The brain tissue response to implanted silicon microelectrode arrays is increased when the device is tethered to the skull
dc.contributor.author | Biran, Roy | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Martin, Dave C. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Tresco, Patrick A. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-09-20T18:53:11Z | |
dc.date.available | 2008-09-08T14:25:12Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2007-07 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Biran, Roy; Martin, Dave C.; Tresco, Patrick A. (2007)."The brain tissue response to implanted silicon microelectrode arrays is increased when the device is tethered to the skull." Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 82A(1): 169-178. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/56096> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1549-3296 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1552-4965 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/56096 | |
dc.description.abstract | The influence of tethering silicon microelectrode arrays on the cortical brain tissue reaction was compared with that of untethered implants placed in the same location by identical means using immunoflourescent methods and cell type specific markers over indwelling periods of 1–4 weeks. Compared with untethered, freely floating implants, tethered microelectrodes elicited significantly greater reactivity to antibodies against ED1 and GFAP over time. Regardless of implantation method or indwelling time, retrieved microelectrodes contained a layer of attached macrophages identified by positive immunoreactivity against ED1. In the tethered condition and in cases where the tissue surrounding untethered implants had the highest levels of ED1+ and GFAP+ immunoreactivity, the neuronal markers for neurofilament 160 and NeuN were reduced. Although the precise mechanisms are unclear, the present study indicates that simply tethering silicon microelectrode arrays to the skull increases the cortical brain tissue response in the recording zone immediately surrounding the microelectrode array, which signals the importance of identifying this important variable when evaluating the tissue response of different device designs, and suggests that untethered or wireless devices may elicit less of a foreign body response. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2007 | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 731203 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Chemistry | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Polymer and Materials Science | en_US |
dc.title | The brain tissue response to implanted silicon microelectrode arrays is increased when the device is tethered to the skull | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Biomedical Engineering | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Engineering | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Macromolecular Science and Engineering Center, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | The Keck Center for Tissue Engineering, Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | The Keck Center for Tissue Engineering, Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ; The Keck Center for Tissue Engineering, Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56096/1/31138_ftp.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31138 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.