Significance: Electrophysiological recording and optical imaging are two prevalent neurotechnologies with complementary strengths, the combined application of which can significantly improve our capacity in deciphering neural circuits. Flexible electrode arrays can support longitudinal optical imaging in the same brain region, but their mechanical flexibility makes surgical preparation challenging. Here, we provide a step-by-step protocol by which an ultraflexible nanoelectronic thread is co-implanted with a cranial window in a single surgery to enable chronic, dual-modal measurements. Aim: The method uses 1-μm-thick polymer neural electrodes which conform to the site of implantation. The mechanical flexibility of the probe allows bending without breaking and enables long-lasting electrophysiological recordings of single-unit activities and concurrent, high-resolution optical imaging through the cranial window. Approach: The protocol describes methods and procedures to co-implant an ultraflexible electrode array and a glass cranial window in the mouse neocortex. The implantation strategy includes temporary attachment of flexible electrodes to a retractable tungsten-microwire insertion shuttle, craniotomy, stereotaxic insertion of the electrode array, skull fixation of the cranial window and electrode, and installation of a head plate. Results: The resultant implant allows simultaneous interrogation of brain activity both electrophysiologically and optically for several months. Importantly, a variety of optical imaging modalities, including wide-field fluorescent imaging, two-photon microscopy, and functional optical imaging, can be readily applied to the specific brain region where ultraflexible electrodes record from. Conclusions: The protocol describes a method for co-implantation of ultraflexible neural electrodes and a cranial window for chronic, multimodal measurements of brain activity in mice. Device preparation and surgical implantation are described in detail to guide the adaptation of these methods for other flexible neural implants and cranial windows. |
1.IntroductionThe brain has an enormous dynamic range spatially and temporally. Temporally, moment-by-moment information is processed at milliseconds,1 but changes in activity patterns that underlie adaptation, learning, development, and degeneration occur on broader timescales ranging from seconds to years and even decades.2–4 Spatially, neural activity involves not only cellular and subcellular structural and functional changes, but also orchestrated activities distributed across multiple brain areas. In addition to neuronal activity, brain functions and dysfunctions also stem from the interaction between other cell types and surrounding vasculature.5,6 Resolving these multifaceted activities requires technologies with cross-brain coverage, long-lasting functioning periods, and high spatial and temporal resolutions that match the network in question.7 Electrophysiology, one of the “gold standard” tools in detecting neuronal dynamics, affords high temporal resolution detection and direct neural activation, but is limited by its low spatial resolution incapable of resolving fine cellular and subcellular structures. In contrast, optical imaging and modulation techniques offer high spatial resolution8,9 and cell type specificity,10 and can measure non-neuronal, non-electrical activities.11,12 Nevertheless, they are limited by their generally low temporal resolution and insufficient tissue penetration depth. Integrating the electrical and optical measurements in the same brain leverages their complementary strengths, which has become an emerging approach for synchronously observing and controlling brain activities of a specific region.13–18 Among various designs of neural electrodes, flexible electrodes15,19,20 are uniquely well-suited for concurrent, closely opposed optical and electrophysiological data collection. The mechanical flexibility allows these electrodes to be implanted beneath a cranial window and bent out of the way at a small radius without breaking or obstructing the optical view.15,16,20 Furthermore, and importantly, their mechanical flexibility alleviates mechanical micromotions21 and foreign-body responses22–27 at the tissue–electrode interface, which enables long-lasting recordings and stability to track individual neurons.15,28–30 However, the same mechanical flexibility makes surgical implantation a challenge. Here we use a -thick, ultraflexible nanoelectronic thread (NET)15 to provide step-by-step guidance for surgical co-implantation of flexible electrodes and a cranial window in a single procedure. We include not only surgical procedures, but also preparation of ultraflexible electrodes for implantation and attachment of retractable shuttle devices (Fig. 1). To facilitate the adaptation of this method to other flexible electrodes, we use mostly off-the-shelf components, including cover glass as the cranial window, tungsten microwires as the shuttle devices, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) microtubes as the guiding structures for shuttle devices. The same procedures can also be adapted to implanting other customized cranial windows of different sizes and materials. 2.ProtocolThis protocol starts with pre-surgery device preparations for which a single-shank 32-channel NET electrode array is temporarily attached to an insertion shuttle made of a tungsten microwire. It proceeds with descriptions of surgical techniques and implantation steps required to successfully implant both the NET array and a cranial window in a mouse (Fig. 1). It ends with representative electrophysiological recordings and optical imaging from the co-implantation of NET and a cranial window. This protocol assumes the starting materials of a NET array before releasing from the fabrication substrate of glass, a tungsten microwire (diameter: , length: 10 to 15 mm) as the insertion shuttle, the bio-dissolvable adhesive polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the temporary adhesive,31 and a PEEK microtube as the guiding structures for the insertion shuttle (Fig. 2). The pre-released NET array is bonded with a customized printed circuit board (PCB) by a standard ball grid array packaging method, in which solder balls are manually placed on the bonding pad of NETs and brought into contact with the PCB that has matching copper pads. The assembly is then heated in a reflow oven to melt the solder balls and make a permanent bonding. After bonding, epoxy is applied at the edge of the NET device where it meets the PCB as mechanical reinforcement. The tip of the tungsten shuttle is pre-sharpened using KOH electrochemical etching as previously reported.32 This protocol also uses a #1 cover glass (diameter: 3 mm) and a 3D-printed piece to securely attach the NET device to a stereotaxic micromanipulator. All animal-involved protocols described in this protocol have been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Rice University. 2.1.Preparation of Ultraflexible NET for Implantation2.1.1.Assembly of PEEK tube and tungsten shuttle
2.1.2.Alignment of NET thread to the insertion shuttle
2.2.Surgical Procedures for Co-Implantation of NET and a Cranial Window2.2.1.Craniotomy
2.2.2.Implantation of NET
2.2.3.Implantation of chronic cranial window
2.2.4.Postoperative careAnimals will be monitored and documented twice in the first 24 h post-surgery, then daily for four days on body weight, incisional appearance, posture and attitude (grimacing, squinting, walking on toes or hunched. Afterward, the mouse status (body weight; body condition, score as defined by Rice University’s “Monitoring Metric Scoring for Humane Endpoints to Score Animal Discomfort After Surgery” form; head cap condition) is documented weekly post-surgery. 2.3.Representative ResultsAfter this protocol, a 32-channel NET was co-implanted with a glass cranial window over the mouse motor cortex, resulting in closed opposed electrophysiological and optical data collection that lasted over 180 days. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) shows the representative recordings from 16 channels and representative units detected from the recordings at Day 180 after implantation. The unit yield, averaged amplitude of all units, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) increased and fluctuated in the first 60 days, and remained stable for the rest period without any decay over the time course of 184 days [Figs. 8(c) and 8(d)]. Here “all unit” represents all sorted units from Mountain Sort after rejecting noise and artifact clusters.33 “single unit” represents the units that meet the single unit criteria: the number of spikes with an inter-spike interval smaller than 2 ms is of the total events. The optical window remained clear without significant dura or bone regrowth for the same 6 month period [Fig. 8(e)]. In another animal with a co-implanted 32-channel NET and a glass cranial window over the somatosensory cortex, we showcased a variety of imaging modalities, including wide-field fluorescence imaging34 [Fig. 8(f)] and two-photon imaging of vasculature9 [Fig. 8(g)], and laser speckle contrast imaging of cerebral blood flow35 [Fig. 8(h)]. Mice were awake, head-fixed on a custom-made free-moving treadmill for these measurements. These results show the unique capabilities of the method described in this protocol in enabling longitudinal measurements of the multifaceted brain activity. 3.DiscussionThis protocol provides step-by-step instruction on the implantation preparation of ultraflexible NET and its co-implantation with a cranial window, with the goal of disseminating these reproducible methods to the neuroscience community. While the protocol described here uses a single-shank NET as an example, the same procedures apply to multi-shank flexible electrodes as previously discussed.32 The methods use off-the-shelf, cost-effective components such as tungsten microwires and PEG, which is beneficial for their facile adaptation to other designs of flexible electrodes. One caveat associated with this method is the relatively low level of control in the dissolution time of PEG, resulting from the simple design of the shuttle device and adhesion mechanism. A more sophisticated design of the shuttle device, e.g., containing microfabricated reservoirs of PEG,36 can alleviate this problem. An alternative shuttle-device attachment mechanism, such as the needle and thread sewing mechanism,15 provides a promising approach to precisely control when and where the insertion shuttle detaches from the flexible electrodes. 4.MaterialsTable 1 lists materials and relevant information. Table 1Materials list.
DisclosuresL.L. and C.X. are co-inventors on a patent on the ultraflexible neural electrode technology described herein, filed by The University of Texas (WO2019051163A1, 14 March 2019). L.L. and C.X. hold equity ownership in Neuralthread Inc., an entity that is licensing this technology. The authors declare no other competing interests. AcknowledgmentsThis work was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, under U01 NS115588 (to C.X.), R01NS109361 (to L.L.), and R01NS102917 (to C.X.); and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, under K25HL140153 (to L.L.). Code, Data, and Materials AvailabilityAll data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors. ReferencesA. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley,
“A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve,”
J. Physiol., 117 500
–544
(1952). https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764 JPHYA7 0022-3751 Google Scholar
E. L. Bennett et al.,
“Chemical and anatomical plasticity brain,”
Science, 146 610
–619
(1964). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3644.610 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar
W. J. Freed, L. de Medinaceli and R. J. Wyatt,
“Promoting functional plasticity in the damaged nervous system,”
Science, 227 1544
–1552
(1985). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3975624 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar
S. N. Burke and C. A. Barnes,
“Neural plasticity in the ageing brain,”
Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 7 30
–40
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1809 NRNAAN 1471-003X Google Scholar
H. Girouard and C. Iadecola,
“Neurovascular coupling in the normal brain and in hypertension, stroke, and Alzheimer disease,”
J. Appl. Physiol., 100 328
–335
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00966.2005 Google Scholar
S. Schaeffer and C. Iadecola,
“Revisiting the neurovascular unit,”
Nat. Neurosci., 24 1198
–1209
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00904-7 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar
L. Luan et al.,
“Recent advances in electrical neural interface engineering: minimal invasiveness, longevity, and scalability,”
Neuron, 108 302
–321
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.10.011 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar
Y. Adam et al.,
“Voltage imaging and optogenetics reveal behaviour-dependent changes in hippocampal dynamics,”
Nature, 569 413
–417
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1166-7 Google Scholar
F. Helmchen and W. Denk,
“Deep tissue two-photon microscopy,”
Nat. Methods, 2 932
–940
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth818 1548-7091 Google Scholar
E. S. Boyden et al.,
“Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity,”
Nat. Neurosci., 8 1263
–1268
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1525 NANEFN 1097-6256 Google Scholar
D. Kleinfeld et al.,
“Fluctuations and stimulus-induced changes in blood flow observed in individual capillaries in layers 2 through 4 of rat neocortex,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95 15741
–15746
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.26.15741 PNASA6 0027-8424 Google Scholar
E. Bindocci et al.,
“Three-dimensional Ca(2+) imaging advances understanding of astrocyte biology,”
Science, 356 8185
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8185 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar
J. Lee et al.,
“Transparent intracortical microprobe array for simultaneous spatiotemporal optical stimulation and multichannel electrical recording,”
Nat. Methods, 12 1157
–1162
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3620 1548-7091 Google Scholar
D. W. Park et al.,
“Fabrication and utility of a transparent graphene neural electrode array for electrophysiology, in vivo imaging, and optogenetics,”
Nat. Protoc., 11 2201
–2222
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.127 1754-2189 Google Scholar
L. Luan et al.,
“Ultraflexible nanoelectronic probes form reliable, glial scar-free neural integration,”
Sci. Adv., 3 e1601966
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601966 STAMCV 1468-6996 Google Scholar
L. Luan et al.,
“Nanoelectronics enabled chronic multimodal neural platform in a mouse ischemic model,”
J. Neurosci. Methods, 295 68
–76
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.12.001 JNMEDT 0165-0270 Google Scholar
F. He et al.,
“Multimodal mapping of neural activity and cerebral blood flow reveals long-lasting neurovascular dissociations after small-scale strokes,”
Sci. Adv., 6 eaba1933
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1933 STAMCV 1468-6996 Google Scholar
M. Thunemann et al.,
“Deep 2-photon imaging and artifact-free optogenetics through transparent graphene microelectrode arrays,”
Nat. Commun., 9 2035
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04457-5 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar
W. Lee et al.,
“Transparent, conformable, active multielectrode array using organic electrochemical transistors,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114 10554
–10559
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703886114 PNASA6 0027-8424 Google Scholar
X. Wei et al.,
“Nanofabricated ultraflexible electrode arrays for high-density intracortical recording,”
Adv. Sci., 5 1700625
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201700625 Google Scholar
A. Gilletti and J. Muthuswamy,
“Brain micromotion around implants in the rodent somatosensory cortex,”
J. Neural Eng., 3 189
–195
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/3/3/001 1741-2560 Google Scholar
P. J. Rousche and R. A. Normann,
“Chronic recording capability of the Utah Intracortical Electrode Array in cat sensory cortex,”
J. Neurosci. Methods, 82 1
–15
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(98)00031-4 JNMEDT 0165-0270 Google Scholar
J. C. Williams, R. L. Rennaker and D. R. Kipke,
“Long-term neural recording characteristics of wire microelectrode arrays implanted in cerebral cortex,”
Brain Res. Brain Res. Protoc., 4 303
–313
(1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1385-299x(99)00034-3 BRREAP 0006-8993 Google Scholar
D. R. Kipke et al.,
“Silicon-substrate intracortical microelectrode arrays for long-term recording of neuronal spike activity in cerebral cortex,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 11 151
–155
(2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2003.814443 Google Scholar
J. C. Barrese et al.,
“Failure mode analysis of silicon-based intracortical microelectrode arrays in non-human primates,”
J. Neural Eng., 10 066014
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066014 1741-2560 Google Scholar
J. D. Simeral et al.,
“Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array,”
J. Neural Eng., 8 025027
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025027 1741-2560 Google Scholar
G. W. Fraser and A. B. Schwartz,
“Recording from the same neurons chronically in motor cortex,”
J. Neurophysiol., 107 1970
–1978
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01012.2010 JONEA4 0022-3077 Google Scholar
C. Xie et al.,
“Three-dimensional macroporous nanoelectronic networks as minimally invasive brain probes,”
Nat. Mater., 14 1286
–1292
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4427 NMAACR 1476-1122 Google Scholar
T. M. Fu et al.,
“Stable long-term chronic brain mapping at the single-neuron level,”
Nat. Methods, 13 875
–882
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3969 1548-7091 Google Scholar
J. E. Chung et al.,
“High-density, long-lasting, and multi-region electrophysiological recordings using polymer electrode arrays,”
Neuron, 101 21
–31.e5
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.002 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar
S. H. Felix et al.,
“Insertion of flexible neural probes using rigid stiffeners attached with biodissolvable adhesive,”
J. Vis. Exp.,
(79), e50609
(2013). https://doi.org/10.3791/50609 Google Scholar
Z. Zhao et al.,
“Parallel, minimally-invasive implantation of ultra-flexible neural electrode arrays,”
J. Neural Eng., 16 035001
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab05b6 1741-2560 Google Scholar
J. E. Chung et al.,
“A fully automated approach to spike sorting,”
Neuron, 95 1381
–1394.e6
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.08.030 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar
J. A. Cardin, M. C. Crair and M. J. Higley,
“Mesoscopic imaging: shining a wide light on large-scale neural dynamics,”
Neuron, 108 33
–43
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.031 NERNET 0896-6273 Google Scholar
A. K. Dunn,
“Laser speckle contrast imaging of cerebral blood flow,”
Ann. Biomed. Eng., 40 367
–377
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0469-0 ABMECF 0090-6964 Google Scholar
H. R. Joo et al.,
“A microfabricated, 3D-sharpened silicon shuttle for insertion of flexible electrode arrays through dura mater into brain,”
J. Neural Eng., 16 066021
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab2b2e 1741-2560 Google Scholar
BiographyRongkang Yin received his PhD in integrated life science from Peking University in 2019. Currently, he is a postdoctoral fellow working in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface at Rice University. Brian C. Noble received his BS degree in physics from the University of North Florida in 2018. He currently is a PhD student in the applied physics program at Rice University working in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface. Fei He received his PhD in optical engineering from Zhejiang University in 2010. He worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface from 2017 to 2021. He is now a principal investigator at Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, working on the interdisciplinary brain sciences and optoelectronics. Palvo Zolotavin received his PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Chicago in 2013. After graduation he became a postdoctoral research associate at the Department of Physics at Rice University. He then joined Lam Research as a process engineer. He is currently a research scientist in Professor Chong Xie’s Nanoscale Neural Interface Laboratory at Rice University. Haad Rathore received his BS in electrical engineering from Lahore University of Management Science in 2017 and his master’s degree in applied physics from Rice University in 2019. He is currently a PhD student in the Applied Physics Program at Rice University working in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface. Yifu Jin received his BS in bioengineering from University of California San Diego in 2019. He is now a PhD student in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Rice University working in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface. Nicole Sevilla received her BS degree in biomedical engineering from Florida International University in 2019. She is currently a PhD student in the Department of Bioengineering at Rice University working in the Luan Laboratory of Integrative Neural Interface Chong Xie is currently an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and of bioengineering at Rice University, and a core faculty member of the Rice Neuroengineering Initiative. His research focuses on the development of ultraflexible neural electrodes for large-scale, long-lasting neural interfaces. Lan Luan is currently an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and of bioengineering at Rice University, and a core faculty member of the Rice Neuroengineering Initiative. Her laboratory works on the development of multimodal neural interface integrating optical and electrophysiological measurements and their application in neurological disorders. |