ArticleAnalytical chemistry2016
Evaluation of Drug Concentrations Delivered by Microiontophoresis.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- β-amyloid monomer scavenging by an anticalin protein prevents neuronal hyperactivity in mouse models of Alzheimer's Disease.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Electrokinetic infusions into hydrogels and brain tissue: Control of direction and magnitude of solute delivery.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2019Article
- Successive Release of Tissue Inhibitors of Metalloproteinase-1 Through Graphene Oxide-Based Delivery System Can Promote Skin Regeneration.Nanoscale research letters · 2017Article
- Effects of Glutamate Receptor Activation on Local Oxygen Changes.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microiontophoresis uses an electric current to eject a drug solution from a glass capillary and is often utilized for targeted delivery in neurochemical investigations. The amount of drug ejected, and its effective concentration at the tip, has historically been difficult to determine, which has precluded its use in quantitative studies. To address this, a method called controlled iontophoresis was developed which employs a carbon-fiber microelectrode incorporated into a multibarreled iontophoretic probe to detect the ejection of electroactive species. Here, we evaluate the accuracy of this method. To do this, we eject different concentrations of quinpirole, a D2 receptor agonist, into a brain slice containing the dorsal striatum, a brain region with a high density of dopamine terminals. Local electrical stimulation was used to evoke dopamine release, and inhibitory actions of quinpirole on this release were examined. The amount of drug ejected was estimated by detection of a coejected electrochemical marker. Dose response curves generated in this manner were compared to curves generated by conventional perfusion of quinpirole through the slice. We find several experimental conditions must be optimized for accurate results. First, selection of a marker with an identical charge was necessary to mimic the ejection of the cationic agonist. Next, evoked responses were more precise following longer periods between the end of the ejection and stimulation. Lastly, the accuracy of concentration evaluations was improved by longer ejections. Incorporation of these factors into existing protocols allows for greater certainty of concentrations delivered by controlled iontophoresis.
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.