Advertisement

Persistent Auditory Nerve Damage Following Kainic Acid Excitotoxicity in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus)

  • Kenneth S. Henry
  • Kristina S. Abrams
Research Article

Abstract

Permanent loss of auditory nerve (AN) fibers occurs with increasing age and sound overexposure, sometimes without hair cell damage or associated audiometric threshold elevation. Rodent studies suggest effects of AN damage on central processing and behavior, but these species have limited capacity to discriminate low-frequency speech-like sounds. Here, we introduce a new animal model of AN damage in an avian communication specialist, the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus). The budgerigar is a vocal learner and speech mimic with sensitive low-frequency hearing and human-like behavioral sensitivity to many complex signals including speech components. Excitotoxic AN damage was induced through bilateral cochlear infusions of kainic acid (KA). Acute KA effects on cochlear function were assessed using AN compound action potentials (CAPs) and hair cell cochlear microphonics (CMs). Long-term KA effects were assessed using auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements for up to 31 weeks post-KA exposure. KA infusion immediately abolished AN CAPs while having mild impact on the CM. ABR wave I, the far-field AN response, showed a pronounced 40–75 % amplitude reduction at moderate-to-high sound levels that persisted for the duration of the study. In contrast, wave I latency and the amplitude of wave V were nearly unaffected by KA, and waves II–IV were less reduced than wave I. ABR thresholds, calculated based on complete response waveforms, showed no impairment following KA. These results demonstrate that KA exposure in the budgerigar causes irreversible AN damage, most likely through excitotoxic injury to afferent fibers or synapses as in other species, while sparing ABR thresholds. Normal wave V amplitude, assumed to originate centrally, may persist through compensatory mechanisms that restore central response amplitude by downregulating inhibition. Future studies in this new animal model of AN damage can explore effects of this neural lesion, in isolation from hair cell trauma and threshold elevation, on central processing and perception of complex sounds.

Keywords

auditory brainstem response central gain cochlear microphonic compound action potential 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R00 DC013792.

Author Contributions

KSH designed the research, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. KSA performed the experiments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beurg M, Tan X, Fettiplace R (2013) A prestin motor in chicken auditory hair cells: active force generation in a nonmammalian species. Neuron 79:69–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.05.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bharadwaj HM, Masud S, Mehraei G, Verhulst S, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2015) Individual differences reveal correlates of hidden hearing deficits. J Neurosci 35:2161–2172.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3915-14.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bharadwaj HM, Verhulst S, Shaheen L, Liberman MC, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2014) Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound. Front Syst Neurosci 8:26.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bledsoe SC, Bobbin RP, Chihal DM (1981) Kainic acid: an evaluation of its action on cochlear potentials. Hear Res 4:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brittan-Powell EF, Dooling RJ, Gleich O (2002) Auditory brainstem responses in adult budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Acoust Soc Am 112:999–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1494807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calford MB (1988) Constraints on the coding of sound frequency imposed by the avian interaural canal. J Comp Physiol A 162:491–502.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00612514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carney LH, Ketterer AD, Abrams KS et al (2013) Detection thresholds for amplitude modulations of tones in budgerigar, rabbit, and human. Adv Exp Med Biol 787:391–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caspary DM, Ling L, Turner JG, Hughes LF (2008) Inhibitory neurotransmission, plasticity and aging in the mammalian central auditory system. J Exp Biol 211:1781–1791.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.013581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caspary DM, Palombi PS, Hughes LF (2002) GABAergic inputs shape responses to amplitude modulated stimuli in the inferior colliculus. Hear Res 168:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers AR, Resnik J, Yuan Y, Whitton JP, Edge AS, Liberman MC, Polley DB (2016) Central gain restores auditory processing following near-complete cochlear denervation. Neuron 89:867–879.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corwin JT, Cotanche DA (1988) Regeneration of sensory hair cells after acoustic trauma. Science 240:1772–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dooling RJ, Best CT, Brown SD (1995) Discrimination of synthetic full-formant and sinewave/ra-la/continua by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Acoust Soc Am 97:1839–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dooling RJ, Brown SD (1990) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): spoken vowels. Percept Psychophys 47:568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dooling RJ, Lohr B, Dent ML (2000) Hearing in birds and reptiles. In: Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Comparative hearing: birds and reptiles. Springer, New York, pp 308–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dooling RJ, Okanoya K, Brown SD (1989) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced–voiceless distinction. Percept Psychophys 46:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dooling RJ, Ryals BM, Dent ML, Reid TL (2006) Perception of complex sounds in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) with temporary hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 119:2524–2532.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2171839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dooling RJ, Ryals BM, Manabe K (1997) Recovery of hearing and vocal behavior after hair-cell regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:14206–14210.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.25.14206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dooling RJ, Saunders JC (1975) Hearing in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus): absolute thresholds, critical ratios, frequency difference limens, and vocalizations. J Comp Physiol Psychol 88:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dooling RJ, Searcy MH (1981) Amplitude modulation thresholds for the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol A 143:383–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00611177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC (2013) Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol 110:577–586.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00164.2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gleich O (1989) Auditory primary afferents in the starling: correlation of function and morphology. Hear Res 37:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gu JW, Herrmann BS, Levine RA, Melcher JR (2012) Brainstem auditory evoked potentials suggest a role for the ventral cochlear nucleus in tinnitus. JARO—J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:819–833.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0344-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall JW III (1992) Auditory evoked response measurement practices. In: Handbook of auditory evoked responses, p 267Google Scholar
  25. Harding GW, Bohne BA (2004) Temporary DPOAE level shifts, ABR threshold shifts and histopathological damage following below-critical-level noise exposures. Hear Res 196:94–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2004.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harding GW, Bohne BA, Ahmad M (2002) DPOAE level shifts and ABR threshold shifts compared to detailed analysis of histopathological damage from noise. Hear Res 174:158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hashino E, Tanaka Y, Salvi RJ, Sokabe M (1992) Hair cell regeneration in the adult budgerigar after kanamycin ototoxicity. Hear Res 59:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heffner HE (1980) Hearing in glires: domestic rabbit, cotton rat, feral house mouse, and kangaroo rat. J Acoust Soc Am 68:1584–1599.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.385213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heil P, Irvine DR (1997) First-spike timing of auditory-nerve fibers and comparison with auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 78:2438–2454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson D, Hamernik RP, Salvi RJ, Ahroon WA (1983) Comparison of auditory-evoked potentials and behavioral thresholds in the normal and noise-exposed chinchilla. Audiology 22:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henry KS, Abrams KS, Forst J, Mender MJ, Neilans EG, Idrobo F, Carney LH (2017) Midbrain synchrony to envelope structure supports behavioral sensitivity to single-formant vowel-like sounds in noise. JARO—J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18:165–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0594-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henry KS, Neilans EG, Abrams KS, Idrobo F, Carney LH (2016) Neural correlates of behavioral amplitude modulation sensitivity in the budgerigar midbrain. J Neurophysiol 115:1905–1916.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01003.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hickox AE, Larsen E, Heinz MG, Shinobu L, Whitton JP (2017) Translational issues in cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 349:164–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hickox AE, Liberman MC (2014) Is noise-induced cochlear neuropathy key to the generation of hyperacusis or tinnitus? J Neurophysiol 111:552–564.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00184.2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juiz JM, Rueda J, Merchán JA, Sala ML (1989) The effects of kainic acid on the cochlear ganglion of the rat. Hear Res 40:65–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(89)90100-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koay G, Heffner RS, Heffner HE (2002) Behavioral audiograms of homozygous medJ mutant mice with sodium channel deficiency and unaffected controls. Hear Res 171:111–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00492-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Konishi M (1964) Effects of deafening on song development in two species of juncos. Condor 66:85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Köppl C, Wegscheider A, Gleich O, Manley GA (2000) A quantitative study of cochlear afferent axons in birds. Hear Res 139:123–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(99)00178-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC (2009) Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 29:14077–14085.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2845-09.2009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larsen ON, Dooling RJ, Michelsen A (2006) The role of pressure difference reception in the directional hearing of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sensory, Neural, Behav Physiol 192:1063–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0138-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liberman LD, Liberman MC (2015) Dynamics of cochlear synaptopathy after acoustic overexposure. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16:205–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0510-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liberman MC, Kujawa SG (2017) Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res 349:138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin HW, Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC (2011) Primary neural degeneration in the guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. JARO—J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12:605–616.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-011-0277-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lobarinas E, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG (2017) Evidence of “hidden hearing loss” following noise exposures that produce robust TTS and ABR wave-I amplitude reductions. Hear Res 349:155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Makary CA, Shin J, Kujawa SG et al (2011) Age-related primary cochlear neuronal degeneration in human temporal bones. JARO—J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12:711–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-011-0283-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manley GA, Gleich O, Leppelsack HJ, Oeckinghaus H (1985) Activity patterns of cochlear ganglion neurones in the starling. J Comp Physiol A 157:161–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01350025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manley GA, Schwabedissen G, Gleich O (1993) Morphology of the basilar papilla of the budgerigar,Melopsittacus undulatus. J Morphol 218:153–165.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052180205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marean GC, Burt JM, Beecher MD, Rubel EW (1998) Auditory perception following hair cell regeneration in European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): frequency and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 103:3567–3580.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mehraei G, Hickox AE, Bharadwaj HM, Goldberg H, Verhulst S, Liberman MC, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2016) Auditory brainstem response latency in noise as a marker of cochlear synaptopathy. J Neurosci 36:3755–3764.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4460-15.2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson PC, Carney LH (2004) A phenomenological model of peripheral and central neural responses to amplitude-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am 116:2173–2186.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1784442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nelson PC, Carney LH (2007) Neural rate and timing cues for detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated tones in the awake rabbit inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 97:522–539.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00776.2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Otte J, Schuknecht HF, Kerr AG (1978) Ganglion cell populations in normal and pathological human cochleae. Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 88:1231–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-197808000-00004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oxenham AJ (2016) Predicting the perceptual consequences of hidden hearing loss. Trends Hear 20:233121651668676.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216516686768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plack CJ, Léger A, Prendergast G, Kluk K, Guest H, Munro KJ (2016) Toward a diagnostic test for hidden hearing loss. Trends Hear 20:233121651665746.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216516657466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prendergast G, Guest H, Munro KJ, Kluk K, Léger A, Hall DA, Heinz MG, Plack CJ (2017) Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms I: electrophysiology. Hear Res 344:68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.10.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Puel JL, Ruel J, Gervais d’Aldin C, Pujol R (1998) Excitotoxicity and repair of cochlear synapses after noise-trauma induced hearing loss. Neuroreport 9:2109–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pujol R, Lenoir M, Robertson D, Eybalin M, Johnstone BM (1985) Kainic acid selectively alters auditory dendrites connected with cochlear inner hair cells. Hear Res 18:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Resnik J, Polley DB (2017) Fast-spiking GABA circuit dynamics in the auditory cortex predict recovery of sensory processing following peripheral nerve damage. elife 6.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21452
  59. Ryals BM, Dent ML, Dooling RJ (2013) Return of function after hair cell regeneration. Hear Res 297:113–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2012.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ryals BM, Rubel EW (1988) Hair cell regeneration after acoustic trauma in adult Coturnix quail. Science 240:1774–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryals BM, Ten Eyck B, Westbrook EW (1989) Ganglion cell loss continues during hair cell regeneration. Hear Res 43:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryals BM, Westbrook EW (1988) Ganglion cell and hair cell loss in Coturnix quail associated with aging. Hear Res 36:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sachs MB, Young ED, Lewis RH (1974) Discharge patterns of single fibers in the pigeon auditory nerve. Brain Res 70:431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salvi RJ, Saunders SS, Powers NL, Boettcher FA (1992) Discharge patterns of cochlear ganglion neurons in the chicken. J Comp Physiol A 170:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salvi RJ, Sun W, Ding DL, Chen GD, Lobarinas E, Wang J, Radziwon K, Auerbach BD (2017) Inner hair cell loss disrupts hearing and cochlear function leading to sensory deprivation and enhanced central auditory gain. Front Neurosci 10:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sauer G, Richter CP, Klinke R (1999) Sodium, potassium, chloride and calcium concentrations measured in pigeon perilymph and endolymph. Hear Res 129:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(98)00230-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saunders JC (2010) The role of hair cell regeneration in an avian model of inner ear injury and repair from acoustic trauma. ILAR J 51:326–337.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.51.4.326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schaette R, McAlpine D (2011) Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: physiological evidence for hidden hearing loss and computational model. J Neurosci 31:13452–13457.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2156-11.2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schermuly L, Klinke R (1985) Change of characteristic frequency of pigeon primary auditory afferents with temperature. J Comp Physiol A 156:209–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schuknecht HF (1994) Auditory and cytocochlear correlates of inner ear disorders. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 110:530–538.  https://doi.org/10.1177/019459989411000610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schuknecht HF, Gacek MR (1993) Cochlear pathology in presbycusis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schuknecht HF, Woellner RC (1953) Hearing losses following partial sectioning of the cochlear nerve. Laryngoscope 63:441–465.  https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-195306000-00001 Google Scholar
  73. Smolders JW, Ding-Pfennigdorff D, Klinke R (1995) A functional map of the pigeon basilar papilla: correlation of the properties of single auditory nerve fibres and their peripheral origin. Hear Res 92:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spoendlin H (1984) Factors inducing retrograde degeneration of the cochlear nerve. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 112:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spoendlin H, Schrott A (1989) Analysis of the human auditory nerve. Hear Res 43:25–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(89)90056-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sun H, Hashino E, Ding DL, Salvi RJ (2001) Reversible and irreversible damage to cochlear afferent neurons by kainic acid excitotoxicity. J Comp Neurol 430:172–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9861(20010205)430:2<172::AID-CNE1023>3.0.CO;2-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sun H, Salvi RJ, Ding DL, Hashino E, Shero M, Zheng XY (2000) Excitotoxic effect of kainic acid on chicken otoacoustic emissions and cochlear potentials. J Acoust Soc Am 107:2136–2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Takasaka T, Smith C (1971) The structure and innervation of the pigeon’s basilar papilla. J Ultrastruct Res 35:20–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Viana LM, O’Malley JT, Burgess BJ et al (2015) Cochlear neuropathy in human presbycusis: confocal analysis of hidden hearing loss in post-mortem tissue. Hear Res 327:78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2015.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang H, Brozoski TJ, Caspary DM (2011) Inhibitory neurotransmission in animal models of tinnitus: maladaptive plasticity. Hear Res 279:111–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang Y, Olson ES (2016) Cochlear perfusion with a viscous fluid. Hear Res 337:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Woolley SM, Wissman AM, Rubel EW (2001) Hair cell regeneration and recovery of auditory thresholds following aminoglycoside ototoxicity in Bengalese finches. Hear Res 153:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Woolley SMN, Portfors CV (2013) Conserved mechanisms of vocalization coding in mammalian and songbird auditory midbrain. Hear Res 305:45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Woolley SMN, Rubel EW (2002) Vocal memory and learning in adult Bengalese finches with regenerated hair cells. J Neurosci 22:7774–7787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Young ED (2013) Which neurons survive the glutamate storm? J Neurophysiol 110:575–576.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00292.2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zheng XY, Henderson D, Hu BH, McFadden SL (1997) Recovery of structure and function of inner ear afferent synapses following kainic acid excitotoxicity. Hear Res 105:65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(96)00188-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zheng XY, Salvi RJ, Fadden SLMC et al (1999) Recovery of kainic acid excitotoxicity in chinchilla cochlea. Ann N Y Acad Sci 884:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zheng XY, Wang J, Salvi RJ, Henderson D (1996) Effects of kainic acid on the cochlear potentials and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in chinchilla. Hear Res 95:161–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(96)00047-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations