4.5 Article

Strial microvascular pathology and age-associated endocochlear potential decline in NOD congenic mice

期刊

HEARING RESEARCH
卷 244, 期 1-2, 页码 85-97

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.08.001

关键词

Cochlea; Presbycusis; Stria vascularis; Marginal cells; Basal cells; intermediate cells; Autoimmunity; Capillary

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DC008321, R01 DC03454, P30 DC04665, P30 NS057105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NOD/ShiLtJ (previously NOD/LtJ) inbred mice show polygenic autoimmune disease and are commonly used to model autoimmune-related type I diabetes, as well as Sjogren's syndrome. They also show rapidly progressing hearing loss, partly due to the combined effects of Cdh23(ahl) and Ahl2. Congenic NOD.NON-H2(nb1)/LtJ mice, which carry corrective alleles within the H2 histocompatibility gene complex, are free from diabetes and other overt signs of autoimmune disease, but still exhibit rapidly progressive hearing loss. Here we show that cochlear pathology in these congenics broadly includes hair cell and neuronal loss, plus endocochlear potential (EP) decline from initially normal values after two months of age. The EP reduction follows often dramatic degeneration of capillaries in stria, vascularis, with resulting strial degeneration. The cochlear modiolus also features perivascular inclusions that resemble those in some mouse autoimmune models. We posit that cochlear hair cell/neural and strial pathology arise independently. While sensory cell loss may be closely tied to Cdh23(ahl) and Ahl2, the strial microvascular pathology and modiolar anomalies we observe may arise from alleles on the NOD background related to immune function. Age-associated EP decline in NOD.NON-H2(nbl) mice may model forms of strial age-related hearing loss caused principally by microvascular disease. The remarkable strial capillary loss in these mice may also be useful for studying the relation between strial vascular insufficiency and strial function. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据