ArticleMicromachines2018
Genetic Modulation at the Neural Microelectrode Interface: Methods and Applications.
Article in Micromachines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- DiffCoRank: a comprehensive framework for discovering hub genes and differential gene co-expression in brain implant-associated tissue responses.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Differential Co-Expression Analysis of RNA-Seq Data Reveals Novel Potential Biomarkers of Device-Tissue Interaction.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2022Article
- Bio-integrative design of the neural tissue-device interface.Current opinion in biotechnology · 2021Review
- Self-assembled multifunctional neural probes for precise integration of optogenetics and electrophysiology.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Intracortical Microelectrode Array Unit Yield under Chronic Conditions: A Comparative Evaluation.Micromachines · 2021Review
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Neural Electrodes: Design and Applications.Micromachines · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of implanted microelectrode arrays (MEAs), in the brain, has enabled a greater understanding of neural function, and new treatments for neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders. Glial encapsulation of the device and the loss of neurons at the device-tissue interface are widely believed to reduce recording quality and limit the functional device-lifetime. The integration of microfluidic channels within MEAs enables the perturbation of the cellular pathways, through defined vector delivery. This provides new approaches to shed light on the underlying mechanisms of the reactive response and its contribution to device performance. In chronic settings, however, tissue ingrowth and biofouling can obstruct or damage the channel, preventing vector delivery. In this study, we describe methods of delivering vectors through chronically implanted, single-shank, "Michigan"-style microfluidic devices, 1⁻3 weeks, post-implantation. We explored and validated three different approaches for modifying gene expression at the device-tissue interface: viral-mediated overexpression, siRNA-enabled knockdown, and cre-dependent conditional expression. We observed a successful delivery of the vectors along the length of the MEA, where the observed expression varied, depending on the depth of the injury. The methods described are intended to enable vector delivery through microfluidic devices for a variety of potential applications; likewise, future design considerations are suggested for further improvements on the approach.
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.