ReviewJournal of neuroscience methods2015
Experimental evaluation and computational modeling of tissue damage from low-flow push-pull perfusion sampling in vivo.
Review in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Local Chemical Gradients in a Mammalian Cortex Measured In Vivo With a Silicon Nanodialysis Mass Spectrometry Platform.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026Article
- Region-specific proteomic profiling of brain interstitial fluidLab on a chip · 2026Article
- Article
- Computational Modeling as a Tool to Drive the Development of a Novel, Chemical Device for Monitoring the Injured Brain and Body.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2023Article
- Microdialysis and microperfusion electrodes in neurologic disease monitoring.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2021Review
- New chemical biopsy tool for spatially resolved profiling of human brain tissue in vivo.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Label-free time- and space-resolved exometabolite sampling of growing plant roots through nanoporous interfaces.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Use and Future Prospects of in Vivo Microdialysis for Epilepsy Studies.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2019Review
- Microdialysis as an Important Technique in Systems Pharmacology-a Historical and Methodological Review.The AAPS journal · 2017Review
- Conceptual and Experimental Tools to Understand Spatial Effects and Transport Phenomena in Nonlinear Biochemical Networks Illustrated with Patchy Switching.Annual review of biochemistry · 2017Review
- Numerical Modeling of Electroosmotic Push-Pull Perfusion and Assessment of Its Application to Quantitative Determination of Enzymatic Activity in the Extracellular Space of Mammalian Tissue.Analytical chemistry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurochemical monitoring via sampling probes is valuable for deciphering neurotransmission in vivo. Microdialysis is commonly used; however, the spatial resolution is poor. NEW
methodRecently push-pull perfusion at low flow rates (50nL/min) has been proposed as a method for in vivo sampling from the central nervous system. Tissue damage from such probes has not been investigated in detail. In this work, we evaluated acute tissue response to low-flow push-pull perfusion by infusing the nuclear stains Sytox Orange and Hoechst 33342 through probes implanted in the striatum for 200min, to label damaged and total cells, respectively, in situ.
resultsUsing the damaged/total labeled cell ratio as a measure of tissue damage, we found that 33±8% were damaged within the dye region around a microdialysis probe. We found that low-flow push-pull perfusion probes damaged 24±4% of cells in the sampling area. Flow had no effect on the number of damaged cells for low-flow push-pull perfusion. Modeling revealed that shear stress and pressure gradients generated by the flow were lower than thresholds expected to cause damage. Comparison with existing methods.Push-pull perfusion caused less tissue damage but yielded 1500-fold better spatial resolution.
conclusionsPush-pull perfusion at low flow rates is a viable method for sampling from the brain with potential for high temporal and spatial resolution. Tissue damage is mostly caused by probe insertion. Smaller probes may yield even lower damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.