Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A device for patterned electrical stimulation of cultivated cells: preliminary tests with rat auditory neurons

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of surviving spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) is important for the function of cochlear implants. Electrical stimulation has been discussed controversially regarding its protective effects on SGNs both in vivo and in vitro. The aim of this study was to develop a device for electrical stimulation of cultured SGNs. The developed device was first evaluated with cultivated fibroblasts at voltages from 10 to 60 V using biphasic rectangular pulses (pulse width: 10 ms, frequency: 50 Hz, stimulus burst: 1 s, interburst interval: 19 s). Possible toxic effects of 48 h patterned electrical stimulation were evaluated by propidium-iodide flow cytometry of the harvested fibroblasts. Second, the effects of 48-h electrical stimulation at voltages of 6 and 30 V on survival of cultivated SGNs were investigated as a single treatment and in the presence of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF, 100 ngml) in the culture medium. The results demonstrated constant pH and temperature behavior during electrical stimulation. Furthermore, no toxic effects on fibroblasts up to 40 V were found. The electrical stimulation of cultured neurons did not alter the survival rate compared to unstimulated control conditions. While BDNF application alone showed a significant effect on SGN survival, combination with electrical stimulation resulted in a not significantly increased cell survival. As a limitation of the study, the sensitivity of the described experimental setup appears to be low and only one stimulation pattern has been tested. Thus, experiments using different patterns of electrical stimulation and a more sensitive cultivation setup have to be carried out to fully investigate the effects of electrical stimulation on cultured SGNs. In this context, the developed device can be of help as it provides controlled and reproducible electrical stimulation conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dodson HC, Mohuiddin A (2000) Response of spiral ganglion neurones to cochlear hair cell destruction in the guinea pig. J Neurocytol 29:525–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ, Tyler RS (1993) Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:909–916

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shinohara T, Bredberg G, Ulfendahl M, Pyykko I, Olivius NP, Kaksonen R, Lindstrom B, Altschuler R, Miller JM (2002) Neurotrophic factor intervention restores auditory function in deafened animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1657–1660

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zheng JL, Stewart RR, Gao WQ (1995) Neurotrophin-4/5 enhances survival of cultured spiral ganglion neurons and protects them from cisplatin neurotoxicity. J Neurosci 15:5079–5087

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hartshorn DO, Miller JM, Altschuler RA (1991) Protective effect of electrical stimulation in the deafened guinea pig cochlea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:311–319

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lousteau RJ (1987) Increased spiral ganglion cell survival in electrically stimulated, deafened guinea pig cochleae. Laryngoscope 97:836–842

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ni D, Shepherd RK, Seldon HL, Xu SA, Clark GM, Millard RE (1992) Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I: normal hearing kittens. Hear Res 62:63–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shepherd RK, Matsushima J, Martin RL, Clark GM (1994) Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Deafened kittens. Hear Res 81:150–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Li L, Parkins CW, Webster DB (1999) Does electrical stimulation of deaf cochleae prevent spiral ganglion degeneration? Hear Res 133:27–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hegarty JL, Kay AR, Green SH (1997) Trophic support of cultured spiral ganglion neurons by depolarization exceeds and is additive with that by neurotrophins or cAMP and requires elevation of [Ca2+]i within a set range. J Neurosci 17:1959–1970

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller JM, Miller AL, Yamagata T, Bredberg G, Altschuler RA (2002) Protection and regrowth of the auditory nerve after deafness: neurotrophins, antioxidants and depolarization are effective in vivo. Audiol Neurootol 7:175–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Balkowiec A, Katz DM (2000) Activity-dependent release of endogenous brain-derived neurotrophic factor from primary sensory neurons detected by ELISA in situ. J Neurosci 20:7417–7423

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shepherd RK, Coco A, Epp SB, Crook JM (2005) Chronic depolarization enhances the trophic effects of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in rescuing auditory neurons following a sensorineural hearing loss. J Comp Neurol 486:145–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lefebvre PP, Van De Water TR, Weber T, Rogister B, Moonen G (1991) Growth factor interactions in cultures of dissociated adult acoustic ganglia: neuronotrophic effects. Brain Res 567:306–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aletsee C, Volter C, Brors D, Ryan AF, Dazert S (2000) Die Wirkung von Fibroblastenwachstumsfaktor-1 (FGF-1) auf Spiralganglienzellen der Säugetiercochlea. In: HNO, vol 48, pp 457–461

  16. Wefstaedt P, Scheper V, Lenarz T, Stöver T (2005) Brain-derived neurotrophic factor/glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor survival effects on auditory neurons are not limited by dexamethasone. NeuroReport 16:2011–2014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brevet A, Pinto E, Peacock J, Stockdale FE (1976) Myosin synthesis increased by electrical stimulation of skeletal muscle cell cultures. Science 193:1152–1154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Campenot RB (1977) Local control of neurite development by nerve growth factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:4516–4519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelson PG, Yu C, Fields RD, Neale EA (1989) Synaptic connections in vitro: modulation of number and efficacy by electrical activity. Science 244:585–587

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rejali D, Lee VA, Abrashkin KA, Humayun N, Swiderski DL, Raphael Y (2007) Cochlear implants and ex vivo BDNF gene therapy protect spiral ganglion neurons. Hear Res 228:180–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McLeod KJ, Lee RC, Ehrlich HP (1987) Frequency dependence of electric field modulation of fibroblast protein synthesis. Science 236:1465–1469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanzaki S, Stover T, Kawamoto K, Prieskorn DM, Altschuler RA, Miller JM, Raphael Y (2002) Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor and chronic electrical stimulation prevent VIII cranial nerve degeneration following denervation. J Comp Neurol 454:350–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Patrick Wefstaedt, Gerrit Paasche, Thomas Lenarz & Timo Stöver

  2. Small Animal Hospital, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559, Hannover, Germany

    Patrick Wefstaedt

  3. Cochlear Ltd., 14 Mars Road, Lane Cove, Sydney, Australia

    John Parker

  4. Department of Otolaryngology, J.W. Goethe University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Timo Stöver

Authors
  1. Patrick Wefstaedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerrit Paasche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Lenarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timo Stöver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Patrick Wefstaedt or Timo Stöver.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wefstaedt, P., Paasche, G., Parker, J. et al. A device for patterned electrical stimulation of cultivated cells: preliminary tests with rat auditory neurons. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 841–848 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2030-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2030-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation