Search

Loud sound exposure exacerbates aminoglycoside ototoxicity, increasing the risk of permanent hearing loss and degrading the quality of life in affected individuals. We previously reported that loud sound exposure induces temporary threshold shifts (TTS) and enhances uptake of aminoglycosides, like gentamicin, by cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs). Here, we explore mechanisms by which loud sound exposure and TTS could increase aminoglycoside uptake by OHCs that may underlie this form of ototoxic synergy. Mice were exposed to loud sound levels to induce TTS, and received fluorescently-tagged gentamicin (GTTR) for 30 min prior to fixation. The degree of TTS was assessed by comparing auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) before and after loud sound exposure. The number of tip links, which gate the GTTR-permeant mechanoelectrical transducer (MET) channels, was determined in OHC bundles, with or without exposure to loud sound, using scanning electron microscopy. We found wide-band noise (WBN) levels that induce TTS also enhance OHC uptake of GTTR compared to OHCs in control cochleae. In cochlear regions with TTS, the increase in OHC uptake of GTTR was significantly greater than in adjacent pillar cells. In control mice, we identified stereociliary tip links at ~50% of potential positions in OHC bundles. However, the number of OHC tip links was significantly reduced in mice that received WBN at levels capable of inducing TTS. These data suggest that GTTR uptake by OHCs during TTS occurs by increased permeation of surviving, mechanically-gated MET channels, and/or non-MET aminoglycoside-permeant channels activated following loud sound exposure. Loss of tip links would hyperpolarize hair cells and potentially increase drug uptake via aminoglycoside-permeant channels expressed by hair cells. The effect of TTS on aminoglycoside-permeant channel kinetics will shed new light on the mechanisms of loud sound-enhanced aminoglycoside uptake, and consequently on ototoxic synergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunocytochemistry and Western blotting are still major methods for protein localization, but they rely on the specificity of the antibodies. Validation of antibody specificity remains challenging mostly because ideal negative controls are often unavailable. Further, immunochemical labeling patterns are also influenced by a number of other factors such as postmortem changes, fixation procedures and blocking agents as well as the general assay conditions (e.g., buffers, temperature, etc.). Western blotting similarly depends on tissue collection and sample preparation as well as the electrophoretic separation, transfer to blotting membranes and the immunochemical probing of immobilized molecules. Publication of inaccurate information on protein distribution has downstream consequences for other researchers because the interpretation of physiological and pharmacological observations depends on information on where ion channels, receptors, enzymes or transporters are located. Despite numerous reports, some of which are strongly worded, erroneous localization data are being published. Here we describe the extent of the problem and illustrate the nature of the pitfalls with examples from studies of neurotransmitter transporters. We explain the importance of supplementing immunochemical observations with other measurements (e.g., mRNA levels and distribution, protein activity, mass spectrometry, electrophysiological recordings, etc.) and why quantitative considerations are integral parts of the quality control. Further, we propose a practical strategy for researchers who plan to embark on a localization study. We also share our thoughts about guidelines for quality control. GLIA 2016;64:2045-2064., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)