A Mouse Model of Cochlear Implantation with Chronic Electric Stimulation

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2019 Apr 19

PMID 30998726

Citations 15

Authors

Alexander D Claussen

Rene Vielman Quevedo

Brian Mostaert

Jonathon R Kirk

Wolfram F Dueck

Marlan R Hansen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Cochlear implants provide an effective treatment option for those with severe hearing loss, including those with preserved low frequency hearing. However, certain issues can reduce implant efficacy including intracochlear tissue response and delayed loss of residual acoustic hearing. We describe a mouse model of cochlear implantation with chronic electric stimulation that can be used to study cochlear implant biology and related pathologies.

Methods: Twelve normal hearing adult CBA/J mice underwent unilateral cochlear implantation and were evenly divided into one group receiving electric stimulation and one not. Serial impedance and neural response telemetry (NRT) measurements were made to assess implant functionality. Functionality was defined as having at least one electrode with an impedance ≤ 35 kOhms. Mouse cochleae were harvested for histology and 3D x-ray microscopy 21 days post-operatively, or, in case the implant was still functional, at a later time point when the implant failed. A separate experiment measured the hearing preservation rate in 7 adult CBA/J mice undergoing unilateral cochlear implantation with serial auditory brainstem response (ABR) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE).

Results: Implants maintained functionality for a mean of 35 days in the non-stimulated group and 19.8 days in the stimulated group. Reliable NRT and behavioral responses to electric stimulation were recorded. A robust intracochlear peri-implant tissue response with neo-ossification was seen in all cochleae. Six of seven mice maintained intact low frequency hearing up to 6 weeks following cochlear implantation.

Conclusions: We demonstrate the feasibility of cochlear implantation and behaviorally significant electric stimulation in the mouse, with the potential for hearing preservation. This model may be combined with established mouse models of hearing loss and the large genetic and molecular research toolkit unique to the mouse for mechanistic and therapeutic investigations of cochlear implant biology.

Citing Articles

Animal models of cochlear implant: Classification and update.

Du H, Li J, Chen W, Guo W, Yang S J Otol. 2024; 19(3):173-177.

PMID: 39735242 PMC: 11681794. DOI: 10.1016/j.joto.2024.05.002.

A Virtual Inner Ear Model Selects Ramped Pulse Shapes for Vestibular Afferent Stimulation.

Chen J, Sprigg J, Castle N, Matson C, Hedjoudje A, Dai C Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(12).

PMID: 38136027 PMC: 10740892. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10121436.

Sheep as a large animal model for hearing research: comparison to common laboratory animals and humans.

Lue P, Oliver M, Neeff M, Thorne P, Suzuki-Kerr H Lab Anim Res. 2023; 39(1):31.

PMID: 38012676 PMC: 10680324. DOI: 10.1186/s42826-023-00182-3.

Contribution of macrophages to neural survival and intracochlear tissue remodeling responses following cochlear implantation.

Rahman M, Mostaert B, Hunger B, Saha U, Claussen A, Razu I J Neuroinflammation. 2023; 20(1):266.

PMID: 37974203 PMC: 10652501. DOI: 10.1186/s12974-023-02955-y.

Electrical stimulation of cochlear implant promotes activation of macrophages and fibroblasts under inflammation.

Zhang D, Chen D, Wang K, Pan J, Tang J, Zhang H Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023; 8(5):1390-1400.

PMID: 37899874 PMC: 10601573. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.1149.

References

Ni D, Shepherd R, Seldon H, Xu S, Clark G, Millard R . Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I: Normal hearing kittens. Hear Res. 1992; 62(1):63-81. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(92)90203-y. View

Van Abel K, Dunn C, Sladen D, Oleson J, Beatty C, Neff B . Hearing preservation among patients undergoing cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36(3):416-21. PMC: 4665646. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000703. View

Brown C, Hughes M, Luk B, Abbas P, Wolaver A, Gervais J . The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear. 2000; 21(2):151-63. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200004000-00009. View

Bas E, Goncalves S, Adams M, Dinh C, Bas J, van de Water T . Spiral ganglion cells and macrophages initiate neuro-inflammation and scarring following cochlear implantation. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015; 9:303. PMC: 4532929. DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2015.00303. View

Leake P, Hradek G, Rebscher S, Snyder R . Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation induces selective survival of spiral ganglion neurons in neonatally deafened cats. Hear Res. 1991; 54(2):251-71. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(91)90120-x. View

Coco A, Epp S, Fallon J, Xu J, Millard R, Shepherd R . Does cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation affect residual hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons?. Hear Res. 2007; 225(1-2):60-70. PMC: 1853285. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.12.004. View

OLeary S, Monksfield P, Kel G, Connolly T, Souter M, Chang A . Relations between cochlear histopathology and hearing loss in experimental cochlear implantation. Hear Res. 2013; 298:27-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.01.012. View

Buytaert J, Johnson S, Dierick M, Salih W, Santi P . MicroCT versus sTSLIM 3D imaging of the mouse cochlea. J Histochem Cytochem. 2013; 61(5):382-95. PMC: 3636707. DOI: 10.1369/0022155413478613. View

Muller M, von Hunerbein K, Hoidis S, Smolders J . A physiological place-frequency map of the cochlea in the CBA/J mouse. Hear Res. 2005; 202(1-2):63-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2004.08.011. View

10.

Navntoft C, Marozeau J, Barkat T . Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice. J Vis Exp. 2019; (143). DOI: 10.3791/58073. View

11.

Shepherd R, Clark G, Black R . Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in cats. Physiological and histopathological results. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1983; 399:19-31. DOI: 10.3109/00016488309105589. View

12.

Gantz B, Dunn C, Oleson J, Hansen M, Parkinson A, Turner C . Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016; 126(4):962-73. PMC: 4803613. DOI: 10.1002/lary.25572. View

13.

Kamakura T, Nadol Jr J . Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human. Hear Res. 2016; 339:132-41. PMC: 5018452. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.06.015. View

14.

Snyder R, Vollmer M, Moore C, Rebscher S, Leake P, Beitel R . Responses of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated intracochlear electrical pulses in deaf cats. J Neurophysiol. 2000; 84(1):166-83. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2000.84.1.166. View

15.

Sams-Dodd F . Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov Today. 2006; 11(7-8):355-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.02.005. View

16.

Clark G, Kranz H, Minas H, Nathar J . Histopathological findings in cochlear implants in cats. J Laryngol Otol. 1975; 89(5):495-504. DOI: 10.1017/s002221510008066x. View

17.

Cogan S, Ludwig K, Welle C, Takmakov P . Tissue damage thresholds during therapeutic electrical stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2016; 13(2):021001. PMC: 5386002. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/021001. View

18.

King J, Shehu I, Roland Jr J, Svirsky M, Froemke R . A physiological and behavioral system for hearing restoration with cochlear implants. J Neurophysiol. 2016; 116(2):844-58. PMC: 4995281. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00048.2016. View

19.

Ishai R, Herrmann B, Nadol Jr J, Quesnel A . The pattern and degree of capsular fibrous sheaths surrounding cochlear electrode arrays. Hear Res. 2017; 348:44-53. PMC: 5738657. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.02.012. View

20.

Mistry N, Nolan L, Saeed S, Forge A, Taylor R . Cochlear implantation in the mouse via the round window: effects of array insertion. Hear Res. 2014; 312:81-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.005. View