CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

The density difference between tissue and neural probes is a key factor for glial scarring

Open access
Lind, Gustav, Linsmeier, Cecilia Eriksson, Schouenborg, Jens·2013·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep02942PMC PMC3796741
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A key to successful chronic neural interfacing is to achieve minimal glial scarring surrounding the implants, as the astrocytes and microglia may functionally insulate the interface. A possible explanation for the development of these reactions is mechanical forces arising between the implants and the brain. Here, we show that the difference between the density of neural probes and that of the tissue, and the resulting inertial forces, are key factors for the development of the glial scar. Two probes of similar size, shape, surface structure and elastic modulus but differing greatly in density were implanted into the rat brain. After six weeks, significantly lower astrocytic and microglial reactions were found surrounding the low-density probes, approaching no reaction at all. This provides a major key to design fully biocompatible neural interfaces and a new platform for in vivo assays of tissue reactions to probes with differing materials, surface structures, and shapes.

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 · 10.1038/srep02942

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The ideal density for an implant is close to 1 g/cm3 to minimize glial scarring and optimize functionality.

    “The ideal density for an implant is close to 1 g/cm3 to minimize glial scarring and optimize functionality (Lind et al., 2013), though density requirements can vary based on brain region, patient, and implant material.”

    From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Lind et al., 2013

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

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Kipke D. R. et al. Advanced neurotechnologies for chronic neural interfaces: new horizons and clinical opportunities. J Neurosci 28, 11830– 11838 (2008). 19005048 PMC3844837
  2. Schouenborg J. Biocompatible multichannel electrodes for long-term neurophysiological studies and clinical therapy–novel concepts and design. Prog Brain Res 194, 61– 70, 10.1016/B978-0-444-53815-4.00017-0 (2011). 21867794 · DOI
  3. Polikov V. S., Tresco P. A. & Reichert W. M. Response of brain tissue to chronically implanted neural electrodes. J Neurosci Methods 148, 1– 18 (2005). 16198003
  4. Rousche P. J. & Normann R. A. Chronic recording capability of the Utah Intracortical Electrode Array in cat sensory cortex. J Neurosci Methods 82, 1– 15 (1998). 10223510
  5. Williams J. C., Rennaker R. L. & Kipke D. R. Long-term neural recording characteristics of wire microelectrode arrays implanted in cerebral cortex. Brain Res Brain Res Protoc 4, 303– 313 (1999). 10592339
  6. McConnell G. C., Butera R. J. & Bellamkonda R. V. Bioimpedance modeling to monitor astrocytic response to chronically implanted electrodes. J Neural Eng 6, 055005 (2009). 19721187
  7. Szarowski D. H. et al. Brain responses to micro-machined silicon devices. Brain Res 983, 23– 35 (2003). 12914963
  8. Williams J. C., Hippensteel J. A., Dilgen J., Shain W. & Kipke D. R. Complex impedance spectroscopy for monitoring tissue responses to inserted neural implants. Journal of Neural Engineering 4, 410– 423, 10.1088/1741-2560/4/4/007 (2007). 18057508 · DOI
  9. Edell D. J., Toi V. V., McNeil V. M. & Clark L. D. Factors influencing the biocompatibility of insertable silicon microshafts in cerebral cortex. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering 39, 635– 643, 10.1109/10.141202 (1992). 1601445 · DOI
  10. McConnell G. C. et al. Implanted neural electrodes cause chronic, local inflammation that is correlated with local neurodegeneration. J Neural Eng 6, 56003 (2009). 19700815
  11. Gilletti A. & Muthuswamy J. Brain micromotion around implants in the rodent somatosensory cortex. Journal of Neural Engineering 3, 189– 195, 10.1088/1741-2560/3/3/001 (2006). 16921202 · DOI
  12. Biran R., Martin D. C. & Tresco P. A. The brain tissue response to implanted silicon microelectrode arrays is increased when the device is tethered to the skull. J Biomed Mater Res A 82, 169– 178 (2007). 17266019
  13. Kim Y. T., Hitchcock R. W., Bridge M. J. & Tresco P. A. Chronic response of adult rat brain tissue to implants anchored to the skull. Biomaterials 25, 2229– 2237 (2004). 14741588
  14. Thelin J. et al. Implant size and fixation mode strongly influence tissue reactions in the CNS. PLoS One 6, e16267, 10.1371/journal.pone.0016267 (2011). 21298109 PMC3027655 · DOI
  15. Freire M. A. et al. Comprehensive analysis of tissue preservation and recording quality from chronic multielectrode implants. PLoS One 6, e27554, 10.1371/journal.pone.0027554 (2011). 22096594 PMC3212580 · DOI
  16. Williams D. F. The Williams dictionary of biomaterials. (Liverpool University Press, 1999).
  17. Lind G., Gallentoft L., Danielsen N., Schouenborg J. & Pettersson L. M. Multiple implants do not aggravate the tissue reaction in rat brain. PLoS One 7, e47509, 10.1371/journal.pone.0047509 (2012). 23091629 PMC3472973 · DOI
  18. Lind G., Linsmeier C. E., Thelin J. & Schouenborg J. Gelatine-embedded electrodes–a novel biocompatible vehicle allowing implantation of highly flexible microelectrodes. Journal of Neural Engineering 7, 046005, 10.1088/1741-2560/7/4/046005 (2010). 20551508 · DOI
  19. Turner J. N. et al. Cerebral Astrocyte Response to Micromachined Silicon Implants. Experimental Neurology 156, 33– 49 (1999). 10192775
  20. Eriksson Linsmeier C. et al. Nanowire biocompatibility in the brain–looking for a needle in a 3D stack. Nano Lett 9, 4184– 4190 (2009). 19845389
  21. Grill W. M., Norman S. E. & Bellamkonda R. V. Implanted neural interfaces: biochallenges and engineered solutions. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 11, 1– 24 (2009). 19400710
  22. He W., McConnell G. C. & Bellamkonda R. V. Journal of Neural Engineering Nanoscale laminin coating modulates cortical scarring response around implanted silicon microelectrode arrays. 3, 316– 326, 10.1088/1741-2560/3/4/009 (2006). 17124336 · DOI · Paper page
  23. McConnell G. C., Schneider T. M., Owens D. J. & Bellamkonda R. V. Extraction force and cortical tissue reaction of silicon microelectrode arrays implanted in the rat brain. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering 54, 1097– 1107, 10.1109/TBME.2007.895373 (2007). 17554828 · DOI
  24. Seymour J. P. & Kipke D. R. Neural probe design for reduced tissue encapsulation in CNS. Biomaterials 28, 3594– 3607, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.024 (2007). 17517431 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Stice P., Gilletti A., Panitch A. & Muthuswamy J. Thin microelectrodes reduce GFAP expression in the implant site in rodent somatosensory cortex. Journal of Neural Engineering 4, 42– 53 (2007). 17409479
  26. Beckmann F. et al. Three-Dimensional Imaging of Nerve Tissue by X-Ray Phase-Contrast Microtomography. Biophysical Journal 76, 98– 102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77181-X (1999). 9876126 PMC1302503 · DOI
  27. Wanner I. B. An in vitro trauma model to study rodent and human astrocyte reactivity. Methods Mol Biol 814, 189– 219, 10.1007/978-1-61779-452-0_14 (2012). 22144309 · DOI
  28. Vetter R. J., Williams J. C., Hetke J. F., Nunamaker E. A. & Kipke D. R. Chronic neural recording using silicon-substrate microelectrode arrays implanted in cerebral cortex. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering 51, 896– 904, 10.1109/TBME.2004.826680 (2004). 15188856 · DOI
  29. Kozai T. D. et al. Ultrasmall implantable composite microelectrodes with bioactive surfaces for chronic neural interfaces. Nat Mater 11, 1065– 1073, 10.1038/nmat3468 (2012). 23142839 PMC3524530 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lind, G., Linsmeier, C. E., & Schouenborg, J.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Lind, Gustav
ORCID
Schouenborg, Jens
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-10-15
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
2942-2942
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/srep02942
PMC
PMC3796741
OpenAlex
W2122820460
Cited by
102
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Lunds Universitet
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (KAW 2004.0119, 2004.0119)
  • Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
glial scar, neural probes, probe density, inertial forces, astrocytes, microglia, biocompatibility
MeSH terms
Animals, Cicatrix, Female, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neuroglia, Implants, Experimental, Antigens, Nuclear, Rats, Ectodysplasins

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