Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27167609›Full record

ArticleActa biomaterialia2016

Robust neurite extension following exogenous electrical stimulation within single walled carbon nanotube-composite hydrogels.

A N Koppes, K W Keating, A L McGregor, R A Koppes, K R Kearns, A M Ziemba, C A McKay, J M Zuidema, C J Rivet, R J Gilbert and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Heterogeneous and Composite Bioinks for 3D-Bioprinting of Complex Tissue.Biomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

A N KoppesRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: a.koppes@neu.edu.
K W KeatingRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: kevinwkeating@gmail.com.
A L McGregorRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: alm58@cornell.edu.
R A KoppesRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: r.koppes@neu.edu.
K R KearnsRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: kearnk2@rpi.edu.
A M ZiembaRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: ziemba@rpi.edu.
C A McKayRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: mcka0078@gmail.com.
J M ZuidemaRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: jzuidema@ucsd.edu.
C J RivetRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: chrisjrivet@gmail.com.
R J GilbertRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: gilber2@rpi.edu.
D M ThompsonRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Troy, NY, United States. Electronic address: thompd4@rpi.edu.

Funding

APPLICATION OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION FOR RAPID AND DIRECTED RE-GROWTH VIA ELECTRR01EB013281 · NIBIB · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI THOMPSON, DEANNA M · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB013281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe use of exogenous electrical stimulation to promote nerve regeneration has achieved only limited success. Conditions impeding optimized outgrowth may arise from inadequate stimulus presentation due to differences in injury geometry or signal attenuation. Implantation of an electrically-conductive biomaterial may mitigate this attenuation and provide a more reproducible signal. In this study, a conductive nanofiller (single-walled carbon nanotubes [SWCNT]) was selected as one possible material to manipulate the bulk electrical properties of a collagen type I-10% Matrigel™ composite hydrogel. Neurite outgrowth within hydrogels (SWCNT or nanofiller-free controls) was characterized to determine if: (1) nanofillers influence neurite extension and (2) electrical stimulation of the nanofiller composite hydrogel enhances neurite outgrowth. Increased SWCNT loading (10-100-μg/mL) resulted in greater bulk conductivity (up to 1.7-fold) with no significant changes to elastic modulus. Neurite outgrowth increased 3.3-fold in 20-μg/mL SWCNT loaded biomaterials relative to the nanofiller-free control. Electrical stimulation promoted greater outgrowth (2.9-fold) within SWCNT-free control. The concurrent presentation of electrical stimulation and SWCNT-loaded biomaterials resulted in a 7.0-fold increase in outgrowth relative to the unstimulated, nanofiller-free controls. Local glia residing within the DRG likely contribute, in part, to the observed increases in outgrowth; but it is unknown which specific nanofiller properties influence neurite extension. Characterization of neuronal behavior in model systems, such as those described here, will aid the rational development of biomaterials as well as the appropriate delivery of electrical stimuli to support nerve repair. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Novel biomedical devices delivering electrical stimulation are being developed to mitigate symptoms of Parkinson's, treat drug-resistant depression, control movement or enhance verve regeneration. Carbon nanotubes and other novel materials are being explored for novel nano-neuro devices based on their unique properties. Neuronal growth on carbon nanotubes has been studied in 2D since the early 2000s demonstrating increased outgrowth, synapse formation and network activity. In this work, single-walled carbon nanotubes were selected as one possible electrically-conductive material, dispersed within a 3D hydrogel containing primary neurons; extending previous 2D work to 3D to evaluate outgrowth within nanomaterial composites with electrical stimulation. This is the first study to our knowledge that stimulates neurons in 3D composite nanomaterial-laden hydrogels. Examination of electrically conductive biomaterials may serve to promote regrowth following injury or in long term stimulation.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectric StimulationHydrogelsNanotubesNeuritesNeurogliaRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyHydrogelsElectrical stimulationNanomaterialNerve regenerationNerve tissue engineeringNeuronSWCNT

Identifiers

PMID27167609
PMCPMC4905806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.