Gravity receptor aging in the CBA/CaJ strain: a comparison to auditory aging.

Bruce Mock, Timothy A Jones, Sherri M Jones
Author Information
  1. Bruce Mock: Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353, USA.

Abstract

The CBA/CaJ mouse strain is commonly used as a control as it has no known genetic mutations affecting the inner ear, maintains hearing sensitivity throughout life, and serves as a background for creating new genetic strains. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the effects of age and gender on gravity receptor function and compare functional changes between auditory and vestibular modalities. Vestibular-evoked potentials (VsEPs), auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), and distortion product otoacoustic emissions were measured in 131 mice. VsEP thresholds deteriorated an average of 0.39 dB re: 1.0 g/ms per month and at the oldest ages (18-23 months old) showed an average loss of 49% of VsEP dynamic range. No significant gender differences were found for VsEPs. ABR thresholds increased by an average of 1.35, 1.38, and 1.15 dB pe SPL per month for ABR stimulus frequencies of 8, 16, and 32 kHz, respectively, demonstrating an average decrease in auditory dynamic range of 25-35% at advanced ages. Both modalities declined with age. Age-related decreases in gravity receptor sensitivity should be considered when using the CBA/CaJ strain for vestibular studies.

References

  1. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1994 Mar-Apr;56(2):61-7 [PMID: 8177586]
  2. Hear Res. 2004 Apr;190(1-2):141-8 [PMID: 15051136]
  3. Hear Res. 1993 May;67(1-2):157-65 [PMID: 8340267]
  4. Audiology. 1992;31(4):181-9 [PMID: 1444929]
  5. Hear Res. 1999 Oct;136(1-2):75-85 [PMID: 10511626]
  6. Am J Otolaryngol. 1983 May-Jun;4(3):151-60 [PMID: 6136193]
  7. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005 Dec;6(4):297-310 [PMID: 16235133]
  8. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002 Jun;3(2):167-73 [PMID: 12162366]
  9. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990 Aug;116(8):932-6 [PMID: 2378721]
  10. Laryngoscope. 1996 Jun;106(6):777-83 [PMID: 8656967]
  11. Am J Otolaryngol. 1999 Nov-Dec;20(6):371-8 [PMID: 10609481]
  12. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1990;45:143-53 [PMID: 2077887]
  13. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Nov;1119:97-111 [PMID: 18056959]
  14. Hear Res. 2008 Sep;243(1-2):87-94 [PMID: 18573325]
  15. J Comp Neurol. 2004 Nov 1;479(1):103-16 [PMID: 15389608]
  16. Hear Res. 2004 May;191(1-2):34-40 [PMID: 15109702]
  17. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Oct;942:220-7 [PMID: 11710464]
  18. Hear Res. 1995 Jan;82(1):44-52 [PMID: 7744712]
  19. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1993 Jan;102(1 Pt 2):1-16 [PMID: 8420477]
  20. Mutat Res. 2008 Apr 2;640(1-2):38-45 [PMID: 18242646]
  21. Laryngoscope. 1997 Mar;107(3):378-81 [PMID: 9121317]
  22. Hear Res. 1996 May;94(1-2):116-24 [PMID: 8789817]
  23. Acta Otolaryngol. 1975 Jan-Feb;79(1-2):67-80 [PMID: 167544]
  24. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004 Oct;12(5):439-43 [PMID: 15377958]
  25. Hear Res. 1990 Sep;48(1-2):79-91 [PMID: 2249962]
  26. Am J Otol. 2000 Mar;21(2):161-7 [PMID: 10733178]
  27. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1990;247(3):189-93 [PMID: 2350511]
  28. J Vestib Res. 1992 Summer;2(2):133-51 [PMID: 1342388]
  29. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2003 Sep;4(3):353-62 [PMID: 14690053]
  30. Exp Brain Res. 1994;98(2):355-72 [PMID: 8050519]
  31. Mitochondrion. 2004 Sep;4(5-6):675-94 [PMID: 16120424]
  32. Acta Otolaryngol. 1991;111(5):827-34 [PMID: 1759567]
  33. Audiol Neurootol. 2005 Mar-Apr;10(2):97-104 [PMID: 15650301]
  34. Acta Otolaryngol. 1994 Jul;114(4):387-92 [PMID: 7976310]
  35. Hear Res. 2004 Jun;192(1-2):83-9 [PMID: 15157966]
  36. Laryngoscope. 2006 Jun;116(6):996-1001 [PMID: 16735917]
  37. Audiology. 2001 Nov-Dec;40(6):313-21 [PMID: 11781044]
  38. Hear Res. 1987;28(1):87-96 [PMID: 3038820]
  39. Brain Res. 2006 May 26;1091(1):89-102 [PMID: 16631134]
  40. Laryngoscope. 1987 Aug;97(8 Pt 1):984-91 [PMID: 3613802]
  41. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;470:80-7 [PMID: 2239238]
  42. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Dec;111(6):799-806 [PMID: 7991262]
  43. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001 Jun;2(2):118-29 [PMID: 11550522]
  44. Hear Res. 2007 Apr;226(1-2):185-93 [PMID: 16870370]
  45. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Sep;127(3):138-44 [PMID: 12297801]
  46. Exp Brain Res. 1993;95(3):509-16 [PMID: 8224077]
  47. Laryngoscope. 2000 May;110(5 Pt 1):727-38 [PMID: 10807352]
  48. Chin Med J (Engl). 2002 Sep;115(9):1390-3 [PMID: 12411120]
  49. Hear Res. 2006 Oct;220(1-2):10-26 [PMID: 16901664]
  50. Hear Res. 2002 Mar;165(1-2):1-9 [PMID: 12031509]
  51. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Jun;101(6):3546-53 [PMID: 9193043]
  52. J Vestib Res. 2001;11(2):91-103 [PMID: 11847453]
  53. Hear Res. 2002 Oct;172(1-2):118-26 [PMID: 12361874]
  54. Brain Res. 2006 May 26;1091(1):40-6 [PMID: 16499890]
  55. Hear Res. 1999 Dec;138(1-2):91-105 [PMID: 10575118]

Grants

  1. F31 DC008012/NIDCD NIH HHS
  2. R01 DC006443/NIDCD NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Aging
Animals
Auditory Pathways
Evoked Potentials, Auditory
Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem
Female
Gravity Sensing
Male
Mice
Mice, Inbred CBA
Models, Animal
Sensory Receptor Cells
Sex Characteristics
Vestibule, Labyrinth

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0auditoryaverage1CBA/CaJreceptorstraingeneticsensitivityagegendergravityvestibularmodalitiesVsEPsVsEPthresholdspermonthagesdynamicrangeABRagingmousecommonlyusedcontrolknownmutationsaffectinginnerearmaintainshearingthroughoutlifeservesbackgroundcreatingnewstrainspurposepresentstudycharacterizeeffectsfunctioncomparefunctionalchangesVestibular-evokedpotentialsbrainstemresponsesABRsdistortionproductotoacousticemissionsmeasured131micedeteriorated039 dBre:0 g/msoldest18-23 monthsoldshowedloss49%significantdifferencesfoundincreased353815 dBpeSPLstimulusfrequencies81632 kHzrespectivelydemonstratingdecrease25-35%advanceddeclinedAge-relateddecreasesconsideredusingstudiesGravitystrain:comparison

Similar Articles

Cited By