- May 27, 2020
- 556
- Tinnitus Since
- 2007
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Loud music/headphones/concerts - Hyperacusis from motorbike
I wonder what the consequences of having smaller/larger ribbon sizes are? Would I be right in guessing that a larger ribbon size would mean there's a greater chance of synapsing the OHCs to the type II afferents?Yeah, that's a really good question. Rereading the paper just now - I think a key point that it mentions is that: "This proposed increase of hair cell to afferent signalling is just one of many changes that may result from acoustic trauma."
Then it goes on to point out that there is also ATP release and a "prolonged inflammatory response." So, perhaps when our symptoms improve, it is a result of cochlear inflammation subsiding and less ATP in the cochlea? The thing is, many of us do improve but only to a certain extent - even if our symptoms and pain subside, it's not unusual for us to get setbacks from sound levels that do not bother healthy ears. E.g. I experienced setback after 4 years of pretty much feeling 'normal' from sound levels that were quite loud but did not cause any problems for any of the other people I was with, with healthy ears. Perhaps that lower threshold for re-initiation and limited recovery has something to do with the imbalance between the Type 1 and Type 2 afferents?
I'm just thinking out loud here, though.
The change in ribbon size is really interesting as well, especially in zebrafish - from the OHC ribbon article it says that: "It is not yet known how long the change in number of OHC ribbon synapses may persist or whether additional noise exposure would prolong this effect." I wonder if the change in ribbon size, however, is something that would persist or not?
I've been giving more and more thought to this inverse relationship Fuchs alluded to between the type 1 and 2 afferents post noise exposure. I want to bring to everyone's attention this passage from the zebrafish study:
"decreasing voltage-gated Ca2+ influx through CaV1.3 channels during development led to the formation of ... larger ribbons. Furthermore, in mouse knockouts of CaV1.3, auditory outer hair cells have reduced afferent innervation and synapse number."
For those who don't know, a knock-out mouse is a mouse that's been genetically engineered to not have a particular gene by disrupting it with a piece of artificial DNA. So these mice were genetically engineered to not have the voltage-dependent calcium channel and the result was less afferent innervation and synapse numbers, suggesting that the calcium channels play an important role in regulating the synapse numbers. If we know from the recently released Fuchs study that synapse numbers of OHCs increase after noise exposure, this would suggest that noise exposure disrupts the function of the calcium channel in the complete opposite manner than that seen in the knock out mouse. I also recall from Liberman's work that IHCs in the high frequency region of the mouse cochlea have enlarged ribbons immediately after noise, followed by synapse loss.
So where I am going with this? In short, I am inferring that the dysfunctional Cav1.3 calcium channels may be the smoking gun here with regards to what's causing our hyperacusis. I've had a quick look online to see what other diseases and conditions are caused by dysfunctional Cav1.3 calcium channels and the biggest one seems to be Parkinson's, which is sometimes treated with calcium channel blockers. Interestingly, the zebrafish study has something to say here:
"Recent work in mice has investigated the role of the MCU in noise-related hearing loss. This work demonstrated that pharmacological block or a loss of function mutation in MCU protected against synapse loss in auditory inner hair cells after noise exposure".
I just wonder: could a calcium channel blocker, such as a Parkinson's-prescribed drug, help us with our symptoms?
Would love to get some feedback on this and I again encourage everyone to read this zebrafish study!