Cited by 86Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineConducting polymers and applications

Mesh nanoelectronics: seamless integration of electronics with tissues.

Open access
Dai, Xiaochuan, Hong, Guosong, Gao, Teng, Lieber, Charles M.·2018·Accounts of Chemical Research

Abstract

Nanobioelectronics represents a rapidly developing field with broad-ranging opportunities in fundamental biological sciences, biotechnology, and medicine. Despite this potential, seamless integration of electronics has been difficult due to fundamental mismatches, including size and mechanical properties, between the elements of the electronic and living biological systems. In this Account, we discuss the concept, development, key demonstrations, and future opportunities of mesh nanoelectronics as a general paradigm for seamless integration of electronics within synthetic tissues and live animals. We first describe the design and realization of hybrid synthetic tissues that are innervated in three dimensions (3D) with mesh nanoelectronics where the mesh serves as both as a tissue scaffold and as a platform of addressable electronic devices for monitoring and manipulating tissue behavior. Specific examples of tissue/nanoelectronic mesh hybrids highlighted include 3D neural tissue, cardiac patches, and vascular constructs, where the nanoelectronic devices have been used to carry out real-time 3D recording of electrophysiological and chemical signals in the tissues. This novel platform was also exploited for time-dependent 3D spatiotemporal mapping of cardiac tissue action potentials during cell culture and tissue maturation as well as in response to injection of pharmacological agents. The extension to simultaneous real-time monitoring and active control of tissue behavior is further discussed for multifunctional mesh nanoelectronics incorporating both recording and stimulation devices, providing the unique capability of bidirectional interfaces to cardiac tissue. In the case of live animals, new challenges must be addressed, including minimally invasive implantation, absence of deleterious chronic tissue response, and long-term capability for monitoring and modulating tissue activity. We discuss each of these topics in the context of implantation of mesh nanoelectronics into rodent brains. First, we describe the design of ultraflexible mesh nanoelectronics with size features and mechanical properties similar to brain tissue and a novel syringe-injection methodology that allows the mesh nanoelectronics to be precisely delivered to targeted brain regions in a minimally invasive manner. Next, we discuss time-dependent histology studies showing seamless and stable integration of mesh nanoelectronics within brain tissue on at least one year scales without evidence of chronic immune response or glial scarring characteristic of conventional implants. Third, armed with facile input/output interfaces, we describe multiplexed single-unit recordings that demonstrate stable tracking of the same individual neurons and local neural circuits for at least 8 months, long-term monitoring and stimulation of the same groups of neurons, and following changes in individual neuron activity during brain aging. Moving forward, we foresee substantial opportunities for (1) continued development of mesh nanoelectronics through, for example, broadening nanodevice signal detection modalities and taking advantage of tissue-like properties for selective cell targeting and (2) exploiting the unique capabilities of mesh nanoelectronics for tackling critical scientific and medical challenges such as understanding and potentially ameliorating cell and circuit level changes associated with natural and pathological aging, as well as using mesh nanoelectronics as active tissue scaffolds for regenerative medicine and as neuroprosthetics for monitoring and treating neurological diseases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00547

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Activities of individual neurons and localized neural circuits can be monitored and stimulated over timelines of eight months or more.

    “This group also showed that the activities of individual neurons and localized neural circuits could be monitored and stimulated over timelines of eight months or more, for applications such as recording of alterations in the activities of specific neurons as the brain ages (Dai et al., 2018).”

    From Human Brain/Cloud Interface (2019) · cites this paper as Dai et al., 2018

    In “Mesh Nanoelectronics in Live Animals” (page unavailable), the paper reports tracking the same neurons and local circuits for eight months. Although it broadly describes recording and stimulation on a year time scale, its specific evidence for stable responses to chronic stimulation spans nearly three months, not eight or more. The Conclusions and Outlook identifies studying changes during brain aging as an application. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mesh nanoelectronics can integrate stably within brain tissue for at least 1 year without evidence of chronic immune response or glial scarring characteristic of conventional implants.

    “Dai et al. (2018) also demonstrated “stable integration of mesh nanoelectronics within brain tissue on at least 1 year scales without evidence of chronic immune response or the glial scarring characteristic of conventional implants.””

    From Human Brain/Cloud Interface (2019) · cites this paper as Dai et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dai, X., Hong, G., Gao, T., & Lieber, C. M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lieber, Charles M.
Venue
Accounts of Chemical Research
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
309-318
ISSN
  • 0001-4842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4898
OpenAlex
W2787592787
Cited by
86
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8
FWCI
6.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Accounts of Chemical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH Office of the Director (1DP1EB025835-01)
  • Harvard University
  • American Heart Association (16POST27250219)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-14-1-0136)
  • U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (N00173-16-2-C007)
  • National Institute on Aging (1K99AG056636-01)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R21DA043985-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Conducting polymers and applications
Keywords
nanobioelectronics, cardiac patch, neural implants, glial scar, single-unit recording, neural circuits, brain aging
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Electronics, Medical, Humans, Neurons, Primates, Tissue Engineering, Mice, Rats, Electrical Equipment and Supplies

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