Estrogen protects the blood–brain barrier from inflammation-induced disruption and increased lymphocyte trafficking

Sex differences have been widely reported in neuroinflammatory disorders, focusing on the contributory role of estrogen. The microvascular endothelium of the brain is a critical component of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and it is recognized as a major interface for communication between the periphery and the brain. As such, the cerebral capillary endothelium represents an important target for the peripheral estrogen neuroprotective functions, leading us to hypothesize that estrogen can limit BBB breakdown following the onset of peripheral inflammation. Comparison of male and female murine responses to peripheral LPS challenge revealed a short-term inflammation-induced deficit in BBB integrity in males that was not apparent in young females, but was notable in older, reproductively senescent females. Importantly, ovariectomy and hence estrogen loss recapitulated an aged phenotype in young females, which was reversible upon estradiol replacement. Using a well-established model of human cerebrovascular endothelial cells we investigated the effects of estradiol upon key barrier features, namely paracellular permeability, transendothelial electrical resistance, tight junction integrity and lymphocyte transmigration under basal and inflammatory conditions, modeled by treatment with TNFα and IFNγ. In all cases estradiol prevented inflammation-induced defects in barrier function, action mediated in large part through up-regulation of the central coordinator of tight junction integrity, annexin A1. The key role of this protein was then further confirmed in studies of human or murine annexin A1 genetic ablation models. Together, our data provide novel mechanisms for the protective effects of estrogen, and enhance our understanding of the beneficial role it plays in neurovascular/neuroimmune disease.

Motion Sickness

Over 2000 years ago the Greek physician Hippocrates wrote, “sailing on the sea proves that motion disorders the body.” Indeed, the word “nausea” derives from the Greek root word naus, hence “nautical,” meaning a ship. The primary signs and symptoms of motion sickness are nausea and vomiting. Motion sickness can be provoked by a wide variety of transport environments, including land, sea, air, and space. The recent introduction of new visual technologies may expose more of the population to visually induced motion sickness. This chapter describes the signs and symptoms of motion sickness and different types of provocative stimuli. The “how” of motion sickness (i.e., the mechanism) is generally accepted to involve sensory conflict, for which the evidence is reviewed. New observations concern the identification of putative “sensory conflict” neurons and the underlying brain mechanisms. But what reason or purpose does motion sickness serve, if any? This is the “why” of motion sickness, which is analyzed from both evolutionary and nonfunctional maladaptive theoretic perspectives. Individual differences in susceptibility are great in the normal population and predictors are reviewed. Motion sickness susceptibility also varies dramatically between special groups of patients, including those with different types of vestibular disease and in migraineurs. Finally, the efficacy and relative advantages and disadvantages of various behavioral and pharmacologic countermeasures are evaluated.

The effect of smoking nicotine tobacco versus smoking deprivation on motion sickness

BACKGROUND: The experienced smoker maintains adequate nicotine levels by 'puff-by-puff self-control' which also avoids symptomatic nauseating effects of nicotine overdose. It is postulated that there is a varying 'dynamic threshold for nausea' into which motion sickness susceptibility provides an objective toxin-free probe. Hypotheses were that: (i) nicotine promotes motion sickness whereas deprivation protects; and (ii) pleasurable effects of nicotine protect against motion sickness whereas adverse effects of withdrawal have the opposite effect. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy habitual cigarette smokers (mean±SD) 15.3±7.6cigs/day, were exposed to a provocative cross-coupled (coriolis) motion on a turntable, with sequences of 8 head movements every 30s. This continued to the point of moderate nausea. Subjects were tested after either ad-lib normal smoking (SMOKE) or after overnight deprivation (DEPRIV), according to a repeated measures design counter-balanced for order with 1-week interval between tests. RESULTS: Deprivation from recent smoking was confirmed by objective measures: exhaled carbon monoxide CO was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (8.5±5.6ppm) versus SMOKE (16.0±6.3ppm); resting heart rate was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (67.9±8.4bpm) versus SMOKE (74.3±9.5bpm). Mean±SD sequences of head movements tolerated to achieve moderate nausea were more (P=0.014) for DEPRIV (21.3±9.9) versus SMOKE (18.3±8.5). DISCUSSION: Tolerance to motion sickness was aided by short-term smoking deprivation, supporting Hypothesis (i) but not Hypothesis (ii). The effect was was approximately equivalent to half of the effect of an anti-motion sickness drug. Temporary nicotine withdrawal peri-operatively may explain why smokers have reduced risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).