| Title |
A connexin30 mutation rescues hearing and reveals roles for gap junctions in cochlear amplification and micromechanics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms14530 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria A. Lukashkina, Snezana Levic, Andrei N. Lukashkin, Nicola Strenzke, Ian J. Russell |
| Abstract |
Accelerated age-related hearing loss disrupts high-frequency hearing in inbred CD-1 mice. The p.Ala88Val (A88V) mutation in the gene coding for the gap-junction protein connexin30 (Cx30) protects the cochlear basal turn of adult CD-1Cx30(A88V/A88V) mice from degeneration and rescues hearing. Here we report that the passive compliance of the cochlear partition and active frequency tuning of the basilar membrane are enhanced in the cochleae of CD-1Cx30(A88V/A88V) compared to CBA/J mice with sensitive high-frequency hearing, suggesting that gap junctions contribute to passive cochlear mechanics and energy distribution in the active cochlea. Surprisingly, the endocochlear potential that drives mechanoelectrical transduction currents in outer hair cells and hence cochlear amplification is greatly reduced in CD-1Cx30(A88V/A88V) mice. Yet, the saturating amplitudes of cochlear microphonic potentials in CD-1Cx30(A88V/A88V) and CBA/J mice are comparable. Although not conclusive, these results are compatible with the proposal that transmembrane potentials, determined mainly by extracellular potentials, drive somatic electromotility of outer hair cells. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,805,293
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#45,253
of 48,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,713
of 311,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#882
of 928 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 48,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 928 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.