Cargando…
A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation method to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, its underlying neural mechanisms warrant further investigation. Indeed, dose–response interrelations are poorly understood. Placing explanted b...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9884911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36470469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2022.109761 |
_version_ | 1784879814100910080 |
---|---|
author | Lu, Han Shaner, Sebastian Otte, Elisabeth Asplund, Maria Vlachos, Andreas |
author_facet | Lu, Han Shaner, Sebastian Otte, Elisabeth Asplund, Maria Vlachos, Andreas |
author_sort | Lu, Han |
collection | PubMed |
description | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation method to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, its underlying neural mechanisms warrant further investigation. Indeed, dose–response interrelations are poorly understood. Placing explanted brain tissue, mostly from mice or rats, into a uniform direct current electric field (dcEF) is a well-established in vitro system to elucidate the neural mechanism of tDCS. Nevertheless, we will show that generating a defined, uniform, and constant dcEF throughout a brain slice is challenging. This article critically reviews the methods used to generate and calibrate a uniform dcEF. We use finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the widely used parallel electrode configuration and show that it may not reliably generate uniform dcEF within a brain slice inside an open interface or submerged chamber. Moreover, equivalent circuit analysis and measurements inside a testing chamber suggest that calibrating the dcEF intensity with two recording electrodes can inaccurately capture the true EF magnitude in the targeted tissue when specific criteria are not met. Finally, we outline why microfluidic chambers are an effective and calibration-free approach of generating spatiotemporally uniform dcEF for DCS in vitro studies, facilitating accurate and fine-scale dcEF adjustments. We are convinced that improving the precision and addressing the limitations of current experimental platforms will substantially improve the reproducibility of in vitro experimental results. A better mechanistic understanding of dose–response relations will ultimately facilitate more effective non-invasive stimulation therapies in patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9884911 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98849112023-02-01 A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods Lu, Han Shaner, Sebastian Otte, Elisabeth Asplund, Maria Vlachos, Andreas J Neurosci Methods Article Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation method to treat neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, its underlying neural mechanisms warrant further investigation. Indeed, dose–response interrelations are poorly understood. Placing explanted brain tissue, mostly from mice or rats, into a uniform direct current electric field (dcEF) is a well-established in vitro system to elucidate the neural mechanism of tDCS. Nevertheless, we will show that generating a defined, uniform, and constant dcEF throughout a brain slice is challenging. This article critically reviews the methods used to generate and calibrate a uniform dcEF. We use finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the widely used parallel electrode configuration and show that it may not reliably generate uniform dcEF within a brain slice inside an open interface or submerged chamber. Moreover, equivalent circuit analysis and measurements inside a testing chamber suggest that calibrating the dcEF intensity with two recording electrodes can inaccurately capture the true EF magnitude in the targeted tissue when specific criteria are not met. Finally, we outline why microfluidic chambers are an effective and calibration-free approach of generating spatiotemporally uniform dcEF for DCS in vitro studies, facilitating accurate and fine-scale dcEF adjustments. We are convinced that improving the precision and addressing the limitations of current experimental platforms will substantially improve the reproducibility of in vitro experimental results. A better mechanistic understanding of dose–response relations will ultimately facilitate more effective non-invasive stimulation therapies in patients. 2023-02-01 2022-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9884911/ /pubmed/36470469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2022.109761 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Article Lu, Han Shaner, Sebastian Otte, Elisabeth Asplund, Maria Vlachos, Andreas A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title | A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title_full | A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title_fullStr | A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title_full_unstemmed | A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title_short | A microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
title_sort | microfluidic perspective on conventional in vitro transcranial direct current stimulation methods |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9884911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36470469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2022.109761 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luhan amicrofluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT shanersebastian amicrofluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT otteelisabeth amicrofluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT asplundmaria amicrofluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT vlachosandreas amicrofluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT luhan microfluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT shanersebastian microfluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT otteelisabeth microfluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT asplundmaria microfluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods AT vlachosandreas microfluidicperspectiveonconventionalinvitrotranscranialdirectcurrentstimulationmethods |