Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Endothelial cells as key players in cerebral small vessel disease
Ronja Kremer, Anna Williams, Joanna Wardlaw. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2025-01-02
Topic: Inflammation, microglia and astrocytes
Plain-language summary
Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a vascular disorder that increases the risk of stroke and dementia and is diagnosed through brain MRI. Current primary prevention and secondary treatment of SVD are focused on lifestyle interventions and vascular risk factor control, including blood pressure reduction. However, these interventions have limited effects, a proportion of individuals with sporadic SVD do not have hypertension, and SVD shows strong familial and genetic underpinnings. Here, we describe the increasing evidence that cerebral endothelial cell dysfunction is a key mechanism of SVD. Dysfunctional endothelial cells can cause cerebral blood vessel dysfunction, alter blood-brain barrier integrity and interfere with cell-cell interactions in the neuro-glial-vascular unit, thereby causing damage to adjacent brain tissue. Endothelial cells in SVD may become dysfunctional through intrinsic mechanisms via genetic vulnerability to SVD and/or via extrinsic factors such as hypertension, smoking and diabetes. Drugs that act on endothelial pathways are already looking promising in clinical trials, and understanding their action on endothelial cells and the surrounding brain may lead to the development of other therapies to limit disease progression and improve outcomes for individuals with SVD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kremer, R., Williams, A., & Wardlaw, J. (2025). Endothelial cells as key players in cerebral small vessel disease. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00892-0
Vancouver
Kremer R, Williams A, Wardlaw J. Endothelial cells as key players in cerebral small vessel disease. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00892-0. PMID: 39743557.
BibTeX
@article{kremer2025-39743557,
author = {Kremer, Ronja and Williams, Anna and Wardlaw, Joanna},
title = {{Endothelial cells as key players in cerebral small vessel disease}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neuroscience},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41583-024-00892-0},
pmid = {39743557},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00892-0}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, these interventions have limited effects, a proportion of individuals with sporadic SVD do not have hypertension, and SVD shows strong familial and genetic underpinnings.
- Here, we describe the increasing evidence that cerebral endothelial cell dysfunction is a key mechanism of SVD.
- Dysfunctional endothelial cells can cause cerebral blood vessel dysfunction, alter blood-brain barrier integrity and interfere with cell-cell interactions in the neuro-glial-vascular unit, thereby causing damage to adjacent brain tissue.
- Endothelial cells in SVD may become dysfunctional through intrinsic mechanisms via genetic vulnerability to SVD and/or via extrinsic factors such as hypertension, smoking and diabetes.
- Drugs that act on endothelial pathways are already looking promising in clinical trials, and understanding their action on endothelial cells and the surrounding brain may lead to the development of other therapies to limit disease progression and improve outcomes for individuals with SVD.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. Neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39743557) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Vascular contributions from nearby years
Also tagged “amyloid-angiopathy”
228 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-angiopathy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 228 tagged studies.