Surface modification of neural recording electrodes with conducting polymer/biomolecule blends

Top Cited Papers
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The interface between micromachined neural microelectrodes and neural tissue plays an important role in chronic in vivo recording. Electrochemical polymerization was used to optimize the surface of the metal electrode sites. Electrically conductive polymers (polypyrrole) combined with biomolecules having cell adhesion functionality were deposited with great precision onto microelectrode sites of neural probes. The biomolecules used were a silk‐like polymer having fibronectin fragments (SLPF) and nonapeptide CDPGYIGSR. The existence of protein polymers and peptides in the coatings was confirmed by reflective microfocusing Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The morphology of the coating was rough and fuzzy, providing a high density of bioactive sites for interaction with neural cells. This high interfacial area also helped to lower the impedance of the electrode site and, consequently, to improve the signal transport. Impedance spectroscopy showed a lowered magnitude and phase of impedance around the biologically relevant frequency of 1 kHz. Cyclic voltammetry demonstrated the intrinsic redox reaction of the doped polypyrrole and the increased charge capacity of the coated electrodes. Rat glial cells and human neuroblastoma cells were seeded and cultured on neural probes with coated and uncoated electrodes. Glial cells appeared to attach better to polypyrrole/SLPF‐coated electrodes than to uncoated gold electrodes. Neuroblastoma cells grew preferentially on and around the polypyrrole/CDPGYIGSR‐coated electrode sites while the polypyrrole/CH3COO−‐coated sites on the same probe did not show a preferential attraction to the cells. These results indicate that we can adjust the chemical composition, morphology, electronic transport, and bioactivity of polymer coatings on electrode surfaces on a multichannel micromachined neural probe by controlling electrochemical deposition conditions. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 56: 261–272, 2001