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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Han, Shaner, Sebastian, Otte, Elisabeth, Asplund, Maria, Vlachos, Andreas
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