Microelectrode array

Edit links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Microelectrode arrays (MEAs) (also referred to as multielectrode arrays

electronic circuitry. There are two general classes of MEAs: implantable MEAs, used in vivo, and non-implantable MEAs, used in vitro. In each class, there are rigid, flexible, and stretchable microelectrode array
.

Theory

Neurons and

electrodes transduce electronic currents into ionic currents through the media. This triggers the voltage-gated ion channels on the membranes of the excitable cells, causing the cell to depolarize and trigger an action potential if it is a neuron or a twitch if it is a muscle cell.[citation needed
]

The size and shape of a recorded signal depend upon several factors: the nature of the medium in which the cell or cells are located (e.g. the medium's

sampling rate and digital signal processing).[3] For the recording of a single cell that partially covers a planar electrode, the voltage at the contact pad is approximately equal to the voltage of the overlapping region of the cell and electrode multiplied by the ratio the surface area
of the overlapping region to the area of the entire electrode, or:

assuming the area around an electrode is

finite element analysis in an attempt to circumvent the limitations of oversimplifying the system in a lumped circuit element diagram.[4]

An MEA can be used to perform

networks.[5]

It can be seen that the voltage

inversely related to the distance from which a cell depolarizes.[6] Thus, it may be necessary for the cells to be cultured or otherwise placed as close to the electrodes as possible. With tissue slices, a layer of electrically passive dead cells form around the site of incision due to edema.[7] A way to deal with this is by fabricating an MEA with three-dimensional electrodes fabricated by masking and chemical etching. These 3-D electrodes penetrate the dead cell layer of the slice tissue, decreasing the distance between live cells and the electrodes.[8]
In dissociated cultures, proper adherence of the cells to the MEA substrate is important for getting robust signals.

History

The first implantable arrays were microwire arrays developed in the 1950s.

ganglia independently by Guenter Gross and his colleagues at the Center for Network Neuroscience in 1977 without prior knowledge of Thomas and his colleagues' work.[6] In 1982, Gross observed spontaneous electrophysiological activity from dissociated spinal cord neurons, and found that activity was very dependent on temperature. Below about 30˚C signal amplitudes decrease rapidly to relatively small value at room temperature.[6]

Before the 1990s, significant

entry barriers existed for new laboratories that sought to conduct MEA research due to the custom MEA fabrication and software they had to develop.[5] However, with the advent of affordable computing power[3] and commercial MEA hardware and software,[5]
many other laboratories were able to undertake research using MEAs.

Types

Microelectrode arrays can be divided up into subcategories based on their potential use: in vitro and in vivo arrays.

In vitro arrays

An in vitro MEA

The standard type of in vitro MEA comes in a pattern of 8 x 8 or 6 x 10 electrodes. Electrodes are typically composed of indium tin oxide, platinum black or titanium nitride and have diameters between 10 and 30 μm. These arrays are normally used for single-cell cultures or acute brain slices.[3]

One challenge among in vitro MEAs has been imaging them with

microscopes that use high power lenses, requiring low working distances on the order of micrometers. In order to avoid this problem, "thin"-MEAs have been created using cover slip glass. These arrays are approximately 180 μm allowing them to be used with high-power lenses.[3][11]

Another challege among in vitro MEAs has been the rigidity of the glass substrate, which does not replicate the soft, flexible nature of biological tissues, thus impacting cellular behavior and experimental outcomes.[12] To address this limitation, flexible and stretchable microelectrode arrays have been developed to better simulate the mechanical properties of living tissues.[13] Manufacturers of flexible and stretchable MEAs such as BioMedical Sustainable Elastic Electronic Devices and Flexcell International Corporation are advancing MEA technologies to enhance the relevance of in vitro research by providing a more physiologically accurate environment for cells.[14][15]

In another special design, 60 electrodes are split into 6 × 5 arrays separated by 500 μm. Electrodes within a group are separated by 30 um with diameters of 10 μm. Arrays such as this are used to examine local responses of neurons while also studying functional connectivity of organotypic slices.[3][16]

Spatial resolution is one of the key advantages of MEAs and allows signals sent over a long distance to be taken with higher precision when a high-density MEA is used. These arrays usually have a square grid pattern of 256 electrodes that cover an area of 2.8 by 2.8 mm.[3]

Increased spatial resolution is provided by CMOS-based high-density microelectrode arrays featuring thousands of electrodes along with integrated readout and stimulation circuits on compact chips of the size of a thumbnail.[17] Even the resolution of signals propagating along single axons has been demonstrated.[18]

In order to obtain quality signals electrodes and tissue must be in close contact with one another. The perforated MEA design applies negative pressure to openings in the substrate so that tissue slices can be positioned on the electrodes to enhance contact and recorded signals.[3]

A different approach to lower the electrode impedance is by modification of the interface material, for example by using

carbon nanotubes,[19][20] or by modification of the structure of the electrodes, with for example gold nanopillars[21] or nanocavities.[22]

In vivo arrays

Schematic of the "Utah" in vivo electrode array

The three major categories of implantable MEAs are microwire, silicon-based,[23] and flexible microelectrode arrays. Microwire MEAs are largely made of stainless steel or tungsten and they can be used to estimate the position of individual recorded neurons by triangulation. Silicon-based microelectrode arrays include two specific models: the Michigan and Utah arrays. Michigan arrays allow a higher density of sensors for implantation as well as a higher spatial resolution than microwire MEAs. They also allow signals to be obtained along the length of the shank, rather than just at the ends of the shanks. In contrast to Michigan arrays, Utah arrays are 3-D, consisting of 100 conductive silicon needles. However, in a Utah array, signals are only received from the tips of each electrode, which limits the amount of information that can be obtained at one time. Furthermore, Utah arrays are manufactured with set dimensions and parameters while the Michigan array allows for more design freedom. Flexible arrays, made with polyimide, parylene, or benzocyclobutene, provide an advantage over rigid microelectrode arrays because they provide a closer mechanical match, as the Young's modulus of silicon is much larger than that of brain tissue, contributing to shear-induced inflammation.[9]

Data processing methods

The fundamental unit of communication of neurons is, electrically, at least, the action potential. This all-or-nothing phenomenon originates at the axon hillock,[24] resulting in a depolarization of the intracellular environment which propagates down the axon. This ion flux through the cellular membrane generates a sharp change in voltage in the extracellular environment, which is what the MEA electrodes ultimately detect. Thus, voltage spike counting and sorting is often used in research to characterize network activity. Spike train analysis, can also save processing time and computing memory compared to voltage measurements. Spike timestamps are identified as times where the voltage measured by an individual electrode exceeds a threshold (often defined by standard deviations from the mean of an inactive time period). These timestamps can be further processed to identify bursts(multiple spikes in close proximity). Further analysis of these trains can reveal spike organization and temporal patterns.[25]

Capabilities

Advantages

In general, the major strengths of in vitro arrays when compared to more traditional methods such as patch clamping include:[26]

  • Allowing the placement of multiple electrodes at once rather than individually
  • The ability to set up controls within the same experimental setup (by using one electrode as a control and others as experimental). This is of particular interest in stimulation experiments.
  • The ability to select different recordings sites within the array
  • The ability to simultaneously receive data from multiple sites
  • Recordings from intact retinae are of great interest because of the possibility of delivering real-time optical stimulation and, for instance, the possibility of reconstructing receptive fields.

Furthermore, in vitro arrays are non-invasive when compared to patch clamping because they do not require breaching of the cell membrane.

With respect to in vivo arrays however, the major advantage over patch clamping is the high spatial resolution. Implantable arrays allow signals to be obtained from individual neurons enabling information such as position or

prosthetic
device. Large-scale, parallel recordings with tens of implanted electrodes are possible, at least in rodents, during animal behavior. This makes such extracellular recordings the method of choice to identify of neural circuits and to study their functions. Unambiguous identification of the recorded neuron using multi-electrode extracellular arrays, however, remains a problem to date.

Disadvantages

In vitro MEAs are less suited for recording and stimulating single cells due to their low spatial resolution compared to patch clamp and dynamic clamp systems. The complexity of signals an MEA electrode could effectively transmit to other cells is limited compared to the capabilities of dynamic clamps.

There are also several biological responses to implantation of a microelectrode array, particularly in regards to chronic implantation. Most notable among these effects are neuronal cell loss,

Immunohistochemical markers showed a surprising presence of hyperphosphorylated tau, an indicator of Alzheimer's disease, near the electrode recording site. The phagocytosis of electrode material also brings into question the issue of a biocompatibility response, which research suggests has been minor and becomes almost nonexistent after 12 weeks in vivo. Research into minimizing the negative effects of device insertion includes surface coating of the devices with proteins that encourage neuron attachment, such as laminin, or drug eluting substances.[29]

Applications

In vitro

The nature of dissociated

pharmacological response when compared to in vivo models, suggesting that MEAs can be used to study pharmacological effects on dissociated neuronal cultures in a more simple, controlled environment.[30] A number of pharmacological studies using MEAs on dissociated neuronal networks, e.g. studies with ethanol.[31] Interlaboratory validation has been conducted using MEAs.[32]

In addition, a substantial body of work on various biophysical aspects of network function was carried out by reducing phenomena usually studied at the behavioral level to the dissociated cortical network level. For example, the capacity of such networks to extract spatial

neuromodulation[36][37][38] and kinetics of learning using closed loop regimes.[39][40] Finally, combining MEA technology with confocal microscopy allows for studying relationships between network activity and synaptic remodeling.[11]

MEAs have been used to interface neuronal networks with non-biological systems as a controller. For example, a neural-computer interface can be created using MEAs. Dissociated rat

"Braitenberg vehicle" was used to demonstrate the indeterminacy of reverse neuro-engineering showing that even in a simple setup with practically unlimited access to every piece of relevant information,[44] it was impossible to deduce with certainty the specific neural coding
scheme that was used to drive the robots behavior.

MEAs have been used to observe network firing in

hippocampal slices.[45]

In vivo

There are several implantable interfaces that are currently available for consumer use including

ALS have been initiated in a project entitled BrainGate (see video demo: BrainGate). MEAs provide the high resolution necessary to record time varying signals, giving them the ability to be used to both control and obtain feedback from prosthetic devices, as was shown by Kevin Warwick, Mark Gasson and Peter Kyberd.[47][48] Research suggests that MEA use may be able to assist in the restoration of vision by stimulating the optic pathway.[9]

MEA user meetings

A biannual scientific user meeting is held in Reutlingen, organized by the Natural and Medical Sciences Institute (NMI) at the University of Tübingen. The meetings offer a comprehensive overview of all aspects related to new developments and current applications of Microelectrode Arrays in basic and applied neuroscience as well as in industrial drug discovery, safety pharmacology and neurotechnology. The biannual conference has developed into an international venue for scientists developing and using MEAs from both industry and academia, and is recognized as an information-packed scientific forum of high quality. The meeting contributions are available as open access proceeding books.

Use in art

In addition to being used for scientific purposes, MEAs have been used in

Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, to question the relationship between biology and technology.[50][51][52][53] MEART consisted of rat cortical neurons grown in vitro on an MEA in Atlanta, a pneumatic robot arm capable of drawing with pens on paper in Perth, and software to govern communications between the two. Signals from the neurons were relayed in a closed-loop between Perth and Atlanta as the MEA stimulated the pneumatic arm. MEART was first exhibited to the public in the exhibition Biofeel at the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts in 2002.[52][54]

See also

References

  1. ^ The common misnomer multielectrode array replaces the prefix micro- with multi-, whose meaning is redundant with array. Micro- is important, as a small electrode is necessary to resolve the activity of single cells. Note that a microelectrode array is used for multichannel recordings.
  2. ^ "What is a Multielectrode Array (MEA)?".
  3. ^
    ISBN 0-387-25857-4
    .
  4. S2CID 15578217
    .
  5. ^
    PMID 11480288
    .
  6. ^
    ISBN 0-387-25857-4
    .
  7. ISBN 0-387-25857-4
    .
  8. S2CID 22179940
    .
  9. ^
    S2CID 37347927
    .
  10. PMID 4672477
    .
  11. ^
    PMID 19554080
    .
  12. PMID 20535574
    .
  13. PMID 24093006
    .
  14. ^ "Advance in vitro research with BMSEED's stretchable MEAs. ✓ adaptable to cell movement ✓ high-fidelity recordings ✓ innovative design for flexibility ➔ Redefine your research potential!". Stretchable microelectrode arrays for in vitro biomedical research. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  15. ^ "Tension Systems | Flexcell® International Corporation". www.flexcellint.com. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  16. ^ Segev, R.; Berry II, M. J. (2003). "Recording from all of the ganglion cells in the retina". Soc Neurosci Abstr. 264: 11.
  17. S2CID 2578216
    .
  18. PMID 23867868
    .
  19. PMID 17604402
    .
  20. S2CID 44491589
    .
  21. S2CID 20738358
    .
  22. PMID 21286648
    .
  23. S2CID 25288723
    .
  24. PMID 2454930
    .
  25. S2CID 195795810
    .
  26. ISBN 0-387-25857-4
    .
  27. S2CID 14077903
    .
  28. ^ McConnell GC, Rees HD, Levey AI, Gross RG, Bellamkonda RV. 2008. Chronic electrodes induce a local, neurodegenerative state: Implications for chronic recording reliability. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, D.C[citation not found]
  29. S2CID 22732939
    .
  30. ISBN 0-387-25857-4
    .
  31. PMID 13679110
    .
  32. PMID 21562604
    .
  33. ^
    PMID 19023409
    .
  34. PMID 14561862
    .
  35. PMID 16914671
    .
  36. PMID 15084641
    .
  37. S2CID 22745827
    .
  38. S2CID 6922531
    .
  39. PMID 11698590
    .
  40. S2CID 12379440
    .
  41. PMID 18584059
    .
  42. S2CID 12213854. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help
    )
  43. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)62062-X
    .
  44. PMID 19503751
    .
  45. PMID 12840078
    .
  46. S2CID 25263765
    .
  47. PMID 14568806
    .
  48. PMID 15217341
    .
  49. ^ Thacker, Eugene (2010) "What is Biomedia?" in "Critical Terms for Media Studies" University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, pp118-30
  50. PMID 18958276
    .
  51. ISBN 978-3-540-22484-6
    .
  52. ^
    ISBN 1 74067 157 0
    .
  53. ^ Ben-Ary, G, Zurr, I, Richards, M, Gamblen, P, Catts, O and Bunt, S (2001) “Fish and Chips, The current Status of the Research by the SymbioticA research group” in Takeover, wer macht die Kunst von morgen (who's doing the art of tomorrow) pp. 141-147 Springer Vien.
  54. ^ "BioFeel: biology + art". Perth Institute for Contemporary Art. Archived from the original on 2014-08-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microelectrode_array&oldid=1257015791"