{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014035087719298246, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.003508771929824, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microdialysis of dopamine interpreted with quantitative model incorporating probe implantation trauma

Although microdialysis is widely used to sample endogenous and exogenous substances in vivo, interpretation of the results obtained by this technique remains controversial. The goal of the present study was to examine recent criticism of microdialysis in the specific case of dopamine (DA) measurements in the brain extracellular microenvironment. The apparent steady‐state basal extracellular concentration and extraction fraction of DA were determined in anesthetized rat striatum by the concentration difference (no‐net‐flux) microdialysis technique. A rate constant for extracellular clearance of DA calculated from the extraction fraction was smaller than the previously determined estimate by fast‐scan cyclic voltammetry for cellular uptake of DA. Because the relatively small size of the voltammetric microsensor produces little tissue damage, the discrepancy between the uptake rate constants may be a consequence of trauma from microdialysis probe implantation. The trauma layer has previously been identified by histology and proposed to distort measurements of extracellular DA levels by the no‐net‐flux method. To address this issue, an existing quantitative mathematical model for microdialysis was modified to incorporate a traumatized tissue layer interposed between the probe and surrounding normal tissue. The tissue layers are hypothesized to differ in their rates of neurotransmitter release and uptake. A post‐implantation traumatized layer with reduced uptake and no release can reconcile the discrepancy between DA uptake measured by microdialysis and voltammetry. The model predicts that this trauma layer would cause the DA extraction fraction obtained from microdialysis in vivo calibration techniques, such as no‐net‐flux, to differ from the DA relative recovery and lead to an underestimation of the DA extracellular concentration in the surrounding normal tissue.