Biosensors and Bioelectronics 35 (2012) 14–26 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biosensors and Bioelectronics jou rn al h om epa ge: www.elsevier.com/locate/bios Review Implantable enzyme amperometric biosensors Christian N. Kotanen a,d , Francis Gabriel Moussy b , Sandro Carrara c , Anthony Guiseppi-Elie a,d,e,f,g,∗ a Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips (C3B), Clemson University Advanced Materials Center, 100 Technology Drive, Anderson, SC 29625, USA b Brunel Institute for Bioengineering, Brunel University, Uxbridge, West London, UB83PH, UK c Department of Electrical Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), C ISIM LSI1 - INF 338 (Bâtiment INF) Station 14 CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland d Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA e Department of Bioengineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA f Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA g ABTECH Scientific, Inc., Biotechnology Research Park, 800 East Leigh Street, Richmond, VA 23219, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 31 January 2012 Received in revised form 6 March 2012 Accepted 9 March 2012 Available online 28 March 2012 Keywords: Implantable Biochips Biosensors Amperometry In vivo Enzymes a b s t r a c t The implantable enzyme amperometric biosensor continues as the dominant in vivo format for the detec- tion, monitoring and reporting of biochemical analytes related to a wide range of pathologies. Widely used in animal studies, there is increasing emphasis on their use in diabetes care and management, the management of trauma-associated hemorrhage and in critical care monitoring by intensivists in the ICU. These frontier opportunities demand continuous indwelling performance for up to several years, well in excess of the currently approved seven days. This review outlines the many challenges to suc- cessful deployment of chronically implantable amperometric enzyme biosensors and emphasizes the emerging technological approaches in their continued development. The foreign body response plays a prominent role in implantable biotransducer failure. Topics considering the approaches to mitigate the inflammatory response, use of biomimetic chemistries, nanostructured topographies, drug eluting con- structs, and tissue-to-device interface modulus matching are reviewed. Similarly, factors that influence biotransducer performance such as enzyme stability, substrate interference, mediator selection and cal- ibration are reviewed. For the biosensor system, the opportunities and challenges of integration, guided by footprint requirements, the limitations of mixed signal electronics, and power requirements, has pro- duced three systems approaches. The potential is great. However, integration along the multiple length scales needed to address fundamental issues and integration across the diverse disciplines needed to achieve success of these highly integrated systems, continues to be a challenge in the development and deployment of implantable amperometric enzyme biosensor systems. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.1. Generation I biotransducers and unmediated amperometric response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.2. Bioanalytical performance of amperometric biosensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Known failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3. Biocompatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1. Device-to-tissue biointerface design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2. Design approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3. Biomimetic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4. Drug release approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5. Tissue mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.6. Cell seeding and organoid body pre-formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. Bioanalytical performance issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1. Enzyme stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2. Biomolecular interferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ∗ Corresponding author at: Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips (C3B), Clemson University Advanced Materials Center, 100 Technology Drive, Anderson, SC 29625, USA. Tel.: +1 864 656 1712; fax: +1 864 656 1713. E-mail address: guiseppi@clemson.edu (A. Guiseppi-Elie). 0956-5663/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2012.03.016