Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single-layer graphene modulates neuronal communication and augments membrane ion currents

  • Article
  • Published:

From Nature Nanotechnology

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

The use of graphene-based materials to engineer sophisticated biosensing interfaces that can adapt to the central nervous system requires a detailed understanding of how such materials behave in a biological context. Graphene’s peculiar properties can cause various cellular changes, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we show that single-layer graphene increases neuronal firing by altering membrane-associated functions in cultured cells. Graphene tunes the distribution of extracellular ions at the interface with neurons, a key regulator of neuronal excitability. The resulting biophysical changes in the membrane include stronger potassium ion currents, with a shift in the fraction of neuronal firing phenotypes from adapting to tonically firing. By using experimental and theoretical approaches, we hypothesize that the graphene–ion interactions that are maximized when single-layer graphene is deposited on electrically insulating substrates are crucial to these effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1: Characterization of the substrates.
Fig. 2: SLG increases neuronal network activity.
Fig. 3: SLG does not increase the number of synapses or affect the network composition.
Fig. 4: SLG triggers changes in single-cell intrinsic excitability.
Fig. 5: Spike-rate network model.
Fig. 6: Graphene depletes potassium at the cell/substrate cleft.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geim, A. K. & Novoselov, K. S. The rise of graphene. Nat. Mater. 6, 183–191 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yang, Y. et al. Graphene based materials for biomedical applications. Mat. Today 16, 365–373 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Li, X. et al. Transfer of large-area graphene films for high-performance transparent conductive electrodes. Nano Lett. 9, 4359–4363 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shin, S. R. et al. Graphene-based materials for tissue engineering. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 105, 255–274 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu, Y. et al. Flexible neural electrode array based-on porous graphene for cortical microstimulation and sensing. Sci. Rep. 6, 33526 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fabbro, A. et al. Graphene-based interfaces do not alter target nerve cells. ACS Nano 10, 615–623 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rauti, R. et al. Graphene oxide nanosheets reshape synaptic function in cultured brain networks. ACS Nano 10, 4459–4471 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Famm, K. et al. Drug discovery: a jump-start for electroceuticals. Nature 496, 159–161 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rivnay, J. et al. Next-generation probes, particles, and proteins for neural interfacing. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601649 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cançado, L. G. et al. Quantifying defects in graphene via Raman spectroscopy at different excitation energies. Nano Lett. 11, 3190–3196 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, J. et al. Monolayer graphene-directed growth and neuronal differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 11, 2024–2033 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Baldrighi, M. et al. Carbon nanomaterials interfacing with neurons: an in vivo perspective. Front. Neurosci. 10, 250 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lovat, V. et al. Carbon nanotube substrates boost neuronal electrical signaling. Nano Lett. 5, 1107–1110 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cellot, G. et al. Carbon nanotubes might improve neuronal performance by favouring electrical shortcuts. Nat. Nanotech. 4, 126–133 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cellot, G. et al. Carbon nanotube scaffolds tune synaptic strength in cultured neural circuits: novel frontiers in nanomaterial-tissue interactions. J. Neurosci. 31, 12945–12953 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Raastad, M. et al. Putative single quantum and single fibre excitatory postsynaptic currents show similar amplitude range and variability in rat hippocampal slices. Eur. J. Neurosci. 4, 113–117 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pampaloni, N. P. et al. Sculpting neurotransmission during synaptic development by 2D nanostructured interfaces. Nanomedicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2017.01.020 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Arosio, D. & Ratto, G. M. Twenty years of fluorescence imaging of intracellular chloride. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 8, 258 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cherubini, E. GABA mediated excitation in immature rat CA3 hippocampal neurons. Int J. Dev. Neurosci. 8, 481–490 (1990).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Marandi, N., Konnerth, A. & Garaschuk, O. Two-photon chloride imaging in neurons of brain slices. Pflug. Arch. 445, 357–365 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruscheweyh, R. & Sandkuhler, J. Lamina-specific membrane and discharge properties of rat spinal dorsal horn neurones in vitro. J. Physiol. 541, 231–244 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chang, Y. M. & Luebke, J. I. Electrophysiological diversity of layer 5 pyramidal cells in the prefrontal cortex of the rhesus monkey: in vitro slice studies. J. Neurophysiol. 98, 2622–2632 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Routh, B. N. et al. Anatomical and electrophysiological comparison of CA1 pyramidal neurons of the rat and mouse. J. Neurophysiol. 102, 2288–2302 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Renganathan, M., Cummins, T. R. & Waxman, S. G. Contribution of Na(v)1.8 sodium channels to action potential electrogenesis in DRG neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 86, 629–640 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kress, G. J. et al. Axonal sodium channel distribution shapes the depolarized action potential threshold of dentate granule neurons. Hippocampus 20, 558–571 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sah, P. & Faber, E. S. Channels underlying neuronal calcium-activated potassium currents. Prog. Neurobiol. 66, 345–353 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Furlan, F. et al. ERG conductance expression modulates the excitability of ventral horn GABAergic interneurons that control rhythmic oscillations in the developing mouse spinal cord. J. Neurosci. 27, 919–928 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Marom, S. & Shahaf, G. Development, learning and memory in large random networks of cortical neurons: lessons beyond anatomy. Q. Rev. Biophys. 35, 63–87 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sterratt, D. Principles of Computational Modelling in Neuroscience (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  30. Kumpf, R. A. & Dougherty, D. A. A mechanism for ion selectivity in potassium channels: computational studies of cation-pi interactions. Science 261, 1708–1710 (1993).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shi, G. et al. Ion enrichment on the hydrophobic carbon-based surface in aqueous salt solutions due to cation–π interactions. Sci. Rep. 3, 3436 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pham, T. A. et al. Salt solutions in carbon nanotubes: the role of cation−π interactions. J. Phys. Chem. C. 120, 7332–7338 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Williams, C. D. et al. Effective polarization in pairwise potentials at the graphene–electrolyte interface. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 703–708 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dong, X. et al. Doping single-layer graphene with aromatic molecules. Small 5, 1422–1426 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chacón-Torres, J. C., Wirtz, L. & Pichler, T. Manifestation of charged and strained graphene layers in the Raman response of graphite intercalation compounds. ACS Nano. 7, 9249–9259 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Novák, M. et al. Solvent effects on ion-receptor interactions in the presence of an external electric field. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 30754–30760 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chen, K. et al. Electronic properties of graphene altered by substrate surface chemistry and externally applied electric field. J. Phys. Chem. C. 116, 6259–6267 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Novoselov, K. et al. Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene. Nature 438, 197–200 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gigante, G. et al. Network events on multiple space and time scales in cultured neural networks and in a stochastic rate model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004547 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gambazzi, L. et al. Diminished activity-dependent brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression underlies cortical neuron microcircuit hypoconnectivity resulting from exposure to mutant huntingtin fragments. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 335, 13–22 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. González-Herrero, H. et al. Graphene tunable transparency to tunneling electrons: a direct tool to measure the local coupling. ACS Nano. 10, 5131–5144 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Praveen, C. S. et al. Adsorption of alkali adatoms on graphene supported by the Au/Ni(111) surface. Phys. Rev. B 92, 075403 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kang, Y.-J. et al. Electronic structure of graphene and doping effect on SiO2. Phys. Rev. B 78, 115404 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Miwa, R. H. et al. Doping of graphene adsorbed on the a-SiO2 surface. Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 163108 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ao, Z. et al. Density functional theory calculations on graphene/α-SiO2(0001) interface. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 7, 158 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fan, X. F. et al. Interaction between graphene and the surface of SiO2. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 24, 305004 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hille, B. Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 2001).

  48. Slomowitz, E. et al. Interplay between population firing stability and single neuron dynamics in hippocampal networks. eLife 4, e04378 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bogaard, A. et al. Interaction of cellular and network mechanisms in spatiotemporal pattern formation in neuronal networks. J. Neurosci. 29, 1677–1687 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Radulescu, R. A. Mechanisms explaining transitions between tonic and phasic firing in neuronal populations as predicted by a low dimensional firing rate model. PLoS One 5, e12695 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wrobel, G. et al. Transmission electron microscopy study of the cell-sensor interface. J. R. Soc. Interface 5, 213–222 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Braun, D. & Fromherz, P. Fluorescence interference-contrast microscopy of cell adhesion on oxidized silicon. Appl. Phys. A 65, 341–348 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ferrari, A. C. et al. Raman spectrum of graphene and graphene layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 187401 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Cançado, L. G. et al. Measuring the degree of stacking order in graphite by Raman spectroscopy. Carbon 46, 272–275 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Alagem, N. et al. Mechanism of Ba(2+) block of a mouse inwardly rectifying K+ channel: differential contribution by two discrete residues. J. Physiol. 534, 381–393 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Alger, B. E. & Nicoll, R. A. Epileptiform burst afterhyperpolarization: calcium-dependent potassium potential in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells. Science 210, 1122–1124 (1980).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Jiang, Y. & MacKinnon, R. The barium site in a potassium channel by X-ray crystallography. J. Gen. Physiol. 115, 269–272 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Drieschner, S. et al. Frequency response of electrolyte-gated graphene electrodes and transistors. J. Phys. D 50, 095304 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Drieschner, S. et al. High surface area graphene foams by chemical vapor deposition. 2D Mater. 3, 045013 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Matruglio, A. et al. Contamination-free suspended graphene structures by a Ti-based transfer method. Carbon 103, 305–310 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sontheimer, H . & Ransom, C. in Patch-Clamp Analysis (ed. Walz, W.) 35–67 (Humana Press, New York, 2007).

  62. Usmani, S. et al. 3D meshes of carbon nanotubes guide functional reconnection of segregated spinal explants. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600087 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  63. D’Amico, F. et al. UV resonant Raman scattering facility at Elettra. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 703, 33–37 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wilcox, R. R. & Rousselet, G. A. A guide to robust statistical methods in neuroscience. Curr. Protoc. Neurosci. 82, 8.42.1–8.42.30 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Lazzarino, S. Dal Zilio and the Facility of NanoFabrication of IOM of Trieste for experimental assistance in the fabrication of suspended SLG and FIB analysis, and N. Secomandi and R. Rauti for assistance in imaging. We thank A. Laio, G. Scoles, A. Nistri and B. Cortés-Llanos for discussion. This paper is based on work supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Program under grant agreement no. 696656 Graphene Flagship and no. 720270 Human Brain Project Flagship, and by the Flanders Research Foundation (grant no. G0F1517N). M.P., as the recipient of the AXA Chair, is grateful to the AXA Research Fund for financial support. M.P. was also supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO (project CTQ2016-76721-R), by the University of Trieste and by Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa program Red (101).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Alessia Matruglio

    Present address: CERIC-ERIC (Central European Research Infrastructure Consortium), Trieste, Italy

  2. These authors contributed equally: Niccolò Paolo Pampaloni, Martin Lottner

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italy

    Niccolò Paolo Pampaloni, Laura Ballerini & Denis Scaini

  2. Walter Schottky Institut and Physik-Department, Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany

    Martin Lottner

  3. Molecular, Cellular, and Network Excitability, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Universiteit Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Michele Giugliano

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Michele Giugliano

  5. Lab of Neural Microcircuitry, Brain Mind Institute, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Michele Giugliano

  6. CNR-IOM—Istituto Officina dei Materiali, Trieste, Italy

    Alessia Matruglio

  7. Elettra Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A., Trieste, Italy

    Francesco D’Amico & Denis Scaini

  8. Department of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Maurizio Prato

  9. Nanobiotechnology Laboratory, CIC biomaGUNE, San Sebastiàn, Spain

    Maurizio Prato

  10. Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain

    Maurizio Prato

  11. Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), CSIC and The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, Bellaterra, Spain

    Josè Antonio Garrido

  12. ICREA3, Barcelona, Spain

    Josè Antonio Garrido

Authors
  1. Niccolò Paolo Pampaloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Lottner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele Giugliano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessia Matruglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco D’Amico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maurizio Prato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Josè Antonio Garrido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Laura Ballerini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Denis Scaini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.P.P. performed electrophysiological experiments, imaging, immunochemistry, confocal microscopy and all the related analysis. M.L. fabricated supported SLG and MLG and performed all material characterization. M.G. performed mathematical simulations and analysis and contributed to the writing of the manuscript; A.M. fabricated suspended SLG and gold-plated samples. F.D.A. and A.M. performed Raman experiments and data analysis on SLG and MLG in wet and dried conditions. M.P., D.S. and L.B. conceived the study. D.S., L.B. and J.A.G. designed the experimental strategy, interpreted the results and wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Josè Antonio Garrido, Laura Ballerini or Denis Scaini.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Results, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1–2, Supplementary References 1–24, Supplementary Figures 1–6

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pampaloni, N.P., Lottner, M., Giugliano, M. et al. Single-layer graphene modulates neuronal communication and augments membrane ion currents. Nature Nanotech 13, 755–764 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0163-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0163-6

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation