Cited by 117Electrochemical sensors and biosensorsPolymer Surface Interaction StudiesNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Protein interactions with subcutaneously implanted biosensors

Gifford, Raeann, Kehoe, Joseph J., Barnes, Sandra L., Kornilayev, Boris A., Alterman, Michail A., Wilson, George S.·2006·Biomaterials

Abstract

Biofouling of in vivo glucose sensors has been indicated as the primary reason for sensitivity losses observed during the first 24 h after implant [Wisniewski N, Moussy F, Reichert WM. Characterization of implantable biosensor membrane biofouling. Fresen J Anal Chem 2000; 366(6-7): 611-621]. Identification of the biomolecules that contribute to these sensitivity perturbations is the primary objective of the research presented. Active needle-type glucose sensors were implanted in Sprague-Dawley rats for 24h, and then a proteomics approach was used to identify the substances absorbed to the sensors. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry was the primary tool utilized to identify the biomolecules in sensor leachate samples and species absorbed directly on sensor membranes excised from explanted in vivo sensors. Not surprisingly serum albumin was identified as the primary biomolecule present, however, predominantly as endogenous fragments of the protein. In addition, several other biomolecule fragments, mainly less than 15 kD, were identified. Based on these findings, it is concluded that fragments of larger biomolecules infiltrate the sensor membranes causing diminished glucose diffusivity, thus decreasing in vivo sensitivity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.033

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gifford, R., Kehoe, J. J., Barnes, S. L., Kornilayev, B. A., Alterman, M. A., & Wilson, G. S.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, George S.
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-04
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
2587-2598
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026455723
Cited by
117
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk055297-03)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK55297)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Surfaces, Coatings and Films › Polymer Surface Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
subcutaneous glucose sensor, implantable biosensors, biofouling, protein adsorption, serum albumin, sensor membranes, proteomics, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry
MeSH terms
Adsorption, Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Glucose, Male, Monitoring, Physiologic, Proteins, Biosensing Techniques, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Prostheses and Implants, Proteomics, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review