Optogenetic stimulation of the auditory pathway

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Volumn 124, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1114-1129

  Hernandez, Victor H ^a,b   Gehrt, Anna ^a   Reuter, Kirsten ^a,b   Jing, Zhizi ^a   Jeschke, Marcus ^a   Schulz, Alejandro Mendoza ^a   Hoch, Gerhard ^a,b   Bartels, Matthias ^b   Vogt, Gerhard ^b,c   Garnham, Carolyn W ^b,c   Yawo, Hiromu ^d   Fukazawa, Yugo ^e   Augustine, George J ^f,g   Bamberg, Ernst ^h   Kügler, Sebastian ^a,b   Salditt, Tim ^b   De Hoz, Livia ⁱ   Strenzke, Nicola ^a   Moser, Tobias ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^c MED EL GmbH   (Austria)

^d TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e NAGOYA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^f DUKE NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Singapore)

^g Korea Institute of Science and Technology   (South Korea)

^h MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS   (Germany)

ⁱ MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHANNELRHODOPSIN 2; PROTEIN VARIANT; RHODOPSIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEAR EXCITATION; COCHLEAR NERVE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTROSTIMULATION; IN VITRO STUDY; INFERIOR COLLICULUS; LIGHT RELATED PHENOMENA; LIGHT SENSITIVITY; LOCAL FIELD POTENTIAL; MONOPOLAR ELECTRICAL STIMULATION; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OPTICAL STIMULATION; OPTOGENETIC STIMULATION; OPTOGENETICS; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; RAT; SPIRAL GANGLION; SPIRAL GANGLION NEURON; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; LIGHT; MICE; MICE, INBRED C57BL; MICE, TRANSGENIC; OPTOGENETICS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; RATS; RATS, TRANSGENIC; RATS, WISTAR; RHODOPSIN; SPIRAL GANGLION;

EID: 84896786196     PISSN: 00219738     EISSN: 15588238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1172/JCI69050     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Clark GM. The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006;361(1469):791-810.
2. Moore DR, Shannon RV. Beyond cochlear implants: awakening the deafened brain. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(6):686-691.
3. Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):695-730.
4. Middlebrooks JC, Bierer JA, Snyder RL. Cochlear implants: the view from the brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005;15(4):488-493.
5. Zeng F-G, Rebscher S, Harrison WV, Sun X, Feng H. Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2008;1:115-142.
6. Rubinstein JT. Paediatric cochlear implantation: prosthetic hearing and language development. Lancet. 2002;360(9331):483-485.
7. Colletti V, Shannon RV, Carner M, Veronese S, Colletti L. Progress in restoration of hearing with the auditory brainstem implant. Prog Brain Res. 2009;175:333-345.
8. Kral A, Hartmann R, Mortazavi D, Klinke R. Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents. Hear Res. 1998;121(1-2):11-28.
9. Shannon RV. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction. Hear Res. 1983;12(1):1-16.
10. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(2):1150-1163.
11. Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(5):1201-1215.
12. Donaldson GS, Kreft HA, Litvak L. Place-pitch discrimination of single-versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(2):623-626.
13. Srinivasan AG, Shannon RV, Landsberger DM. Improving virtual channel discrimination in a multi-channel context. Hear Res. 2012;286(1-2):19-29.
14. Middlebrooks JC, Snyder RL. Auditory prosthesis with a penetrating nerve array. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):258-279.
15. Zeng F-G, et al. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(1 pt 1):377-386.
16. Izzo AD, et al. Selectivity of neural stimulation in the auditory system: a comparison of optic and electric stimuli. J Biomed Opt. 2007;12(2):021008.
17. Matic AI, Walsh JT Jr, Richter C-P. Spatial extent of cochlear infrared neural stimulation determined by tone-on-light masking. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16(11):118002.
18. Richter C-P, et al. Spread of cochlear excitation during stimulation with pulsed infrared radiation: inferior colliculus measurements. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(5):056006.
19. Zierhofer CM, Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES. Electronic design of a cochlear implant for multichannel high-rate pulsatile stimulation strategies. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1995;3(1):112-116.
20. Nagel G, et al. Channelrhodopsin-2, a directly light-gated cation-selective membrane channel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(24):13940.
21. Bamann C, Kirsch T, Nagel G, Bamberg E. Spectral characteristics of the photocycle of channelrhodopsin-2 and its implication for channel function. J Mol Biol. 2008;375(3):686-694.
22. Ritter E, Stehfest K, Berndt A, Hegemann P, Bartl FJ. Monitoring light-induced structural changes of Channelrhodopsin-2 by UV-visible and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(50):35033-35041.
23. Berndt A, Prigge M, Gradmann D, Hegemann P. Two open states with progressive proton selectivities in the branched channelrhodopsin-2 photocycle. Biophys J. 2010;98(5):753.
24. Kato HE, et al. Crystal structure of the channelrhodopsin light-gated cation channel. Nature. 2012;482(7385):369-374.
25. Yizhar O, Fenno LE, Davidson TJ, Mogri M, Deisseroth K. Optogenetics in neural systems. Neuron. 2011;71(1):9-34.
26. Hegemann P, Möglich A. Channelrhodopsin engineering and exploration of new optogenetic tools. Nat Meth. 2010;8(1):39-42.
27. Bi A, et al. Ectopic expression of a microbial-type rhodopsin restores visual responses in mice with photoreceptor degeneration. Neuron. 2006;50(1):23-33.
28. Lagali PS, et al. Light-activated channels targeted to ON bipolar cells restore visual function in retinal degeneration. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(6):667-675.
29. Tomita H, et al. Visual properties of transgenic rats harboring the channelrhodopsin-2 gene regulated by the Thy-1.2 promoter. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(11):e7679.
30. Busskamp V, et al. Genetic reactivation of cone photoreceptors restores visual responses in retinitis pigmentosa. Science. 2010;329(5990):413.
31. Wang H, et al. High-speed mapping of synaptic connectivity using photostimulation in Channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(19):8143.
32. Arenkiel BR, et al. In Vivo Light-Induced Activation of Neural Circuitry in Transgenic Mice Expressing Channelrhodopsin-2. Neuron. 2007;54(2):205-218.
33. Kleinlogel S, et al. Ultra light-sensitive and fast neuronal activation with the Ca2+-permeable channelrhodopsin CatCh. Nat Neurosci. 2011; 14(4):513-518.
34. Zhou R, Abbas PJ, Assouline JG. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response in peripherally myelin-deficient mice. Hear Res. 1995;88(1-2):98-106.
35. Bartels M, Hernandez VH, Krenkel M, Moser T, Salditt T. Phase contrast tomography of the mouse cochlea at microfocus x-ray sources. Applied Physics Letters. 2013;103(8):083703.
36. Müller M, von Hünerbein K, Hoidis S, Smolders JWT. A physiological place-frequency map of the cochlea in the CBA/J mouse. Hear Res. 2005;202(1-2):63-73.
37. Stiebler I, Ehret G. Inferior colliculus of the house mouse. I. A quantitative study of tonotopic organization, frequency representation, and tone-threshold distribution. J Comp Neurol. 1985; 238(1):65-76.
38. Snyder RL, Bierer JA, Middlebrooks JC. Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intracochlear electric stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2004;5(3):305-322.
39. Willott JF. Effects of aging, hearing loss, and anatomical location on thresholds of inferior colliculus neurons in C57BL/6 and CBA mice. J Neurophysiol. 1986;56(2):391-408.
40. Noben-Trauth K, Zheng QY, Johnson KR. Association of cadherin 23 with polygenic inheritance and genetic modification of sensorineural hearing loss. Nat Genet. 2003;35(1):21-23.
41. Müller-Preuss P, Mitzdorf U. Functional anatomy of the inferior colliculus and the auditory cortex: current source density analyses of click-evoked potentials. Hear Res. 1984;16(2):133-142.
42. Mitzdorf U. Current source-density method and application in cat cerebral cortex: investigation of evoked potentials and EEG phenomena. Physiol Rev. 1985;65(1):37-100.
43. Harris DM. Current source density analysis of frequency coding in the inferior colliculus. Hear Res. 1987;25(2-3):257-266.
44. Happel MFK, Jeschke M, Ohl FW. Spectral integration in primary auditory cortex attributable to temporally precise convergence of thalamocortical and intracortical input. J Neurosci. 2010; 30(33):11114-11127.
45. Sanes DH, Constantine-Paton M. The sharpening of frequency tuning curves requires patterned activity during development in the mouse, Mus musculus. J Neurosci. 1985;5(5):1152-1166.
46. Syka J, Popelár J, Kvasnák E, Astl J. Response properties of neurons in the central nucleus and external and dorsal cortices of the inferior colliculus in guinea pig. Exp Brain Res. 2000;133(2):254-266.
47. Palmer AR, Shackleton TM, Sumner CJ, Zobay O, Rees A. Classification of frequency response areas in the inferior colliculus reveals continua not discrete classes. J Physiol (Lond). 2013;591(pt 16):4003-4025.
48. Izzo AD, et al. Laser stimulation of auditory neurons: effect of shorter pulse duration and penetration depth. Biophys J. 2008;94(8):3159-3166.
49. Strenzke N, et al. Complexin-I is required for high-fidelity transmission at the endbulb of held auditory synapse. J Neurosci. 2009;29(25):7991-8004.
50. Schwander M, et al. A forward genetics screen in mice identifies recessive deafness traits and reveals that pejvakin is essential for outer hair cell function. J Neurosci. 2007;27(9):2163-2175.
51. Pangršic T, et al. Hearing requires otoferlin-dependent efficient replenishment of synaptic vesicles in hair cells. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13(7):869-876.
52. Sewell WF. The effects of furosemide on the endocochlear potential and auditory-nerve fiber tuning curves in cats. Hearing Res. 1984;14(3):305-314.
53. Liu Y, et al. Protection against aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity by regulated AAV vector-mediated GDNF gene transfer into the cochlea. Mol Ther. 2008;16(3):474-480.
54. Sheffield AM, et al. Viral vector tropism for supporting cells in the developing murine cochlea. Hear Res. 2011;277(1-2):28-36.
55. Praetorius M, et al. Transsynaptic delivery of nanoparticles to the central auditory nervous system. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(5):486-490.
56. Staecker H, Li D, O'Malley BW Jr, Van De Water TR. Gene expression in the mammalian cochlea: a study of multiple vector systems. Acta Otolaryngol. 2001;121(2):157-163.
57. Lalwani AK, Walsh BJ, Reilly PG, Muzyczka N, Mhatre AN. Development of in vivo gene therapy for hearing disorders: introduction of adeno-associated virus into the cochlea of the guinea pig. Gene Ther. 1996;3(7):588-592.
58. Wareing M, et al. Cationic liposome mediated transgene expression in the guinea pig cochlea. Hear Res. 1999;128(1-2):61-69.
59. Wu J, Liu B, Fan J, Zhu Q, Wu J. Study of protective effect on rat cochlear spiral ganglion after blast exposure by adenovirus-mediated human β-nerve growth factor gene. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011;32(1):8-12.
60. Liu Y, et al. Specific and efficient transduction of Cochlear inner hair cells with recombinant adeno-associated virus type 3 vector. Molecular Therapy. 2005;12(4):725-733.
61. Bedrosian JC, et al. In vivo delivery of recombinant viruses to the fetal murine cochlea: transduction characteristics and long-term effects on auditory function. Mol Ther. 2006;14(3):328-335.
62. Reisinger E, et al. Probing the functional equivalence of otoferlin and synaptotagmin 1 in exocytosis. J Neurosci. 2011;31(13):4886-4895.
63. Brigande JV, Gubbels SP, Woessner DW, Jungwirth JJ, Bresee CS. Electroporation-mediated gene transfer to the developing mouse inner ear. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;493:125-139.
64. Taberner AM, Liberman MC. Response properties of single auditory nerve fibers in the mouse. J Neurophysiol. 2005;93(1):557-569.
65. Oertel D. Use of brain slices in the study of the auditory system: spatial and temporal summation of synaptic inputs in cells in the anteroventral cochlear nucleus of the mouse. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985;78(1 pt 2):328-333.
66. Shimano T, et al. Assessment of the AAV-mediated expression of channelrhodopsin-2 halorhodopsin in brainstem neurons mediating auditory signaling. Brain Res. 2013;1511:138-152.
67. Miller CA, et al. Electrical excitation of the acoustically sensitive auditory nerve: single-fiber responses to electric pulse trains. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006;7(3):195-210.
68. Gunaydin LA, et al. Ultrafast optogenetic control. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13(3):387-392.
69. Diester I, et al. An optogenetic toolbox designed for primates. Nature neuroscience. 2011;14(3):387-397.
70. Lignani G, et al. Long-term optical stimulation of channelrhodopsin- expressing neurons to study network plasticity. Front Mol Neurosci. 2013;6:22.
71. Akil O, et al. Restoration of hearing in the VGLUT3 knockout mouse using virally mediated gene therapy. Neuron. 2012;75(2):283-293.
72. Simonelli F, et al. Gene therapy for Leber's congenital amaurosis is safe and effective through 1.5 years after vector administration. Mol Ther. 2010;18(3):643-650.
73. Willett K, Bennett J. Immunology of AAV-mediated gene transfer in the eye. Front Immunol. 2013;4:261.
74. Mingozzi F, High KA. Immune responses to AAV vectors: overcoming barriers to successful gene therapy. Blood. 2013;122(1):23-36.
75. Meyer AC, et al. Tuning of synapse number, structure and function in the cochlea. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(4):444-453.
76. Yan J, Ehret G. Corticofugal reorganization of the midbrain tonotopic map in mice. Neuroreport. 2001;12(15):3313-3316.
77. Portfors CV, Mayko ZM, Jonson K, Cha GF, Roberts PD. Spatial organization of receptive fields in the auditory midbrain of awake mouse. Neuroscience. 2011;193:429-439.
78. Mayo SC, et al. Quantitative X-ray projection microscopy: phase-contrast and multi-spectral imaging. J Microsc. 2002;207(pt 2):79-96.
79. De Witte Y, Boone M, Vlassenbroeck J, Dierick M, Van Hoorebeke L. Bronnikov-aided correction for x-ray computed tomography. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2009;26(4):890-894.