Cargando…

The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence

The glymphatic hypothesis proposes a mechanism for extravascular transport into and out of the brain of hydrophilic solutes unable to cross the blood–brain barrier. It suggests that there is a circulation of fluid carrying solutes inwards via periarterial routes, through the interstitium and outward...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hladky, Stephen B., Barrand, Margery A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8815211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35115036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-021-00282-z
_version_ 1784645236540047360
author Hladky, Stephen B.
Barrand, Margery A.
author_facet Hladky, Stephen B.
Barrand, Margery A.
author_sort Hladky, Stephen B.
collection PubMed
description The glymphatic hypothesis proposes a mechanism for extravascular transport into and out of the brain of hydrophilic solutes unable to cross the blood–brain barrier. It suggests that there is a circulation of fluid carrying solutes inwards via periarterial routes, through the interstitium and outwards via perivenous routes. This review critically analyses the evidence surrounding the mechanisms involved in each of these stages. There is good evidence that both influx and efflux of solutes occur along periarterial routes but no evidence that the principal route of outflow is perivenous. Furthermore, periarterial inflow of fluid is unlikely to be adequate to provide the outflow that would be needed to account for solute efflux. A tenet of the hypothesis is that flow sweeps solutes through the parenchyma. However, the velocity of any possible circulatory flow within the interstitium is too small compared to diffusion to provide effective solute movement. By comparison the earlier classical hypothesis describing extravascular transport proposed fluid entry into the parenchyma across the blood–brain barrier, solute movements within the parenchyma by diffusion, and solute efflux partly by diffusion near brain surfaces and partly carried by flow along “preferred routes” including perivascular spaces, white matter tracts and subependymal spaces. It did not suggest fluid entry via periarterial routes. Evidence is still incomplete concerning the routes and fate of solutes leaving the brain. A large proportion of the solutes eliminated from the parenchyma go to lymph nodes before reaching blood but the proportions delivered directly to lymph or indirectly via CSF which then enters lymph are as yet unclear. In addition, still not understood is why and how the absence of AQP4 which is normally highly expressed on glial endfeet lining periarterial and perivenous routes reduces rates of solute elimination from the parenchyma and of solute delivery to it from remote sites of injection. Neither the glymphatic hypothesis nor the earlier classical hypothesis adequately explain how solutes and fluid move into, through and out of the brain parenchyma. Features of a more complete description are discussed. All aspects of extravascular transport require further study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8815211
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88152112022-02-07 The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence Hladky, Stephen B. Barrand, Margery A. Fluids Barriers CNS Review The glymphatic hypothesis proposes a mechanism for extravascular transport into and out of the brain of hydrophilic solutes unable to cross the blood–brain barrier. It suggests that there is a circulation of fluid carrying solutes inwards via periarterial routes, through the interstitium and outwards via perivenous routes. This review critically analyses the evidence surrounding the mechanisms involved in each of these stages. There is good evidence that both influx and efflux of solutes occur along periarterial routes but no evidence that the principal route of outflow is perivenous. Furthermore, periarterial inflow of fluid is unlikely to be adequate to provide the outflow that would be needed to account for solute efflux. A tenet of the hypothesis is that flow sweeps solutes through the parenchyma. However, the velocity of any possible circulatory flow within the interstitium is too small compared to diffusion to provide effective solute movement. By comparison the earlier classical hypothesis describing extravascular transport proposed fluid entry into the parenchyma across the blood–brain barrier, solute movements within the parenchyma by diffusion, and solute efflux partly by diffusion near brain surfaces and partly carried by flow along “preferred routes” including perivascular spaces, white matter tracts and subependymal spaces. It did not suggest fluid entry via periarterial routes. Evidence is still incomplete concerning the routes and fate of solutes leaving the brain. A large proportion of the solutes eliminated from the parenchyma go to lymph nodes before reaching blood but the proportions delivered directly to lymph or indirectly via CSF which then enters lymph are as yet unclear. In addition, still not understood is why and how the absence of AQP4 which is normally highly expressed on glial endfeet lining periarterial and perivenous routes reduces rates of solute elimination from the parenchyma and of solute delivery to it from remote sites of injection. Neither the glymphatic hypothesis nor the earlier classical hypothesis adequately explain how solutes and fluid move into, through and out of the brain parenchyma. Features of a more complete description are discussed. All aspects of extravascular transport require further study. BioMed Central 2022-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8815211/ /pubmed/35115036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-021-00282-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Hladky, Stephen B.
Barrand, Margery A.
The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title_full The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title_fullStr The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title_full_unstemmed The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title_short The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
title_sort glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8815211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35115036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-021-00282-z
work_keys_str_mv AT hladkystephenb theglymphatichypothesisthetheoryandtheevidence
AT barrandmargerya theglymphatichypothesisthetheoryandtheevidence
AT hladkystephenb glymphatichypothesisthetheoryandtheevidence
AT barrandmargerya glymphatichypothesisthetheoryandtheevidence