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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 240 of the 240 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2019.00689PMC PMC6624471
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Figures

FIGURE 1 Schematic timeline representation of the reactions involved in the process of neural tissue response to implantable microelectrodes. The acute phase of inflammation is characterized by BBB disruption and neuronal death due to mechanical insult followed by glial activation and immune cell recruitment at the injury site. Microelectrode performance may be hampered at this level due to mechanical mismatch with the tissue accompanied by a temporary recovery. In the chronic phase of inflammation, a glial fibrotic scar surrounds the microelectrode impeding material and stimulating site integrity that, ultimately, may result in implant failure.
FIGURE 1 Schematic timeline representation of the reactions involved in the process of neural tissue response to implantable microelectrodes. The acute phase of inflammation is characterized by BBB disruption and neuronal death due to mechanical insult followed by glial activation and immune cell recruitment at the injury site. Microelectrode performance may be hampered at this level due to mechanical mismatch with the tissue accompanied by a temporary recovery. In the chronic phase of inflammation, a glial fibrotic scar surrounds the microelectrode impeding material and stimulating site integrity that, ultimately, may result in implant failure.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Schematic representation of the current and promising in vitro/ex vivo models with increased physiological relevance for the screening of materials and coatings for the development of implantable microelectrodes.
FIGURE 2 Schematic representation of the current and promising in vitro/ex vivo models with increased physiological relevance for the screening of materials and coatings for the development of implantable microelectrodes.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Schematic representations of 3D microfluidic systems. (A) Schematic view of a microfluidic device for 3D cell culture composed by a vascular channel (VC) for primary human brain-derived microvascular endothelial cells (hBMVEC), and a brain chamber for primary cell-derived human neurons, pericytes and astrocytes culture in a type I collagen matrix. Reprinted from Brown et al. (2015) with the permission of AIF publishing. (B) 3D microfluidic platform for the establishment of a neurovascular unit (NVU) including blood-brain barrier (BBB). The NVU is characterized by a VC composed by a co-culture of HUVEC and Primary human lung fibroblasts, and a secondary NC composed by a co-culture of neurons and astrocytes. Adapted with permission from Bang et al. (2017). (C) Organ-on-a-chip device for 3D culture and differentiation of brain organoids, showing an enlarged view of the component parts and a flow chart showing the development stages of hiPSCs-derived brain organoids (Wang Y. et al., 2018) published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. (D) Vertical cross-section view of a perforating multi-electrode array (MEA) integrated in a PDMS device for long-term culture, live imaging, recording and stimulation of brain tissues and 3D cultures (Killian et al., 2016).
FIGURE 3 Schematic representations of 3D microfluidic systems. (A) Schematic view of a microfluidic device for 3D cell culture composed by a vascular channel (VC) for primary human brain-derived microvascular endothelial cells (hBMVEC), and a brain chamber for primary cell-derived human neurons, pericytes and astrocytes culture in a type I collagen matrix. Reprinted from Brown et al. (2015) with the permission of AIF publishing. (B) 3D microfluidic platform for the establishment of a neurovascular unit (NVU) including blood-brain barrier (BBB). The NVU is characterized by a VC composed by a co-culture of HUVEC and Primary human lung fibroblasts, and a secondary NC composed by a co-culture of neurons and astrocytes. Adapted with permission from Bang et al. (2017). (C) Organ-on-a-chip device for 3D culture and differentiation of brain organoids, showing an enlarged view of the component parts and a flow chart showing the development stages of hiPSCs-derived brain organoids (Wang Y. et al., 2018) published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. (D) Vertical cross-section view of a perforating multi-electrode array (MEA) integrated in a PDMS device for long-term culture, live imaging, recording and stimulation of brain tissues and 3D cultures (Killian et al., 2016).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 New strategies for deep brain stimulation using functional nanoparticles. (A) A schematic description of magnetothermal effect on transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1) cells. (B) Comparison of the neuron reactivity under different conditions. Figures from Chen et al. (2015), reprinted with permission from AAAS. (C) A schematic description of nanoparticle-mediated near infrared (NIR) upconversion optogenetics. (D) Hippocampal local field potential response under NIR stimulation under different conditions. (E) In vivo experimental description of NIR stimulation of the ventral tegmental area of mice. Figures from Chen S. et al. (2018), reprinted with permission from AAAS.
FIGURE 4 New strategies for deep brain stimulation using functional nanoparticles. (A) A schematic description of magnetothermal effect on transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1) cells. (B) Comparison of the neuron reactivity under different conditions. Figures from Chen et al. (2015), reprinted with permission from AAAS. (C) A schematic description of nanoparticle-mediated near infrared (NIR) upconversion optogenetics. (D) Hippocampal local field potential response under NIR stimulation under different conditions. (E) In vivo experimental description of NIR stimulation of the ventral tegmental area of mice. Figures from Chen S. et al. (2018), reprinted with permission from AAAS.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 240 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-07-05
Volume
13
Pages
689-689
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2019.00689
PMC
PMC6624471
OpenAlex
W2949950011
Cited by
159
References
240
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 10
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
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
  • Social Sciences › Education › 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