| Literature DB >> 35002602 |
Xuefeng Fu1, Gen Li1, Yutao Niu2,3, Jingcao Xu4, Puxin Wang1,5, Zhaoxiao Zhou1,5, Ziming Ye4, Xiaojun Liu1, Zheng Xu1, Ziqian Yang1,5, Yongyi Zhang2,3, Ting Lei4, Baogui Zhang6, Qingwen Li2,3, Anyuan Cao4, Tianzai Jiang6, Xiaojie Duan1,5,7.
Abstract
Implantable brain electrophysiology electrodes are valuable tools in both fundamental and applied neuroscience due to their ability to record neural activity with high spatiotemporal resolution from shallow and deep brain regions. Their use has been hindered, however, by the challenges in achieving chronically stable operations. Furthermore, implantable depth neural electrodes can only carry out limited data sampling within predefined anatomical regions, making it challenging to perform large-area brain mapping. Minimizing inflammatory responses and associated gliosis formation, and improving the durability and stability of the electrode insulation layers are critical to achieve long-term stable neural recording and stimulation. Combining electrophysiological measurements with simultaneous whole-brain imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), provides a useful solution to alleviate the challenge in scalability of implantable depth electrodes. In recent years, various carbon-based materials have been used to fabricate flexible neural depth electrodes with reduced inflammatory responses and MRI-compatible electrodes, which allows structural and functional MRI mapping of the whole brain without obstructing any brain regions around the electrodes. Here, we conducted a systematic comparative evaluation on the electrochemical properties, mechanical properties, and MRI compatibility of different kinds of carbon-based fiber materials, including carbon nanotube fibers, graphene fibers, and carbon fibers. We also developed a strategy to improve the stability of the electrode insulation without sacrificing the flexibility of the implantable depth electrodes by sandwiching an inorganic barrier layer inside the polymer insulation film. These studies provide us with important insights into choosing the most suitable materials for next-generation implantable depth electrodes with unique capabilities for applications in both fundamental and translational neuroscience research.Entities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; brain activity mapping; carbon nanomaterials; multi-modal neural interfacing; soft bioelectronics
Year: 2021 PMID: 35002602 PMCID: PMC8730365 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.771980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 5In vivo MRI artifact assessment. (A–C) Coronal sections of the T2-weighted images of a rat implanted with various electrodes. (D,E) Horizontal sections of T2-weighted (D) and EPI (E) images of a rat implanted with various electrodes. (F) T2 artifact size of different electrodes. (G,H) Coronal sections of the EPI-weighted images of a rat implanted with various electrodes. (I) EPI artifact size of different electrodes. All electrodes were made from carbon-based fibers or Pt wires of 30 μm diameter insulated with ∼5 μm thick Parylene-C. The insets are zoomed-in photographs of the dashed boxes. Scale bar, 1 mm. Error bars in (F,I) show SEM. For each type of electrode, n = 5 from five animals.
FIGURE 1SEM characterization. (A–D), SEM images of the side view of an aCNTF (A), fCNTF (B), GF (C), and CF (D). The twisted angle is marked as θ. Insets of panels (A–D), SEM images of the tip of an aCNTF, fCNTF, GF, and CF electrode. Scale bars of 10 μm apply to all panels and insets.
FIGURE 2Electrochemical properties. (A–C) representative impedance magnitude (A), phase (B), and CV (C) of various electrodes. (D) Calculated CSC. (E) Representative voltage transient of various electrodes (upper curves) in response to a current pulse of 150 μA amplitude (lower curve). (F) CIL of different electrodes. All electrodes were made of carbon-based fibers or Pt wires with 30 μm diameter insulated with 5 μm thick Parylene-C. The same color codes in (A) are used in (B,E). Error bars in (D,F) show SEM (n = 8 for D and n = 5 for F).
Mechanical properties of different materials.
| Material | Twisted angle (°) | Young’s modulus (GPa) | Tensile strength (MPa) | Bending stiffness |
| aCNTF | 25 | 10.89 ± 1.22 | 741.21 ± 46.05 | 0.43 |
| fCNTF | 10 | 22.26 ± 0.61 | 925.55 ± 23.35 | 0.88 |
| GF | – | 12.49 ± 1.04 | 168.39 ± 18.78 | 0.50 |
| CF | – | 51.86 ± 1.86 | 899.28 ± 39.93 | 2.06 |
| Pt | 81.72 ± 4.43 | 622.22 ± 13.95 | 3.25 |
Error bars show SEM (n = 6).
FIGURE 3Insulation stability test. Change and statistical comparison analysis of impedance magnitude (A) and phase (B) at 1 kHz, and CSC (C) of different electrode samples upon time under AAT. The shaded regions represent the SEM (n = 10 for “Test 1” and “Control 1” electrodes, n = 6 for “Test 2” and “Control 2” electrodes). For all comparisons, Shapiro–Wilk was used to test normality and Brown-Forsythe was used to test the homogeneity of variance. For comparison between Day 1 and Day 153 of the same type of insulation layer, paired sample T-test or paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test (when test for normality or equal variance failed) was used. For comparison between test and control group on Day 153, two sample T-test or Mann–Whitney test (when test for normality or equal variance failed) was used. * corresponds to comparison between test and control group on Day 153; # corresponds to comparison between Day 1 and Day 153 of the same samples. *, #, p ≤ 0.05; **, ##, p ≤ 0.01; ***, ###, p ≤ 0.001.
FIGURE 4AAT results. Representative impedance spectra (A,B) and CV (C) of different electrode samples at day 1, day 51, and day 153 in ATT.