Cited by 159Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research

Tissue response to neural implants: the use of model systems toward new design solutions of implantable microelectrodes.

Open access
Gulino, Maurizio, Kim, Donghoon, Pané, Salvador, Santos, Sofia Duque, Pêgo, Ana Paula·2019·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

The development of implantable neuroelectrodes is advancing rapidly as these tools are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in clinical practice, especially for the treatment of traumatic and neurodegenerative disorders. Electrodes have been exploited in a wide number of neural interface devices, such as deep brain stimulation, which is one of the most successful therapies with proven efficacy in the treatment of diseases like Parkinson or epilepsy. However, one of the main caveats related to the clinical application of electrodes is the nervous tissue response at the injury site, characterized by a cascade of inflammatory events, which culminate in chronic inflammation, and, in turn, result in the failure of the implant over extended periods of time. To overcome current limitations of the most widespread macroelectrode based systems, new design strategies and the development of innovative materials with superior biocompatibility characteristics are currently being investigated. This review describes the current state of the art of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo models available for the study of neural tissue response to implantable microelectrodes. We particularly highlight new models with increased complexity that closely mimic in vivo scenarios and that can serve as promising alternatives to animal studies for investigation of microelectrodes in neural tissues. Additionally, we also express our view on the impact of the progress in the field of neural tissue engineering on neural implant research.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2019.00689

Cites

240 of 240 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?

  • Modification of the chemical composition of the surface of the electrodes by using different polymers and nanomaterials is a relatively simple way to control biological responses and improve long-term biotolerability of neural electrodes.

    “Another relatively simple way to control the biological responses and improve the long-term biotolerability of neural electrodes is the modification of the chemical composition of the surface of the electrodes by using different polymers and nanomaterials (Hara et al., 2016; Fernandez and Botella, 2017; Gulino et al., 2019).”

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
Gulino, M., Kim, D., Pané, S., Santos, S. D., & Pêgo, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Pêgo, Ana Paula
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2019-07-05
Volume
13
Pages
689-689
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949950011
Cited by
159
References
240
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
  • European Research Council
  • Horizon 2020
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
Keywords
neural implants, implantable microelectrodes, chronic inflammation, biocompatibility, in vitro model, ex vivo model, in vivo models, neural tissue engineering, deep brain stimulation, electrode design, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative diseases

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