| Literature DB >> 36124042 |
Kewang Nan1,2, Vivian R Feig2,3, Binbin Ying1,2, Julia G Howarth1, Ziliang Kang1,2, Yiyuan Yang1, Giovanni Traverso1,2.
Abstract
The surface mucosa that lines many of our organs houses myriad biometric signals and, therefore, has great potential as a sensor-tissue interface for high-fidelity and long-term biosensing. However, progress is still nascent for mucosa-interfacing electronics owing to challenges with establishing robust sensor-tissue interfaces; device localization, retention and removal; and power and data transfer. This is in sharp contrast to the rapidly advancing field of skin-interfacing electronics, which are replacing traditional hospital visits with minimally invasive, real-time, continuous and untethered biosensing. This Review aims to bridge the gap between skin-interfacing electronics and mucosa-interfacing electronics systems through a comparison of the properties and functions of the skin and internal mucosal surfaces. The major physiological signals accessible through mucosa-lined organs are surveyed and design considerations for the next generation of mucosa-interfacing electronics are outlined based on state-of-the-art developments in bio-integrated electronics. With this Review, we aim to inspire hardware solutions that can serve as a foundation for developing personalized biosensing from the mucosa, a relatively uncharted field with great scientific and clinical potential. © Springer Nature Limited 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Entities:
Keywords: Biomedical engineering; Sensors and biosensors
Year: 2022 PMID: 36124042 PMCID: PMC9472746 DOI: 10.1038/s41578-022-00477-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Rev Mater ISSN: 2058-8437 Impact factor: 76.679
Fig. 1Overview of mucosa-interfacing electronics in relation to existing sensors that interact with mucosa and the skin-interfacing electronics.
The key features of existing clinically approved sensors that interact with the mucosa and skin-interfacing electronics are highlighted, as well as the end goal for mucosa-interfacing electronics.
Diagnostic opportunities of the mucosa categorized by different conditions
| Key opportunities | Current clinical approaches | Mucosal signals with potential diagnostic value |
|---|---|---|
| Conception and fertility planning and management | Body temperature measurement; qualitative inspection of vaginal mucosa; digital pelvic exam | Mucosa properties: vaginal mucus impedance, stiffness and viscosity Temperature: real-time monitoring of basal body temperature Biochemical: uterus pH and oxygen levels Mechanical: pressure-based detection of cervical tenderness, uterus size and uterus stiffness Electrical: measuring uterine contractile activity to predict delivery time and identify abnormal labour |
| Reproductive cancer | Tissue biopsy | Biochemical: protein biomarkers associated with different cancers; DNA and RNA sensors for detecting mutations and viral infections associated with cancers (for example, HPV) |
| Dysbiotic environments associated with infection | Digital pelvic exam; imaging vaginal secretions; vaginal pH measurements | Biochemical: vaginal pH levels; quantity and diversity of bacteria in vaginal flora |
| Urinary incontinence and overactive bladder | Self-reporting; post-void residual measurement | Mechanical: bladder pressure and strain detection Electrical: impedance measurements of bladder volume; electrophysiological indicators of bladder disease |
| Acute kidney injury | Blood panel; cytology and evidence of casts (aggregates of cells) | Biochemical: creatine detection in kidneys Mechanical: direct measurement of pressure and strain exerted on kidneys |
| Bladder cancer | Cytology evaluation using cystoscopy | Biochemical: urine protein biomarkers Mucosa properties: colour abnormalities in bladder mucosa |
| Kidney stones | Blood panel; urinalysis; imaging | Biochemical: Ca levels in kidneys; mineral levels, white blood cells and bacteria in urine |
| GERD | Endoscopy and imaging; ambulatory acid (pH) test; oesophageal manometry | Mucosa properties: oesophageal mucus impedance Biochemical: oesophageal pH level; cell-type evaluation Electrical: impedance measurements of luminal content |
| GI motility disorders | Endoscopy; | Electrical: EGG; slow-wave activity Mechanical: pressure recording in GI tract Biochemical: pH and gas in stomach and Ca2+ in intestines |
| GI cancer | Tissue biopsy; endoscopy or colonoscopy; imaging | Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA biomarkers associated with GI cancers Mucosa properties: elastic modulus of stomach for gastric cancer; hardness of colon for colorectal neoplasms |
| Peptic ulcer | Endoscopy; imaging; | Mucosa properties: mucosal quality and elastic modulus for Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA sensors for detecting bacterial infections associated with ulcers (for example, Vascular dynamics: GI mucosal blood flow |
| GI inflammation (for example, gastritis and IBD) | Mucosa properties: mucosal integrity, impedance, stiffness Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA sensors for inflammation-relevant biomarkers; sensing of macronutrients or metabolites levels Vascular dynamics: GI mucosal blood flow | |
| GI ischaemia | Imaging | Vascular dynamics: GI mucosal blood flow Biochemical: oxygen sensing for intestinal oxygen tension |
| Gut–brain axis | Intravital Ca2+ signal imaging of the gut | Electrical: electrophysiology Biochemical: neurotransmitter sensing (for example, dopamine) in the gut |
| COPD and cancer | Pulmonary function tests; chest imaging; arterial blood gas analysis; spirometry; tissue biopsy | Mechanical: monitor pressure within lung and bronchial airflow Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA sensors for disease-relevant biomarkers; pulmonary oxygen levels Vascular dynamics: arterial blood vessel diameter; blood pressure of femoral artery Mucosa properties: modulus of bronchial airway walls; stiffness of trachea rings |
| Tuberculosis | Physical exam; blood, skin or sputum tests; imaging | Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA sensors for detecting MTB |
| Asthma | Physical exam; spirometry; exhaled nitric oxide test | Mechanical: pressure within lung and bronchial airflow Mucosa properties: pulmonary mucus impedance, viscosity, colour |
| Pneumonia | Physical exam; blood or sputum tests; imaging; pulse oximetry; RT-PCR | Mucosa properties: pulmonary mucus impedance, viscosity, colour Biochemical: protein, DNA or RNA sensors for detecting viral infections associated with pneumonia (for example, SARS-CoV-2, MERS and SARS in respiratory mucus); oxygen levels |
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; EGG, electrogastrogram; GERD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; GI, gastrointestinal; HPV, human papillomavirus; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Fig. 2Towards mucosa-interfacing electronics.
Schematic of an envisioned mucosa-interfacing electronics system, outlining the main challenges facing mucosa-interfacing electronics devices (right) compared with state-of-the-art skin-interfacing electronics (left). The challenges include aspects related to sensor performance (sensor–tissue interface and encapsulation), sensor deployment (localization, retention and removal) and communication and power supplies. Left image courtesy of J. A. Rogers.
Fig. 3Methods for establishing sensor–tissue interfaces with mucosa.
a | Illustration of the structural (left) and materials (right) engineering approaches for establishing robust sensor–tissue interfaces. b | Schematics of various structural engineering approaches that convert plastic materials into stretchable conductors, showing the conductors before and after stretching. The axis shows a range of reported maximum stretchability for each approach. c | Schematic showing the enhancement of the sensor–tissue interface by minimizing the mechanical mismatch with the tissue using a soft hydrogel (right) compared with a sensor–tissue interface with a conventional electrode (left). The insets show the corresponding equivalent circuit diagrams, comprising capacitors (C) and resistors (R). d | Schematic showing the formation of covalent bonds between a conductive hydrogel and tissue to simultaneously realize strong adhesion and low electrical impedance at the sensor–tissue interface. e | Schematics showing the initial hydrogel (left), the fragile swollen state of the hydrogel following fluid uptake (middle) and the swelling-triggered toughening mechanism that involves the diffusion of encapsulated crosslinker molecules in the first polymer network (polymer 1) and then crosslinking of a second polymer network (polymer 2) to enhance the toughness of the hydrogel after fluid uptake (right).
Recently reported surface electrodes as minimally invasive, chronic sensor–tissue interfaces
| Sensor material | Substrate material | Fabrication methods | Total thickness (µm) | Bending stiffness (nN m) | In-plane stretchability (%) | Electrical conductivity (S m−1) | Interfacial impedance at 1,000 Hz (Ω) | Targeted organ (duration) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Au (ref.[ | Polyimide[ | Photolithography, thin-film transfer | 0.4–1 | ~5 × 107–1 | <10 (refs.[ | 9.4 × 106 (Pt), 4.5 × 107 (Au) | 10,000–60,000 | Human skin (24 h)[ |
| W-coated Mg (bioresorbable)[ | PLGA (bioresorbable)[ | Photolithography, thin-film transfer | 250 | 15,000 | <10 | 8.9 × 106 (W), 2.2 × 107 (Mg) | NA | Dog heart (dissolved after 4 days)[ |
| Au nanofibres[ | Parylene C | Electrospinning | 0.1–0.5 | ~0.1–1 | 30 | 2 × 106 | 50,000 | Human skin (7 days)[ |
| Conductive hydrogel adhesives[ | None | Casting | 100–500 | ~1 | 200 (ref.[ | 0.5 (ref.[ | 50 (ref.[ | Rat brain and heart (2 months)[ |
| PEDOT:PSS with ionic liquid[ | PDMS[ | Photolithography | 1–100 | ~1 × 10−6–0.1 | 20 (ref.[ | 200 (refs.[ | 50 (ref.[ | Rat sciatic nerve (2 months)[ |
| Hydrogel with conductive carbon fillers[ | PDMS | Moulding and casting | 60–100 | ~0.1 | 45 (ref.[ | 10 (ref.[ | 5,000–10,000 | Rat heart, tendon and brain (acute)[ |
NA, not available; PDMS, polydimethylsiloxane; PEDOT:PSS, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate; PLGA, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); SEBS, styrene–ethylene/butylene–styrene.
Fig. 4Modes of retention on the mucosa.
Different physical and chemical adhesive mechanisms (mucus-adhering (part a), mucus-penetrating (part b), mechanical anchoring (part c) and luminal confinement (part d) strategies) lead to a wide range of average retention times from minutes to months. In general, methods that penetrate or deplete the mucus and interact directly with the underlying mucosa offer longer retention, but at the expense of increased invasiveness. Luminal confinement provides the longest retention.