David E Cepeda1, Leah Hains2, David Li3, Joseph Bull3, Stephen I Lentz4, Robert T Kennedy5. 1. University of Michigan, Department of Biomedical Engineering, 1101 Beal Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 49109, United States; University of Michigan, Department of Chemistry, 930N University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States. 2. Wadsworth Center, NYS Department of Health, New York State Bicycle Route 5, Albany, NY 12201, United States. 3. University of Michigan, Department of Biomedical Engineering, 1101 Beal Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 49109, United States. 4. University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology & Diabetes, 6245 Brehm Tower, 1000 Wall Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, United States. 5. University of Michigan, Department of Chemistry, 930N University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States. Electronic address: rtkenn@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurochemical monitoring via sampling probes is valuable for deciphering neurotransmission in vivo. Microdialysis is commonly used; however, the spatial resolution is poor. NEW METHOD: Recently push-pull perfusion at low flow rates (50nL/min) has been proposed as a method for in vivo sampling from the central nervous system. Tissue damage from such probes has not been investigated in detail. In this work, we evaluated acute tissue response to low-flow push-pull perfusion by infusing the nuclear stains Sytox Orange and Hoechst 33342 through probes implanted in the striatum for 200min, to label damaged and total cells, respectively, in situ. RESULTS: Using the damaged/total labeled cell ratio as a measure of tissue damage, we found that 33±8% were damaged within the dye region around a microdialysis probe. We found that low-flow push-pull perfusion probes damaged 24±4% of cells in the sampling area. Flow had no effect on the number of damaged cells for low-flow push-pull perfusion. Modeling revealed that shear stress and pressure gradients generated by the flow were lower than thresholds expected to cause damage. Comparison with existing methods.Push-pull perfusion caused less tissue damage but yielded 1500-fold better spatial resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Push-pull perfusion at low flow rates is a viable method for sampling from the brain with potential for high temporal and spatial resolution. Tissue damage is mostly caused by probe insertion. Smaller probes may yield even lower damage.
BACKGROUND: Neurochemical monitoring via sampling probes is valuable for deciphering neurotransmission in vivo. Microdialysis is commonly used; however, the spatial resolution is poor. NEW METHOD: Recently push-pull perfusion at low flow rates (50nL/min) has been proposed as a method for in vivo sampling from the central nervous system. Tissue damage from such probes has not been investigated in detail. In this work, we evaluated acute tissue response to low-flow push-pull perfusion by infusing the nuclear stains Sytox Orange and Hoechst 33342 through probes implanted in the striatum for 200min, to label damaged and total cells, respectively, in situ. RESULTS: Using the damaged/total labeled cell ratio as a measure of tissue damage, we found that 33±8% were damaged within the dye region around a microdialysis probe. We found that low-flow push-pull perfusion probes damaged 24±4% of cells in the sampling area. Flow had no effect on the number of damaged cells for low-flow push-pull perfusion. Modeling revealed that shear stress and pressure gradients generated by the flow were lower than thresholds expected to cause damage. Comparison with existing methods.Push-pull perfusion caused less tissue damage but yielded 1500-fold better spatial resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Push-pull perfusion at low flow rates is a viable method for sampling from the brain with potential for high temporal and spatial resolution. Tissue damage is mostly caused by probe insertion. Smaller probes may yield even lower damage.
Authors: Thomas R Slaney; Jing Nie; Neil D Hershey; Prasanna K Thwar; Jennifer Linderman; Mark A Burns; Robert T Kennedy Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Benjamin Frey; Christina Janko; Nina Ebel; Silke Meister; Eberhard Schlücker; Roland Meyer-Pittroff; Rainer Fietkau; Martin Herrmann; Udo S Gaipl Journal: Curr Med Chem Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Fang Zhou; Joan F Braddock; Yong Hu; Xiongwei Zhu; Rudy J Castellani; Mark A Smith; Kelly L Drew Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2002-09-30 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Hector H Caicedo; Maximiliano Hernandez; Christopher P Fall; David T Eddington Journal: Biomed Microdevices Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.838
Authors: Damith E W Patabadige; Larry J Millet; Jayde A Aufrecht; Peter G Shankles; Robert F Standaert; Scott T Retterer; Mitchel J Doktycz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Luke A Stangler; Abbas Kouzani; Kevin E Bennet; Ludovic Dumee; Michael Berk; Gregory A Worrell; Steven Steele; Terence C Burns; Charles L Howe Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Joanna Bogusiewicz; Katarzyna Burlikowska; Kamil Łuczykowski; Karol Jaroch; Marcin Birski; Jacek Furtak; Marek Harat; Janusz Pawliszyn; Barbara Bojko Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 4.379