reactive astrocytosis is characterized by an abnormal increase in the number of astrocytes in response to neuronal injury, neuroinflammation, and neurodegeneration. 151 , 152 , 153 Post mortem studies have confirmed serum GFAP correlates with astrocyte reactivity in AD brains, suggesting that plasma GFAP is representative of NVU dysfunction. 147 GFAP may be representative of BBB dysfunction because astrocytes are one of the major functional and structural units of the BBB, and their endfeet project directly onto the capillaries of the brain, providing a direct route for GFAP release into the bloodstream. In cognitively unimpaired adults, higher blood GFAP levels are associated with an increased risk for dementia and faster rate of cognitive decline. 154 , 155 Blood GFAP levels increase with aging and are further elevated in females, MCI, AD, Parkinson's disease, and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) but are not affected by the APOE ε4 allele. 147 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 Indeed, plasma GFAP levels have been shown to accurately differentiate amyloid positivity defined by PET imaging and CSF biomarkers, independent of APOE ε4 status. 155 , 156 Interestingly, recent studies have demonstrated that plasma GFAP is a better predictor of AD pathology than CSF GFAP; one reason that this could be the case is that plasma GFAP is indicative of astrocytosis severe enough to cause BBB damage/leakage. 156 , 162 However, despite the growing relevance of blood‐based GFAP levels as a biomarker of ADRD pathology, whether it is truly reflective of BBB damage/integrity remains unknown because it has not been directly compared to Ktrans or other measures of BBB integrity. Additionally, GFAP is associated with damage in both the enteric 163 and peripheral nervous system, 164 which warrants further evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of plasma GFAP for NVU dysfunction.

2.4.2. YKL‐40

Similar to GFAP, YKL‐40 is abundantly expressed by reactive astrocytes, a major cell type of the BBB/NVU. 126 , 127 Plasma YKL‐40 increases with age and is elevated in a multitude of neurodegenerative diseases, including AD, LBD, and VAD. 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 A meta‐analysis of subjects who were non‐demented at baseline demonstrated that plasma YKL‐40 is associated with an increased risk for incident dementia, poorer cognition, and brain atrophy independent of age, sex, vascular risk factors, and APOE ε4. 168 In addition, CSF and plasma YKL‐40 are significantly correlated, suggesting that plasma YKL‐40 is representative of NVU disruption occurring in the CNS. 165 , 170 , 171 This association could represent a normal clearance mechanism, but as mentioned in the GFAP section, astrocytes project directly onto capillaries of the brain providing a route for entry into the bloodstream. Despite increasing data supporting the use of plasma YKL‐40 in ADRD, it is important to note that YKL‐40 is also expressed by many other cell types throughout the body and its interpretation could be altered by systemic inflammation and other processes. 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 Nonetheless, plasma YKL‐40 remains associated with poorer cognition and brain atrophy even after adjusting for peripheral (hs‐CRP) and systemic (cardiovascular risk factors) sources of inflammation. 168 Although these data indicate that plasma YKL‐40 is representative of CNS pathology, implementing plasma YKL‐40 as a stand‐alone biomarker of BBB dysfunction is unlikely because of its low specificity. Instead, plasma YKL‐40 may be more useful as part of a larger panel of biomarkers related to BBB pathophysiology to investigate different pathways of BBB dysfunction; further studies are warranted to confirm this.

2.4.3. Platelet‐derived growth factor receptor‐β

Pericytes, a crucial cell type of the BBB, release PDGFRβ into the surrounding tissues and bloodstream in response to injury. 103 As pericytes are ∼100× more abundant in the CNS compared to the rest of the body, 1 , 4 PDGFRβ levels in serum may be indicative of pathology in the CNS. The use of serum PDGFRβ as a blood‐based biomarker for BBB injury is supported by studies that found significant positive associations between serum and CSF PDGFRβ levels, increasing the likelihood that serum PDGFRβ has a degree of specificity for pericyte injury occurring in the CNS. 105 , 109 A post mortem analysis found elevated serum PDGFRβ levels in individuals with a history of cerebrovascular events, 106 a population known to have extensive BBB injury and exacerbated ADRD risk. 106 , 170 , 171 , 172 There are not yet published studies comparing blood PDGFRβ levels with other markers of BBB injury or AD pathology.

2.4.4. Angiopoietin‐2

ANGPT‐2 is released by endothelial cells resulting in pericyte detachment and increased BBB permeability by antagonizing ANGPT‐1 and Tie2 activity. 117 An analysis of cognitively unimpaired subjects with paired serum and CSF found positive relationships between serum ANGPT‐2 and CSF ANGPT‐2, as well as Q‐Alb. 116 These relationships did not reach statistical significance, which may be attributed to a small sample size 116 ; however, in our opinion, the data support the merit of further studies evaluating serum ANGPT‐2 as a blood‐based biomarker of BBB injury.

2.4.5. Other putative blood‐based biomarkers of BBB dysfunction

There are several other blood‐based biomarkers that are being explored such as cell adhesion molecules 173 , 174 , 175 (VCAM‐1, ICAM‐1, PECAM‐1), matrix metalloproteases 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 (MMP‐2, MMP‐9, MMP‐7), cytokines 84 , 180 , 181 (IL‐6, TNF‐α, migration inhibitory factor), and more. We elected not to highlight these because they appear less specific for BBB pathology, and they have largely not been studied in the context of human aging and ADRD. As these biomarkers undergo further development, they may provide important information for broader pathophysiological understanding and serve as a basis for future studies.

3. CONCLUSION

DCE MRI is the current gold standard for detection of BBB dysfunction. DSC MRI and BBB ASL are promising techniques due to shorter scan times or not requiring GBCA injection, respectively, but they are limited by low signal‐to‐noise ratios, and additional work is needed to improve their utility. PET can be utilized to interrogate specific molecular transporters of the BBB but is limited by cost, exposure to ionizing radiation, and spatial resolution. CSF biomarkers are a cost‐effective alternative to MRI and PET and correlate well with ADRD pathology, though they are limited by the need for lumbar puncture. Promising candidate blood‐based biomarkers of BBB dysfunction exist; however, related studies have largely contained small sample sizes, and no study to our knowledge has compared these biomarkers to the current gold standards such as DCE MRI.

Of great importance, we find it possible, if not likely, that “BBB dysfunction” is a combination of multiple pathologies. With that in mind, as this field advances, it seems imperative to understand that both imaging and fluid biomarkers may represent different subtypes or pathways of BBB damage. We think comprehensive, longitudinal studies with an evaluation of the BBB incorporating multiple modalities will greatly benefit diagnostic capabilities and provide tools to better understand the underlying pathophysiology of ADRD related to BBB integrity.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author disclosures are available in the supporting information.

Supporting information

Supporting Information

ALZ-21-e70104-s001.pdf (355.3KB, pdf)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our work is supported by grants from the Doris Duke Foundation, National Institute on Aging (1R01AG070987, 1R01AD0699960), Arizona Alzheimer's Consortium, Arizona Biomedical Research Center, and private research funding from Dick and Jan Highberger. This project is additionally supported by NIH R25NS076437 (High School and Undergraduate Student NeuroResearch Program). The authors thank Tyus Williams for his assistance with creating the graphic in Figure 1. Our work is supported by grants from the Doris Duke Foundation, National Institute on Aging 1R01AG070987, 1R01AD0699960, Arizona Alzheimer's Consortium, Arizona Biomedical Research Center, and the Richard and Jan Highberger Award. This project is additionally supported by NIH R25NS076437 (High School and Undergraduate Student NeuroResearch Program). No funding source had input into study design, data analysis, or decision to publish. All authors listed on this manuscript are in agreement with the findings and their interpretation and provide consent for publication of this manuscript.

French SR, Meyer BP, Arias JC, Levendovzsky SR, Weinkauf CC. Biomarkers of blood–brain barrier and neurovascular unit integrity in human cognitive impairment and dementia. Alzheimer's Dement. 2025;21:e70104. 10.1002/alz.70104

REFERENCES

  • 1. Daneman R, Prat A. The blood‐brain barrier. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015;7:a020412. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Duvernoy H, Delon S, Vannson JL. The vascularization of the human cerebellar cortex. Brain Res Bull. 1983;11:419‐480. doi: 10.1016/0361-9230(83)90116-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Armulik A, Genové G, Mäe M, et al. Pericytes regulate the blood‐brain barrier. Nature. 2010;468:557‐561. doi: 10.1038/nature09522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Shepro D, Morel NM. Pericyte physiology. Faseb J. 1993;7:1031‐1038. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.7.11.8370472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Daneman R. The blood–brain barrier in health and disease. Annals of Neurology. 2012;72:648‐672. doi: 10.1002/ana.23648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Zenaro E, Piacentino G, Constantin G. The blood‐brain barrier in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Dis. 2017;107:41‐56. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2016.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Verheggen ICM, de Jong JJA, van Boxtel MPJ, et al. Increase in blood‐brain barrier leakage in healthy, older adults. Geroscience. 2020;42:1183‐1193. doi: 10.1007/s11357-020-00211-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. van den Kerkhof M, de Jong JJA, Voorter PHM, et al. Blood‐brain barrier integrity decreases with higher blood pressure: a 7T DCE‐MRI study. Hypertension. 2024;81:2162‐2172. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.123.22617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Starr JM, Wardlaw J, Ferguson K, et al. Increased blood–brain barrier permeability in type II diabetes demonstrated by gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:70‐76. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.74.1.70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Janelidze S, Hertze J, Nägga K, et al. Increased blood‐brain barrier permeability is associated with dementia and diabetes but not amyloid pathology or APOE genotype. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;51:104‐112. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.11.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Montagne A, Barnes SR, Sweeney MD, et al. Blood‐brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus. Neuron. 2015;85:296‐302. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Montagne A, Nation DA, Sagare AP, et al. APOE4 leads to blood‐brain barrier dysfunction predicting cognitive decline. Nature. 2020;581:71‐76. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2247-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Sweeney MD, Sagare AP, Zlokovic BV. Blood–brain barrier breakdown in Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14:133‐150. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. AlMansoori ME, Jemimah S, Abuhantash F, et al. Predicting early Alzheimer's with blood biomarkers and clinical features. Sci Rep. 2024;14:6039. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56489-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Montagne A, Toga AW, Zlokovic BV. Blood‐brain barrier permeability and gadolinium: benefits and potential pitfalls in research. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:13‐14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.2960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Chen T, Dai Y, Hu C, et al. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of the blood–brain barrier dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2024;21:60. doi: 10.1186/s12987-024-00557-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Duncombe J, Lennen RJ, Jansen MA, et al. Ageing causes prominent neurovascular dysfunction associated with loss of astrocytic contacts and gliosis. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2017;43:477‐491. doi: 10.1111/nan.12375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ohene Y, Harrison IF, Evans PG, et al. Increased blood‐brain barrier permeability to water in the aging brain detected using noninvasive multi‐TE ASL MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2021;85:326‐333. doi: 10.1002/mrm.28496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Chagnot A, Barnes SR, Montagne A. Magnetic resonance imaging of blood‐brain barrier permeability in dementia. Neuroscience. 2021;474:14‐29. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Zhang CE, Wong SM, van de Haar HJ, et al. Blood‐brain barrier leakage is more widespread in patients with cerebral small vessel disease. Neurology. 2017;88:426‐432. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000003556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Zhang CE, Wong SM, Uiterwijk R, et al. Blood‐brain barrier leakage in relation to white matter hyperintensity volume and cognition in small vessel disease and normal aging. Brain Imaging Behav. 2019;13:389‐395. doi: 10.1007/s11682-018-9855-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Thrippleton MJ, Backes WH, Sourbron S, et al. Quantifying blood‐brain barrier leakage in small vessel disease: review and consensus recommendations. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15:840‐858. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2019.01.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Barnes SR, Ng TS, Montagne A, et al. Optimal acquisition and modeling parameters for accurate assessment of low Ktrans blood‐brain barrier permeability using dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2016;75:1967‐1977. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Manning C, Stringer M, Dickie B, et al. Sources of systematic error in DCE‐MRI estimation of low‐level blood‐brain barrier leakage. Magn Reson Med. 2021;86:1888‐1903. doi: 10.1002/mrm.28833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Verheggen ICM, de Jong JJA, van Boxtel MPJ, et al. Imaging the role of blood–brain barrier disruption in normal cognitive ageing. GeroScience. 2020;42:1751‐1764. doi: 10.1007/s11357-020-00282-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Hergert DC, Gaasedelen O, Ryman SG, et al. Blood–brain barrier permeability is associated with cognitive functioning in normal aging and neurodegenerative diseases. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13:e034225. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.034225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Li M, Li Y, Zuo L, et al. Increase of blood‐brain barrier leakage is related to cognitive decline in vascular mild cognitive impairment. BMC Neurol. 2021;21:159. doi: 10.1186/s12883-021-02189-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Li Y, Li M, Zuo L, et al. Compromised blood‐brain barrier integrity is associated with total magnetic resonance imaging burden of cerebral small vessel disease. Front Neurol. 2018;9:221. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Wardlaw JM, Makin SJ, Valdés Hernández MC, et al. Blood‐brain barrier failure as a core mechanism in cerebral small vessel disease and dementia: evidence from a cohort study. Alzheimer's & Dementia. 2017;13:634‐643. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kerkhofs D, Wong SM, Zhang E, et al. Blood‐brain barrier leakage at baseline and cognitive decline in cerebral small vessel disease: a 2‐year follow‐up study. Geroscience. 2021;43:1643‐1652. doi: 10.1007/s11357-021-00399-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Uchida Y, Kan H, Sakurai K, et al. Iron leakage owing to blood–brain barrier disruption in small vessel disease CADASIL. Neurology. 2020;95:e1188‐e1198. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. van de Haar HJ, Burgmans S, Jansen JF, et al. Blood‐brain barrier leakage in patients with early Alzheimer disease. Radiology. 2016;281:527‐535. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Preis L, Villringer K, Brosseron F, et al. Assessing blood‐brain barrier dysfunction and its association with Alzheimer's pathology, cognitive impairment and neuroinflammation. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2024;16:172. doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01529-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Hergert DC, Gaasedelen O, Ryman SG, et al. Blood‐brain barrier permeability is associated with cognitive functioning in normal aging and neurodegenerative diseases. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13:e034225. doi: 10.1161/jaha.124.034225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Houghton JSM, Nickinson ATO, Bridgwood B, et al. Prevalence of cognitive impairment in individuals with vascular surgical pathology: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;61:664‐674. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.12.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Partridge JS, Dhesi JK, Cross JD, et al. The prevalence and impact of undiagnosed cognitive impairment in older vascular surgical patients. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1002‐1011.e1003. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Moon W‐J, Lim C, Ha IH, et al. Hippocampal blood–brain barrier permeability is related to the APOE4 mutation status of elderly individuals without dementia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2021;41:1351‐1361. doi: 10.1177/0271678X20952012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Uchida Y, Kan H, Sakurai K, et al. Contributions of blood‐brain barrier imaging to neurovascular unit pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Front Aging Neurosci. 2023;15:1111448. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1111448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Uchida Y, Kan H, Sakurai K, et al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping as an imaging biomarker for Alzheimer's disease: the expectations and limitations. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:938092. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.938092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Raja R, Rosenberg GA, Caprihan A. MRI measurements of blood‐brain barrier function in dementia: a review of recent studies. Neuropharmacology. 2018;134:259‐271. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.10.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Elschot EP, Backes WH, Postma AA, et al. A comprehensive view on MRI techniques for imaging blood‐brain barrier integrity. Invest Radiol. 2021;56:10‐19. doi: 10.1097/rli.0000000000000723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Leigh R, Christensen S, Campbell BC, et al. Pretreatment blood‐brain barrier disruption and post‐endovascular intracranial hemorrhage. Neurology. 2016;87:263‐269. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000002862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Kluge A, Lukas M, Toth V, et al. Analysis of three leakage‐correction methods for DSC‐based measurement of relative cerebral blood volume with respect to heterogeneity in human gliomas. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34:410‐421. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2015.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Leigh R, Jen SS, Varma DD, et al. Arrival time correction for dynamic susceptibility contrast MR permeability imaging in stroke patients. PLoS One. 2012;7:e52656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM. Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:859‐867. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Schmiedeskamp H, Andre JB, Straka M, et al. Simultaneous perfusion and permeability measurements using combined spin‐ and gradient‐echo MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33:732‐743. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2013.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Taoka T, Kawai H, Nakane T, et al. Application of histogram analysis for the evaluation of vascular permeability in glioma by the K2 parameter obtained with the dynamic susceptibility contrast method: comparisons with Ktrans obtained with the dynamic contrast enhance method and cerebral blood volume. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34:896‐901. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.04.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Quarles CC, Gore JC, Xu L, et al. Comparison of dual‐echo DSC‐MRI‐ and DCE‐MRI‐derived contrast agent kinetic parameters. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:944‐953. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.03.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Simpkins AN, Dias C, Leigh R. Identification of reversible disruption of the human blood‐brain barrier following Acute ischemia. Stroke. 2016;47:2405‐2408. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.116.013805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Arba F, Leigh R, Inzitari D, et al. Blood‐brain barrier leakage increases with small vessel disease in acute ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2017;89:2143‐2150. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000004677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Elschot EP, Backes WH, de Jong JJA, et al. Assessment of the clinical feasibility of detecting subtle blood‐brain barrier leakage in cerebral small vessel disease using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;102:55‐61. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2023.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Li Y, Sadiq A, Wang Z. Arterial spin labelling‐based blood‐brain barrier assessment and its applications. Investig Magn Reson Imaging. 2022;26:229‐236. doi: 10.13104/imri.2022.26.4.229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Koretsky AP. Early development of arterial spin labeling to measure regional brain blood flow by MRI. Neuroimage. 2012;62:602‐607. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Shao X, Zhao C, Shou Q, et al. Quantification of blood–brain barrier water exchange and permeability with multidelay diffusion‐weighted pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med. 2023;89:1990‐2004. doi: 10.1002/mrm.29581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Mahroo A, Buck MA, Huber J, et al. Robust Multi‐TE ASL‐based blood‐brain barrier integrity measurements. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:719676. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.719676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Gregori J, Schuff N, Kern R, et al. T2‐based arterial spin labeling measurements of blood to tissue water transfer in human brain. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:332‐342. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Shao X, Shou Q, Felix K, et al. Age‐related decline in blood‐brain barrier function is more pronounced in males than females in parietal and temporal regions. eLife. 2024;13:RP96155. doi: 10.7554/eLife.96155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Ford JN, Zhang Q, Sweeney EM, et al. Quantitative water permeability mapping of blood‐brain‐barrier dysfunction in aging. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:867452. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.867452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Gold BT, Shao X, Sudduth TL, et al. Water exchange rate across the blood‐brain barrier is associated with CSF amyloid‐β 42 in healthy older adults. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17:2020‐2029. doi: 10.1002/alz.12357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Uchida Y, Kan H, Sakurai K, et al>. APOE ɛ4 dose associates with increased brain iron and β‐amyloid via blood‐brain barrier dysfunction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-328519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Uchida Y, Kan H, Furukawa G, et al. Relationship between brain iron dynamics and blood‐brain barrier function during childhood: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2023;20:60. doi: 10.1186/s12987-023-00464-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Mahroo A, Konstandin S, Günther M. Blood‐brain barrier permeability to water measured using multiple echo time arterial spin labeling MRI in the aging human brain. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2024;59:1269‐1282. doi: 10.1002/jmri.28874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Padrela BE, Slivka M, Garrido PF, et al. Blood-brain barrier water permeability across the adult lifespan: A multi‐echo ASL study. Neurobiol Aging. 2025;147:176‐186. Epub 2025 Jan 7. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2024.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Morgan CA, Thomas DL, Shao X, et al. Measurement of blood‐brain barrier water exchange rate using diffusion‐prepared and multi‐echo arterial spin labelling: comparison of quantitative values and age dependence. NMR Biomed. 2024;37(12):e5256. doi: 10.1002/nbm.5256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Zeppenfeld DM, Simon M, Haswell JD, et al. Association of perivascular localization of Aquaporin‐4 with cognition and Alzheimer disease in aging brains. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:91‐99. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.4370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Ying Y, Li Y, Yao T, et al. Heterogeneous blood‐brain barrier dysfunction in cerebral small vessel diseases. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20(7):4527‐4539. doi: 10.1002/alz.13874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Shao X, Jann K, Ma SJ, et al. Comparison between blood‐brain barrier water exchange rate and permeability to gadolinium‐based contrast agent in an elderly cohort. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:571480. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.571480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Padrela B, Mahroo A, Tee M, et al. Developing blood‐brain barrier arterial spin labelling as a non‐invasive early biomarker of Alzheimer's disease (DEBBIE‐AD): a prospective observational multicohort study protocol. BMJ Open. 2024;14:e081635. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. García‐Varela L, Mossel P, Benadiba M. PET imaging of ABC transporters at the blood‐brain barrier. In: Dierckx RAJO, Otte A, de Vries EFJ, eds. PET and SPECT of Neurobiological Systems. Springer International Publishing; 2021:809‐850. [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Nerella SG, Singh P, Sanam T, et al. PET molecular imaging in drug development: the imaging and chemistry perspective. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:812270. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.812270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Chung KJ, Abdelhafez YG, Spencer BA, et al>. Quantitative PET imaging and modeling of molecular blood‐brain barrier permeability. medRxiv. 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.26.24311027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Demeule M, Labelle M, Régina A, et al. Isolation of endothelial cells from brain, lung, and kidney: expression of the multidrug resistance P‐glycoprotein isoforms. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;281:827‐834. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Schinkel AH. P‐Glycoprotein, a gatekeeper in the blood‐brain barrier. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1999;36:179‐194. doi: 10.1016/s0169-409x(98)00085-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Fromm MF. Importance of P‐glycoprotein at blood‐tissue barriers. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2004;25:423‐429. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2004.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Wang W, Bodles‐Brakhop AM, Barger SW. A role for P‐glycoprotein in clearance of Alzheimer amyloid β ‐Peptide from the brain. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2016;13:615‐620. doi: 10.2174/1567205013666160314151012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Chai AB, Hartz AMS, Gao X, et al. New evidence for P‐gp‐mediated export of amyloid‐β PEPTIDES in molecular, blood‐brain barrier and neuronal models. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;22(1):246. doi: 10.3390/ijms22010246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Kuhnke D, Jedlitschky G, Grube M, et al. MDR1‐P‐Glycoprotein (ABCB1) mediates transport of Alzheimer's amyloid‐beta peptides–implications for the mechanisms of Abeta clearance at the blood‐brain barrier. Brain Pathol. 2007;17:347‐353. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2007.00075.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Vogelgesang S, Cascorbi I, Schroeder E, et al. Deposition of Alzheimer's beta‐amyloid is inversely correlated with P‐glycoprotein expression in the brains of elderly non‐demented humans. Pharmacogenetics. 2002;12:535‐541. doi: 10.1097/00008571-200210000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Hartz AM, Miller DS, Bauer B. Restoring blood‐brain barrier P‐glycoprotein reduces brain amyloid‐beta in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Mol Pharmacol. 2010;77:715‐723. doi: 10.1124/mol.109.061754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Toornvliet R, van Berckel BNM, Luurtsema G, et al. Effect of age on functional P‐glycoprotein in the blood‐brain barrier measured by use of (R)‐[11C]verapamil and positron emission tomography. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006;79:540‐548. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2006.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. van Assema DME, Lubberink M, Bauer M, et al. Blood–brain barrier P‐glycoprotein function in Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2011;135:181‐189. doi: 10.1093/brain/awr298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Palmqvist S, Mattsson N, Hansson O, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis detects cerebral amyloid‐β accumulation earlier than positron emission tomography. Brain. 2016;139:1226‐1236. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Bun S, Ito D, Tezuka T, et al. Performance of plasma Aβ42/40, measured using a fully automated immunoassay, across a broad patient population in identifying amyloid status. Alzheimer Res Ther. 2023;15:149. doi: 10.1186/s13195-023-01296-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Bruno M, Bonomi CG, Ricci F, et al. Blood–brain barrier permeability is associated with different neuroinflammatory profiles in Alzheimer's disease. Eur J Neurol. 2024;31:e16095. doi: 10.1111/ene.16095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Bonomi CG, Motta C, Di Donna MG, et al. Age of onset moderates the effects of vascular risk factors on neurodegeneration, blood‐brain‐barrier permeability, and cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer Res Ther. 2024;16:248. doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01617-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Skillbäck T, Delsing L, Synnergren J, et al. CSF/serum albumin ratio in dementias: a cross‐sectional study on 1861 patients. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;59:1‐9. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Llorens F, Schmitz M, Gloeckner SF, et al. Increased albumin CSF/serum ratio in dementia with Lewy bodies. J Neurol Sci. 2015;358:398‐403. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2015.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Musaeus CS, Gleerup HS, Høgh P, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid/plasma albumin ratio as a biomarker for blood‐brain barrier impairment across neurodegenerative dementias. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;75:429‐436. doi: 10.3233/jad-200168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Janelidze S, Lindqvist D, Francardo V, et al. Increased CSF biomarkers of angiogenesis in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2015;85:1834‐1842. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000002151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Ricci F, Martorana A, Bonomi CG, et al. Effect of vascular risk factors on blood‐brain barrier and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers along the Alzheimer's disease continuum: a retrospective observational study. J Alzheimer Dis. 2024;97:599‐607. doi: 10.3233/jad-230792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Hillmer L, Erhardt EB, Caprihan A, et al. Blood‐brain barrier disruption measured by albumin index correlates with inflammatory fluid biomarkers. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2023;43:712‐721. doi: 10.1177/0271678X221146127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Bernocchi F, Bonomi CG, Assogna M, et al. Astrocytic‐derived vascular remodeling factors are independently associated with blood brain barrier permeability in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2024;141:66‐73. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2024.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Puig‐Pijoan A, Jimenez‐Balado J, Fernández‐Lebrero A, et al. Risk of cognitive decline progression is associated to increased blood‐brain‐barrier permeability: a longitudinal study in a memory unit clinical cohort. Alzheimer Dement. 2024;20:538‐548. doi: 10.1002/alz.13433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Leonardi A, Gandolfo C, Caponnetto C, et al. The integrity of the blood‐brain barrier in Alzheimer's type and multi‐infarct dementia evaluated by the study of albumin and IgG in serum and cerebrospinal fluid. J Neurol Sci. 1985;67:253‐261. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(85)90121-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Alafuzoff I, Adolfsson R, Bucht G, et al. Albumin and immunoglobulin in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid, and blood‐cerebrospinal fluid barrier function in patients with dementia of Alzheimer type and multi‐infarct dementia. J Neurol Sci. 1983;60:465‐472. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(83)90157-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Kay AD, May C, Papadopoulos NM, et al. CSF and serum concentrations of albumin and IgG in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging. 1987;8:21‐25. doi: 10.1016/0197-4580(87)90053-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Elovaara I, Icen A, Palo J, et al. CSF in Alzheimer's disease: studies on blood‐brain barrier function and intrathecal protein synthesis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 1985;70:73‐80. doi: 10.1016/0022-510X(85)90189-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Bowman GL, Kaye JA, Moore M, et al. Blood–brain barrier impairment in Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2007;68:1809‐1814. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000262031.18018.1a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Matsumoto Y, Yanase D, Noguchi‐Shinohara M, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid/serum IgG index is correlated with medial temporal lobe atrophy in Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2007;25:144‐147. doi: 10.1159/000112555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Whitehead B, Karelina K, Weil ZM. Pericyte dysfunction is a key mediator of the risk of cerebral ischemia. J Neurosci Res. 2023;101:1840‐1848. doi: 10.1002/jnr.25245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Ding R, Hase Y, Ameen‐Ali KE, et al. Loss of capillary pericytes and the blood–brain barrier in white matter in poststroke and vascular dementias and Alzheimer's disease. Brain Pathology. 2020;30:1087‐1101. doi: 10.1111/bpa.12888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Hase Y, Jobson D, Cheong J, et al. Hippocampal capillary pericytes in post‐stroke and vascular dementias and Alzheimer's disease and experimental chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2024;12:29. doi: 10.1186/s40478-024-01737-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Sagare AP, Sweeney MD, Makshanoff J, et al. Shedding of soluble platelet‐derived growth factor receptor‐β from human brain pericytes. Neurosci Lett. 2015;607:97‐101. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.09.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Cicognola C, Mattsson‐Carlgren N, van Westen D, et al. Associations of CSF PDGFRβ with aging, blood‐brain barrier damage, neuroinflammation, and Alzheimer disease pathologic changes. Neurology. 2023;101:e30‐e39. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000207358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Miners JS, Kehoe PG, Love S, et al. CSF evidence of pericyte damage in Alzheimer's disease is associated with markers of blood‐brain barrier dysfunction and disease pathology. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019;11:81. doi: 10.1186/s13195-019-0534-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. French S, Arias J, Bolakale‐Rufai I, et al. Serum detection of blood brain barrier injury in subjects with a history of stroke and transient ischemic attack. JVS Vasc Sci. 2024;5:100206. doi: 10.1016/j.jvssci.2024.100206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Butts B, Huang H, Hu WT, et al. sPDGFRβ and neuroinflammation are associated with AD biomarkers and differ by race: the ASCEND Study. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20:1175‐1189. doi: 10.1002/alz.13457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Wang J, Fan DY, Li HY, et al. Dynamic changes of CSF sPDGFRβ during ageing and AD progression and associations with CSF ATN biomarkers. Mol Neurodegener. 2022;17:9. doi: 10.1186/s13024-021-00512-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. De Kort AM, Kuiperij HB, Kersten I, et al. Normal cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of PDGFRβ in patients with cerebral amyloid angiopathy and Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2022;18:1788‐1796. doi: 10.1002/alz.12506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Bolakale‐Rufai IK, French S, Arias JC, et al. Neuropathological correlations of. Alzheimers Dement. 2023;19:e082341. doi: 10.1002/alz.082341. Alzheimer's. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. Santis GD, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, et al. CSF profiling of impaired blood‐brain barrier individuals: novel putative biomarkers discovery. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20:e092219. doi: 10.1002/alz.092219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Contreras JA, Fujisaki K, Ortega NE, et al. Decreased functional connectivity is associated with increased levels of cerebral spinal fluid soluble‐PDGFRβ, a marker of blood brain barrier breakdown, in older adults. Brain Imaging Behav. 2024;18(6):1343‐1354. doi: 10.1007/s11682-024-00912-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Garcés P, Ángel Pineda‐Pardo J, Canuet L, et al. The Default Mode Network is functionally and structurally disrupted in amnestic mild cognitive impairment — a bimodal MEG–DTI study. NeuroImage Clin. 2014;6:214‐221. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Putcha D, Eckbo R, Katsumi Y, et al. Tau and the fractionated default mode network in atypical Alzheimer's disease. Brain Commun. 2022;4(1):fcac055. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Sorg C, Riedl V, Mühlau M, et al. Selective changes of resting‐state networks in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:18760‐18765. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0708803104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. Van Hulle C, Ince S, Okonkwo OC, et al. Elevated CSF angiopoietin‐2 correlates with blood‐brain barrier leakiness and markers of neuronal injury in early Alzheimer's disease. Transl Psychiatry. 2024;14:3. doi: 10.1038/s41398-023-02706-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117. Akwii RG, Sajib MS, Zahra FT, et al. Role of angiopoietin‐2 in vascular physiology and pathophysiology. Cells. 2019;8:20190517. doi: 10.3390/cells8050471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118. Mandriota SJ, Pyke C, Di Sanza C, et al. Hypoxia‐inducible angiopoietin‐2 expression is mimicked by iodonium compounds and occurs in the rat brain and skin in response to systemic hypoxia and tissue ischemia. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:2077‐2089. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)65079-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Gurnik S, Devraj K, Macas J, et al. Angiopoietin‐2‐induced blood‐brain barrier compromise and increased stroke size are rescued by VE‐PTP‐dependent restoration of Tie2 signaling. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:753‐773. doi: 10.1007/s00401-016-1551-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. Nag S, Papneja T, Venugopalan R, et al. Increased angiopoietin2 expression is associated with endothelial apoptosis and blood‐brain barrier breakdown. Lab Invest. 2005;85:1189‐1198. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Avraham HK, Jiang S, Fu Y, et al. Angiopoietin‐2 mediates blood–brain barrier impairment and colonization of triple‐negative breast cancer cells in brain. J Pathol. 2014;232:369‐381. doi: 10.1002/path.4304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122. Rathcke CN, Vestergaard H. YKL‐40, a new inflammatory marker with relation to insulin resistance and with a role in endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. Inflamm Res. 2006;55:221‐227. doi: 10.1007/s00011-006-0076-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123. Renkema GH, Boot RG, Au FL, et al. Chitotriosidase, a chitinase, and the 39‐kDa human cartilage glycoprotein, a chitin‐binding lectin, are homologues of family 18 glycosyl hydrolases secreted by human macrophages. Eur J Biochem. 1998;251:504‐509. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1998.2510504.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124. Shao R, Cao QJ, Arenas RB, et al. Breast cancer expression of YKL‐40 correlates with tumour grade, poor differentiation, and other cancer markers. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1203‐1209. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125. Ringsholt M, Høgdall EV, Johansen JS, et al. YKL‐40 protein expression in normal adult human tissues–an immunohistochemical study. J Mol Histol. 2007;38:33‐43. doi: 10.1007/s10735-006-9075-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126. Bonneh‐Barkay D, Wang G, Starkey A, et al. In vivo CHI3L1 (YKL‐40) expression in astrocytes in acute and chronic neurological diseases. J Neuroinflammation. 2010;7:34. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-7-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127. Bonneh‐Barkay D, Bissel SJ, Kofler J, et al. Astrocyte and macrophage regulation of YKL‐40 expression and cellular response in neuroinflammation. Brain Pathol. 2012;22:530‐546. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2011.00550.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128. Sutphen CL, Jasielec MS, Shah AR, et al. Longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid biomarker changes in preclinical Alzheimer disease during middle age. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:1029‐1042. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.1285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129. Gispert JD, Monté GC, Suárez‐Calvet M, et al. The APOE ε4 genotype modulates CSF YKL‐40 levels and their structural brain correlates in the continuum of Alzheimer's disease but not those of sTREM2. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2017;6:50‐59. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2016.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130. Mavroudis I, Chowdhury R, Petridis F, et al. YKL‐40 as a potential biomarker for the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;58(1):60. doi: 10.3390/medicina58010060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131. Morenas‐Rodríguez E, Alcolea D, Suárez‐Calvet M, et al. Different pattern of CSF glial markers between dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7803. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44173-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132. Janelidze S, Mattsson N, Stomrud E, et al. CSF biomarkers of neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction in early Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2018;91:e867‐e877. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133. Zhang Y, Tian J, Ni J, et al. Peripheral blood and cerebrospinal fluid levels of YKL‐40 in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Brain Sci. 2023;13:1364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134. Antonell A, Mansilla A, Rami L, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid level of YKL‐40 protein in preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42:901‐908. doi: 10.3233/JAD-140624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135. Muszyński P, Kulczyńska‐Przybik A, Borawska R, et al. The relationship between markers of inflammation and degeneration in the central nervous system and the blood‐brain barrier impairment in Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59:903‐912. doi: 10.3233/jad-170220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136. Gavard J. Endothelial permeability and VE‐cadherin: a wacky comradeship. Cell Adh Migr. 2014;8:158‐164. doi: 10.4161/cam.29026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137. Vestweber D. VE‐cadherin: the major endothelial adhesion molecule controlling cellular junctions and blood vessel formation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28:223‐232. doi: 10.1161/atvbaha.107.158014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138. Ley K. Leukocytes talking to VE‐cadherin. Blood. 2013;122:2300‐2301. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-08-519918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139. Tarawneh R, Kasper RS, Sanford J, et al. Vascular endothelial‐cadherin as a marker of endothelial injury in preclinical Alzheimer disease. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2022;9:1926‐1940. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140. Liu CC, Yamazaki Y, Heckman MG, et al. Tau and apolipoprotein E modulate cerebrovascular tight junction integrity independent of cerebral amyloid angiopathy in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16:1372‐1383. doi: 10.1002/alz.12104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141. Kato D, Kameda H, Kinota N, et al. Loss of aquaporin‐4 impairs cerebrospinal fluid solute clearance through cerebrospinal fluid drainage pathways. Sci Rep. 2024;14:27982. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79147-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142. Nielsen S, Nagelhus EA, Amiry‐Moghaddam M, et al. Specialized membrane domains for water transport in glial cells: high‐resolution immunogold cytochemistry of aquaporin‐4 in rat brain. J Neurosci. 1997;17:171‐180. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.17-01-00171.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143. Zeppenfeld DM, Simon M, Haswell JD, et al. Association of perivascular localization of Aquaporin‐4 with cognition and Alzheimer disease in aging brains. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:91‐99. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.4370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144. Gómez de San José N, Halbgebauer S, Steinacker P, et al. Aquaporin‐4 as a cerebrospinal fluid biomarker of Alzheimer's disease. Transl Neurodegen. 2024;13:57. doi: 10.1186/s40035-024-00451-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145. Arighi A, Arcaro M, Fumagalli GG, et al. Aquaporin‐4 cerebrospinal fluid levels are higher in neurodegenerative dementia: looking at glymphatic system dysregulation. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2022;14:135. doi: 10.1186/s13195-022-01077-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146. Bergström S, Remnestål J, Yousef J, et al. Multi‐cohort profiling reveals elevated CSF levels of brain‐enriched proteins in Alzheimer's disease. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021;8:1456‐1470. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147. Sánchez‐Juan P, Valeriano‐Lorenzo E, Ruiz‐González A, et al. Serum GFAP levels correlate with astrocyte reactivity, post‐mortem brain atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles. Brain. 2024;147:1667‐1679. doi: 10.1093/brain/awae035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148. Greene C, Connolly R, Brennan D, et al. Blood‐brain barrier disruption and sustained systemic inflammation in individuals with long COVID‐associated cognitive impairment. Nat Neurosci. 2024;27:421‐432. doi: 10.1038/s41593-024-01576-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149. Bonetto V, Pasetto L, Lisi I, et al. Markers of blood‐brain barrier disruption increase early and persistently in COVID‐19 patients with neurological manifestations. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1070379. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1070379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150. Pekny M, Pekna M. Astrocyte reactivity and reactive astrogliosis: costs and benefits. Physiol Rev. 2014;94:1077‐1098. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151. Giovannoni F, Quintana FJ. The role of astrocytes in CNS inflammation. Trends Immunol. 2020;41:805‐819. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2020.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152. Michinaga S, Koyama Y. Pathophysiological responses and roles of astrocytes in traumatic brain injury. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(12):6418. doi: 10.3390/ijms22126418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153. Li K, Li J, Zheng J, et al. Reactive astrocytes in neurodegenerative diseases. Aging Dis. 2019;10:664‐675. doi: 10.14336/ad.2018.0720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154. Verberk IMW, Laarhuis MB, van den Bosch KA, et al. Serum markers glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light for prognosis and monitoring in cognitively normal older people: a prospective memory clinic‐based cohort study. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2:e87‐e95. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30061-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155. Chatterjee P, Pedrini S, Stoops E, et al. Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein is elevated in cognitively normal older adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:27. doi: 10.1038/s41398-020-01137-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156. Benedet AL, Milà‐Alomà M, Vrillon A, et al. Differences between plasma and cerebrospinal fluid glial fibrillary acidic protein levels across the Alzheimer disease continuum. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78:1471‐1483. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157. Benussi A, Ashton NJ, Karikari TK, et al. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a marker of disease severity in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77:1129‐1141. doi: 10.3233/jad-200608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158. Abdelhak A, Foschi M, Abu‐Rumeileh S, et al. Blood GFAP as an emerging biomarker in brain and spinal cord disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18:158‐172. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00616-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159. Lin J, Ou R, Li C, et al. Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein as a biomarker of disease progression in Parkinson's disease: a prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2023;21:420. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03120-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160. Oeckl P, Halbgebauer S, Anderl‐Straub S, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum is increased in Alzheimer's disease and correlates with cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67:481‐488. doi: 10.3233/jad-180325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161. Verberk IMW, Thijssen E, Koelewijn J, et al. Combination of plasma amyloid beta((1‐42/1‐40)) and glial fibrillary acidic protein strongly associates with cerebral amyloid pathology. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020;12:118. doi: 10.1186/s13195-020-00682-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162. Pereira JB, Janelidze S, Smith R, et al. Plasma GFAP is an early marker of amyloid‐β but not tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2021;144:3505‐3516. doi: 10.1093/brain/awab223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163. Gulbransen BD, Sharkey KA. Novel functional roles for enteric glia in the gastrointestinal tract. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:625‐632. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2012.138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164. Mokuno K, Kamholz J, Behrman T, et al. Neuronal modulation of Schwann cell glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). J Neurosci Res. 1989;23:396‐405. doi: 10.1002/jnr.490230405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165. Craig‐Schapiro R, Perrin RJ, Roe CM, et al. YKL‐40: a novel prognostic fluid biomarker for preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;68:903‐912. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166. Villar‐Piqué A, Schmitz M, Hermann P, et al. Plasma YKL‐40 in the spectrum of neurodegenerative dementia. J Neuroinflammation. 2019;16:145. doi: 10.1186/s12974-019-1531-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167. Choi J, Lee HW, Suk K. Plasma level of chitinase 3‐like 1 protein increases in patients with early Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol. 2011;258:2181‐2185. doi: 10.1007/s00415-011-6087-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168. Pase MP, Himali JJ, Puerta R, et al. Association of plasma YKL‐40 with MRI, CSF, and cognitive markers of brain health and dementia. Neurology. 2024;102:e208075. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000208075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169. Oeckl P, Weydt P, Steinacker P, et al. Different neuroinflammatory profile in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia is linked to the clinical phase. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90:4‐10. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170. Sifat AE, Vaidya B, Abbruscato TJ. Blood‐brain barrier protection as a therapeutic strategy for acute ischemic stroke. AAPS J. 2017;19:957‐972. doi: 10.1208/s12248-017-0091-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171. Kuźma E, Lourida I, Moore SF, et al. Stroke and dementia risk: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14:1416‐1426. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.3061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172. Rothwell SPM. Incidence and prevalence of dementia associated with transient ischaemic attack and stroke: analysis of the population‐based Oxford Vascular Study. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18:248‐258. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30442-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173. Chang BL, Ro LS, Chen CM, et al. Serum levels of cell adhesion molecules in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2020;7:1854‐1861. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174. Uzawa A, Mori M, Masuda S, et al. Markedly elevated soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 levels, and blood‐brain barrier breakdown in neuromyelitis optica. Arch Neurol. 2011;68:913‐917. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2011.148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175. Kallmann BA, Hummel V, Toyka KV. Soluble VCAM‐1 release indicates inflammatory blood‐brain barrier pathology and further modulates adhesion. In: Hommes OR, Comi G, eds. Early Indicators Early Treatments Neuroprotection in Multiple Sclerosis. Springer Milan; 2004:115‐117. [Google Scholar]
  • 176. Song J, Wu C, Korpos E, et al. Focal MMP‐2 and MMP‐9 activity at the blood‐brain barrier promotes chemokine‐induced leukocyte migration. Cell Rep. 2015;10:1040‐1054. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.01.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177. Candelario‐Jalil E, Thompson J, Taheri S, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases are associated with increased blood‐brain barrier opening in vascular cognitive impairment. Stroke. 2011;42:1345‐1350. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.110.600825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178. Barr TL, Latour LL, Lee KY, et al. Blood‐brain barrier disruption in humans is independently associated with increased matrix metalloproteinase‐9. Stroke. 2010;41:e123‐128. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.109.570515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179. Nichols P, Urriola J, Miller S, et al. Blood‐brain barrier dysfunction significantly correlates with serum matrix metalloproteinase‐7 (MMP‐7) following traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage Clin. 2021;31:102741. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180. Liu Y‐C, Tsai Y‐H, Tang S‐C, et al. Cytokine MIF enhances blood‐brain barrier permeability: impact for therapy in ischemic stroke. Sci Rep. 2018;8:743. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16927-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181. Yang J, Ran M, Li H, et al. New insight into neurological degeneration: inflammatory cytokines and blood‐brain barrier. Front Mol Neurosci. 2022;15:1013933. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2022.1013933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information

ALZ-21-e70104-s001.pdf (355.3KB, pdf)

Articles from Alzheimer's & Dementia are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES