The method presented here demonstrates a unique neural stimulation paradigm, wherein retinal neurons are chemically stimulated by injecting native neurotransmitter chemicals into the subsurface of the retina in vitro. This chemical stimulation technique offers several benefits over the conventional electrical stimulation technique, including selectivity and high focal specificity of target neurons. The protocol above details how small volume pneumatic injections of the neurotransmitter glutamate delivered near target retinal neurons using either a single-port glass micropipette or a custom micromachined multiport microfluidic device elicit physiologically significant RGC responses. Although this protocol has been demonstrated with only glutamate, the protocol remains useful for studying chemical stimulation of the retina with other types of neurotransmitters. Moreover, while it is preferable to use a pMEA for an electrophysiological recording32 as outlined in this protocol, other MEA designs, including the non-perforated type, could be used to achieve similar results as the pMEA. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the most critical steps of our protocol, methods to troubleshoot common problems, and the limitations and future applications of this stimulation technique.
To obtain safe and reliable chemical stimulation, several critical steps must be accomplished in this protocol. One of the critical steps is obtaining a successful retinal preparation by carefully extracting the retina and minimizing the amount of time it is kept outside oxygenated Ames medium, i.e., when flattening the freshly dissected retina on the mesh grid before transferring it onto the pMEA perfused with Ames medium. Initial dissection of the retina requires sharp dissection tools and practice since the rat eye is relatively small. Furthermore, extraction of photoreceptor degenerated retinas can be particularly difficult since they are more fragile than the already fragile normal retinae, and are therefore prone to tearing. The entire dissection process, from initial enucleation to placing the retina on the pMEA, should be accomplished as quickly as possible to prevent premature cell death from lack of oxygen or other nutrients. Mechanical trauma imparted to the tissue during the dissection should be minimized by avoiding a cut through or damage to the tissue, as this can also lead to unnatural neural responses and cell death.
After placing the retina on the pMEA, care should be taken when initiating top and bottom perfusion and suction lines, as this is a common point of failure of the experiment. All perfusion and suction lines must be checked for clearance prior to beginning the experiment and periodically examined throughout the experiment to ensure that air bubbles do not impede the flow through the lines. In particular, the formation of air bubbles within the bottom perfusion line can completely impede the flow of perfusion because of its smaller diameter, and thereby cause a premature end to the experiment by depriving the retina of oxygen and nutrients. Because of the danger of air bubbles, the above protocol is conducted at room temperature rather than at the more ideal physiological temperature to avoid the outgassing of dissolved oxygen or carbon dioxide from the Ames medium solution. If air bubbles do occlude one of the perfusion lines during an experiment, they can usually be dispersed into smaller, non-occluding bubbles by lightly tapping on the perfusion line.
Another common problem related to the perfusion system is fine adjustment of the bottom suction pressure so that it holds the retina firmly in contact with the electrodes but without damage. If the suction pressure is too high, it can suck small pieces of retina through the perforations of the pMEA and eventually lead to the cessation of all neural responses. On the other hand, if the pressure is too low, the retina will float away from the electrodes and therefore disrupt the neural recording. Adjusting the suction pressure between these two extreme levels requires practice and is made easier if the pMEA is used over an inverted microscope, which allows the close observation of the perforations of the pMEA. By observing these perforations while adjusting the suction, one can find the right balance that maintains contact without damaging the retina. To minimize the possibility of photobleaching the photoreceptors when stimulating wild-type retinas, the inverted microscope illuminator should be filtered to emit red light only and visual observations should be completed as quickly as possible.
After ensuring the proper perfusion conditions, the next critical step is referencing the device or pipette with a visible fixed point or marker on the pMEA so that the injection port(s) can be precisely aligned with the electrodes of the pMEA. Typically, this is accomplished via triangulation wherein two reference marks placed onto the rim of the pMEA chamber are coarsely aligned with either the glass micropipette tip or landmarks on the multiport device by visual observation from above using the boom-stand mounted microscope. A finer alignment of the injection port(s) with target electrodes is then achieved by visual inspection through the inverted microscope. Once aligned properly, care should be taken when approaching the retina with either a pipette or a microfluidic device, since any manipulator jitter or drift could crush the retina or damage the pMEA. The best way to avoid accidentally damaging the retina is to continuously monitor the impedance of the pipette electrode to precisely detect contact with the top retinal surface. Impedance measurement can also be used to quickly check if the micropipette tip inserted into subsurface of the retina is blocked, which is indicated by an abnormally high (typically in the gigaohm range) impedance. If blocked, the micropipette tip can usually be cleared by initiating a high pressure pulse with its tip positioned away from the retina to avoid unintentional damage. In rare cases, blocked pipettes may need to be replaced entirely if high pressure pulses do not clear the blockage. An abnormal or high impedance value can also be recorded when the reference electrode does not properly interface between the solution in the pMEA chamber and the patch clamp amplifier.
Once positioned at a target location, the injection volume of glutamate should be tightly controlled by constraining the pressure, injection time, and neurotransmitter concentration to prevent overstimulation of neurons, which has been shown to cause excitotoxic damage. The glutamate injection parameters detailed in this protocol represent a regime that is well below the known threshold for causing glutamate excitotoxicity33 but, when attempting this protocol with other types of neurotransmitters, corresponding threshold levels for excitotoxicity effects must be considered for safe stimulation. Also, the 0.1 psi injection pressure prescribed in the above protocol was derived from the lowest possible pressure setting available on the 8-channel pressure injector used in this study, but has produced successful results consistently. Therefore, 0.1 psi for the neurotransmitter injections is only suggestive, but not restrictive, to achieve successful chemical stimulations. If lower actuation pressures are possible with a different pressure injector, injections may be performed at pressures lower than 0.1 psi.
One limitation of this protocol involving in vitro wholemount retinal preparations is the short experimental time window, which is limited to durations of 8 h or less, even with extreme care taken throughout the entire experiment. This limited experimental time window does not allow examination of any long-term effects of chemical stimulation such as excitotoxicity. Another limitation of this specific protocol is the choice to record at room temperature as opposed to physiological temperature, which likely affects both the visually- and chemically-evoked spike rate responses, since previous studies have shown that lower recording temperatures can alter the spiking rate, response latency, and glutamate uptake rate among several other properties34,35,36,37,38. This limitation could be avoided by using a non-perforated MEA with a heated bottom plate, as opposed to the pMEA, which utilizes a specially designed bottom perfusion plate without a heated plate and/or an effective thermal debubbler for both top and bottom perfusion.
Finally, the in vitro preparation is limited by the necessity for active perfusion of oxygenated Ames medium to keep the retina healthy. The fluid currents caused by the perfusion system are typically much faster than the natural perfusion mechanisms found in the eye in vivo39, and could interfere with chemical injections by drawing injected neurotransmitters away from the retina. Surface-based injections, such as those made with the multiport device, would likely be more susceptible to perfusion current interference compared to subsurface injections though the presence of perfusion from the bottom of the pMEA could cause a similar effect throughout the entire retina. For this reason, glutamate chemicals in the current protocol were delivered with pneumatic pressure, but the injection pressure required for achieving successful stimulation in vivo may be substantially lower than that utilized for in vitro studies.
Chemical stimulation, which seeks to activate neurons with more natural neurotransmitter stimuli, offers an effective alternative to the conventional electrical stimulation but has not yet been seriously explored. As a consequence, there is little literature available describing the protocol or best practices for achieving reliable subretinal chemical stimulation of retinal neurons. Recent studies28 using this protocol have demonstrated that subretinal chemical stimulation of retinal neurons can reliably elicit RGC responses with spatial resolutions comparable or better than electrical stimulation of the retina, and there is evidence that subretinally applied exogenous glutamate can stimulate bipolar cells directly, allowing this method to take advantage of the retina's inherent visual processing circuitry and, presumably, evoking perceptions more similar to natural light stimulation.
Further studies are required to validate these findings in non-murine model systems and investigate issues not addressed by the previous studies, including the long-term effects and practical aspects related to in vivo implementation of this strategy. Therefore, future directions of this approach clearly lie in translating this concept to in vivo animal models by developing suitable technology to achieve long-term chemical delivery and stimulation with an implantable light-powered microfluidic device that serves as a replacement for the degenerated photoreceptor layer. As a relatively understudied stimulation paradigm, the broader applications of chemical stimulation have yet to be discovered, but since the retina is a part of the central nervous system40, this stimulation strategy could potentially be applied in other neural stimulation contexts, such as the treatment of cortical, spinal cord, or neuromuscular disorders using different neurotransmitters. Furthermore, the presented protocol could be more generally adopted for studies investigating the effects of controlled delivery of a drug or other chemicals into neural tissues with fine spatiotemporal resolution in an in vitro setting.