2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2016.05.124
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cysteine residues reduce the severity of dopamine electrochemical fouling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One concern for possible use of microelectrodes in vivo is the fouling of the surface from proteins or from oxidation products of compounds, such as serotonin which can polymerize after oxidation. [48] The resistance of ox-CNH/CFME toward biofouling was determined by comparing the anodic peak current of 1 μM dopamine from the electrode before and after placing the electrode in the brain slice tissue for 2 h. The current after fouling (39 ± 5 nA) significantly decreases from original current (64 ± 3 nA) (paired t -test, p < 0.005, n = 4). However, the decrease is only about 40%, which is less than the decrease observed at unmodified CFMEs, where the dopamine anodic current decreased by 70% [49] .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One concern for possible use of microelectrodes in vivo is the fouling of the surface from proteins or from oxidation products of compounds, such as serotonin which can polymerize after oxidation. [48] The resistance of ox-CNH/CFME toward biofouling was determined by comparing the anodic peak current of 1 μM dopamine from the electrode before and after placing the electrode in the brain slice tissue for 2 h. The current after fouling (39 ± 5 nA) significantly decreases from original current (64 ± 3 nA) (paired t -test, p < 0.005, n = 4). However, the decrease is only about 40%, which is less than the decrease observed at unmodified CFMEs, where the dopamine anodic current decreased by 70% [49] .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[27][28] This contributes to drift by altering the surface area (affecting capacitance) and the composition of chemical functionalities on the sensor surface. 27,[29][30] Electrode fouling can occur via electropolymerization of redox-active species, [31][32] tissue encapsulation, or adsorption of macromolecules to alter the active sensing surface (and its impedance properties). [33][34][35] Additionally, ionic and molecular fluctuations are common in vivo, and can transiently alter the double-layer structure, shifting capacitance.…”
Section: Electrochemical Drift In Fscv Recordingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, being primarily a background subtraction technique, FSCV measurements are limited to short time intervals (<90 s) due to the instability of the background currents, i.e., background drifting (Oh et al, 2016;Oh et al, 2016;Mark DeWaele et al, 2017;Meunier et al, 2019). This background drift can be attributed to a number of factors, comprising the changes occurring at the carbon surface itself-i.e., chemical reaction of electrode material, non-specific absorption of proteins, deposition of byproducts of electrochemical reactions (Harreither et al, 2016;Hensley et al, 2018;Puthongkham and Venton, 2020)-and changes in the surrounding chemical and biological neuroenvironment-i.e., pH and local blood flow fluctuations (Mark DeWaele et al, 2017;Roberts and Sombers, 2018;Meunier et al, 2019). To predict the noise and extract the signal contribution from the drifting background, signal filtering (Mark DeWaele et al, 2017;Puthongkham and Venton, 2020), multivariate analyses (Hermans et al, 2008;Meunier et al, 2019), and waveform manipulations combined with mathematical techniques (Oh et al, 2016;Meunier et al, 2019) have been investigated, but they require training sets (Johnson et al, 2016;Puthongkham and Venton, 2020) and/or data preprocessing (Puthongkham and Venton, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%