Talk:Blood–brain barrier

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Archives

Archive 1

Arteriolar and capillary network anatomy is not about the BBB

This quote being inserted into the History section by an IP user is not about the BBB, and is not sourced to a WP:MEDRS or reliable anatomical source. "In his 1702 work De Fibra Motrice, Giorgio Baglivi was the first to discover that when large erythrocytes reach a smaller diameter capillary via micro arterial branching, they have no other option but to return to systemic circulation." i have removed it, but the IP editor is warring and has now reached WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read your note here in BBB land and wondered if I might bother you to read my query, "Switch out Lewandowsky" below. I'm a very infrequent contributor and do not want to offend so am happy to take any guidance you might offer :) Joseph stewart (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switch out Lewandowsky? Or add Stern?

I was reading an article and it asserts that Lewandowsky did not use the term blood brain barrier,

The term “blood-brain barrier” “Blut-Hirnschranke” is often attributed to Lewandowsky, but it does not appear in his papers. The first person to use this term seems to be Stern in the early 1920s.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2014.00404/full. Joseph stewart (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to update this statement. Perhaps using precisely the phrasing from the reference? As in, replace the Lewandowsky comment with,

The term blood-brain barrier is often attributed to Lewandowsky, but it does not appear in his papers. The first person to use this term seems to be Lina Stern, a Russian scientist who published her work in Russian and French, which may explain the late recognition. In fact, she coined the expression blood-brain barrier in French. Joseph stewart (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled title/lemma

The lemma contains a dash, specifically an en-dash ("–"), where, I'm pretty sure, a hyphen ("-") is appropriate. Shouldn't it be "Blood-brain barrier" and not "Blood–brain barrier"? Just like e.g. "Turko-Russian war", "east-west relations", "one-two punch" etc. Some big dash fan must've been here! Or am I wrong? Just wanna check in before I go ahead and move the article. Mardil (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. WP:DOIT. Zefr (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the WP Help Desk: The relevant MOS section is MOS:DASH, which says that in cases like this (where the two terms are symmetric and the first is not a modifier of the second), a long dash should be used rather than a hyphen. Directly addressing this question, it says In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span. There is indeed already a redirect from Blood-brain barrier to Blood–brain barrier. Zefr (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up! Though I gotta say it strikes me as a weird rule. But a rule is a rule, right? Or is it? I better not check whether it's actually applied in other articles. Mardil (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, I was unaware of this type of dash usage, which seems to me a bit newfangled and hypercorrective. I'm just reading up on it. I'm glad to hear it's not universally accepted: "Preference for an en dash instead of a hyphen in these coordinate/relationship/connection types of terms is a matter of style, not inherent orthographic "correctness"; both are equally "correct", and each is the preferred style in some style guides. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the AMA Manual of Style, and Dorland's medical reference works use hyphens, not en dashes, in coordinate terms (such as "blood-brain barrier"), in eponyms (such as "Cheyne-Stokes respiration", "Kaplan-Meier method"), and so on." Mardil (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood brain barrier

Deplin is a brain food that has been found to contain a high amount of the protein needed for the blood brain barrier to function properly? Eringeo70 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deplin redirects to levomefolic acid. From this PubMed search, there are no good sources to indicate deplin itself as a "food" or supplement affects the BBB; folate deficiency is a factor in BBB function. Zefr (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction

This section seems pointless. I assumed it would contain some early theories and predictions regarding the BBB, but it doesn't. A couple of studies are mentioned that would be better placed in the main body. It almost feels, to this editor, as if the section may have mutated over time due to disagreements, as it certainly has no bearing now on any 'prediction' of the BBB. In fact the first few paragraphs of the History section contain work that may be closer to a prediction of such a structure. Blitterbug 04:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, deleted. Zefr (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBB in animals?

There is a bit of discussion in the article already about animal models, but in general is the BBB an anatomical feature of all vertebrates, all mammals, or somewhere in between? Are there any significant or interesting exceptional species that don't have it? --Rpresser 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All animals studied, including fish and a model insect. There are hundreds of publications on the BBB in small rodents (mice, rats) and even in the fruit fly. I'm not aware of a synthesizing comparative review of the BBB across diverse animals, or of an animal with no BBB - that would be dysfunctional to the central nervous system. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]