4.5 Article

Age-related hearing loss and the ahl locus in mice

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 188, Issue 1-2, Pages 21-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00365-4

Keywords

ahl; presbycusis; aging; cochlea; mice; hearing

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA034196-16S19007, P30 CA034196, CA34196] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC003395-03, DC 62108, R0-1 DC003395, R21 DC005846-01A1, R21 DC005846, R03 DC004376-02] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

C5713L/6 (136) mice experience hearing loss and cochlear degeneration beginning about mid-life, whereas CAST/Ei (CAST) mice retain normal hearing until old age. A locus contributing to the hearing loss of B6 mice, named age-related hearing loss (ahl), was mapped to Chromosome 10. A homozygous, congenic strain of mice (B6.CAST-+(ahl)), generated by crossing B6 ((ahl)/(ahl)) and CAST (+(ahl)/+(ahl)) mice has the same genomic material as the 136 mice except in the region of the ahl locus, which is derived from CAST. In this study, we have determined the extent of the CAST-derived region of Chromosome 10 in the congenic strain and have examined mice of all three strains for hearing loss and cochlear morphology between 9 and 25 months of age. Results for B6 mice were similar to those described previously. CAST mice showed no detectable hearing loss even at 24 months of age; however, they. had a small amount of ganglion cell degeneration. B6.CAST-+(ahl) mice were protected from early onset hearing loss and basal turn degeneration. but older animals did show some hearing loss and ganglion cell degeneration. We conclude that loci in addition to ahl contribute to the differences in hearing loss between B6 and CAST mice. These results illustrate the complex inheritance of age-related hearing loss in mice and may have implications for the study of human presbycusis. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available