| Literature DB >> 30424419 |
Andrew J Shoffstall1,2, Melanie Ecker3,4, Vindhya Danda5,6,7,8, Alexandra Joshi-Imre9, Allison Stiller10, Marina Yu11,12, Jennifer E Paiz13,14, Elizabeth Mancuso15,16, Hillary W Bedell17, Walter E Voit18,19,20,21, Joseph J Pancrazio22, Jeffrey R Capadona23,24.
Abstract
Thiol-ene based shape memory polymers (SMPs) have been developed for use as intracortical microelectrode substrates. The unique chemistry provides precise control over the mechanical and thermal glass-transition properties. As a result, SMP substrates are stiff at room temperature, allowing for insertion into the brain without buckling and subsequently soften in response to body temperatures, reducing the mechanical mismatch between device and tissue. Since the surface chemistry of the materials can contribute significantly to the ultimate biocompatibility, as a first step in the characterization of our SMPs, we sought to isolate the biological response to the implanted material surface without regards to the softening mechanics. To accomplish this, we tightly controlled for bulk stiffness by comparing bare silicon 'dummy' devices to thickness-matched silicon devices dip-coated with SMP. The neuroinflammatory response was evaluated after devices were implanted in the rat cortex for 2 or 16 weeks. We observed no differences in the markers tested at either time point, except that astrocytic scarring was significantly reduced for the dip-coated implants at 16 weeks. The surface properties of non-softening thiol-ene SMP substrates appeared to be equally-tolerated and just as suitable as silicon for neural implant substrates for applications such as intracortical microelectrodes, laying the groundwork for future softer devices to improve upon the prototype device performance presented here.Entities:
Keywords: electrophysiology; intracortical; microelectrodes; shape-memory-polymer
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424419 PMCID: PMC6215215 DOI: 10.3390/mi9100486
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Probe design schematic. Cross-sectional dimensions of the silicon (top) and dip-coated (bottom) devices and view of the profile from the side (right). Here, 30 µm thick silicon wafers were used to fabricate the bare silicon probes whereas a 14 µm thick silicon wafer (after etching) was used to produce the dip-coating substrate so that the overall device thickness resulted as ~30 µm for both device types. Due to the photomasks used, the widths of the etched silicon devices were held constant so that the bare silicon probes were 130 µm in width and after coating, the dip-coated probes were slightly larger, ~135 µm, in width. The actual coating thickness varied slightly along the length of the probe as shown in Supplementary Figure S1.
Figure 2Characterization of silicon ‘dummy’ microelectrode with thiol-ene polymer. Dip coating of 25 µm thick microelectrodes with a uniform layer of shape memory polymer (SMP) to generate approximately 30 µm thick coated devices; (A) the polymer detached before surface modification of silicon probes, (B) nicely coated the silicon shanks after surface modification. (C) In some cases, the coating would form ‘beads’ due to slow removal. Checkmarks and crosses indicate whether probes were used for in vivo studies or not. (D) Optical and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images in the side view to assess the thickness of the coating, and (E) schematic drawing of coating thickness with respect to the shank geometry.
Figure 3Ex vivo Characterization of coating stability. Dip-coated probes inside the skull with all tissue removed captured using optical microscopy (A) and SEM (B) showing that the SMP coating of the silicon shanks is still intact after two weeks. (C) Side-view SEM image of a dip-coated probe, explanted after 16 weeks in the rat cortex, showing the SMP coating intact. Black rectangle inset is blown up further in (D).
Figure 4Characterization of the remnant tissue hole after explantation and ‘dummy’ probe device dimensions. (A) Remnant hole size after probe extraction was consistent (no statistically significant differences) across both implant types. The hole was slightly larger than the theoretical cross-sectional area denoted by the horizontal line; n = 9 (Si-2w), 10 (Si-16w), 10 (dip-2w), 10 (Dip-16w). (B) Mean explanted hole size (dashed line) drawn in relative scale to the actual device dimensions. The letters correspond with the matching bar in the chart shown in (A). The 130 µm scale bar is shown to provide context for the microelectrode dummy probe width. The 50 µm scale bar provides context for the analysis of bucket widths for the histological analysis. Tissue responses can extend several hundred microns away from the tissue-device interface.
Figure 5Astrocytic response to silicon vs. SMP dip-coated implants. (A) Astrocytic scarring at 2 weeks and (B) 16 weeks. There were significant differences between the silicon and dip-coated glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) response at 16 weeks, specifically at bucketed distances 50–100 µm and 100–150 µm from the hole. There were no differences between the groups at 2 weeks or any other regions from the hole at 16 weeks post-implantation. (C) Representative images of the GFAP staining results with 200 µm scale bars in the bottom right-hand corner.
Figure 6Microglia and BBB response to silicon vs. SMP dip-coated implants. Activated macrophages and microglia (CD68) at (A) 2 weeks and (B) 16 weeks. Blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability marked by immunoglobulin G (IgG) staining at (C) 2 weeks and (D) 16 weeks after microelectrode implantation. There were no differences in either stain between each probe type for either time point tested. (E,F) Representative images of the CD68 (E) and IgG (F) staining results with 200 µm scale bars in the bottom right-hand corner.
Figure 7Neuronal density (NeuN staining) at (A) 2 weeks and (B) 16 weeks after microelectrode implantation. There were no significant differences between either material group, silicon vs dip-coated, at the two time points tested. (C) Representative images of the NeuN staining results with 200 µm scale bars in the bottom right-hand corner.