Hearing sensitivity differs between zebrafish lines used in auditory research

Abstract

Zebrafish are increasingly used in auditory studies, in part due to the development of several transgenic lines that express hair cell-specific fluorescent proteins. However, it is largely unknown how transgene expression influences auditory phenotype. We previously observed reduced auditory sensitivity in adult Brn3c:mGFP transgenic zebrafish, which express membrane-bound green fluorescent protein (GFP) in sensory hair cells. Here, we examine the auditory sensitivity of zebrafish from multiple transgenic and background strains. We recorded auditory evoked potentials in adult animals and observed significantly higher auditory thresholds in three lines that express hair cell-specific GFP. There was no obvious correlation between hair cell density and auditory thresholds, suggesting that reduced sensitivity was not due to a reduction in hair cell density. FM1-43 uptake was reduced in Brn3c:mGFP fish but not in other lines, suggesting that a mechanotransduction defect may be responsible for the auditory phenotype in Brn3c animals, but that alternate mechanisms underlie the increased AEP thresholds in other lines. We found reduced prepulse inhibition (a measure of auditory-evoked behavior) in larval Brn3c animals, suggesting that auditory defects develop early in this line. We also found significant differences in auditory sensitivity between adults of different background strains, akin to strain differences observed in mouse models of auditory function. Our results suggest that researchers should exercise caution when selecting an appropriate zebrafish transgenic or background strain for auditory studies.

Noise-induced hearing loss in zebrafish: investigating structural and functional inner ear damage and recovery

“…1 μPa). These thresholds were about 20-30 dB lower than previously reported audiograms for other AB lines (Monroe et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2015). Such differences might be related to the acoustic isolation period adopted in this study before audiometry, different setup configurations (i.e.…”

“…shorter distance between subject and underwater speaker in our system that may result in higher particle motion component), distinct setup calibration procedures and SPL determination, and probably sensitivity differences between AB lines. Nevertheless, the overall shape of our baseline audiogram and best response frequencies were similar to prior studies using similar AEP recording procedures (Monroe et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2015). We have also adopted a criterion for threshold determination based on the visual inspection of the AEP responses, which may be more subjective than alternative methods including comparison between AEP amplitude and controlled residual noise to set specific threshold criteria (Xiao & Braun, 2008).…”

“…1). This criterium has been widely used in audiometry studies with fish species, including zebrafish (Monroe et al 2016;Wang et al 2015).…”

PI3K and Inhibitor of Apoptosis Proteins Modulate Gentamicin- Induced Hair Cell Death in the Zebrafish Lateral Line

“…To our knowledge, this is the first report of a strain difference in aminoglycoside susceptibility in zebrafish. Monroe et al (2016) demonstrated that different strains of adult zebrafish differ in hearing sensitivity, with TL fish having greater sensitivity than age-matched ∗ ABs. However, the cause of these differences is unknown.…”

Characterizing sources of variability in zebrafish embryo screening protocols_suppl

“…It is unclear to what extent observed differences in zebrafish characteristics and behavior are due to genetics, as opposed to individual laboratory and husbandry practices (Ball et al, 2014). Strain-specific behavioral responses to various stimuli have been documented (Vignet et al, 2013;Gao et al, 2016;Quadros et al, 2016;Seguret et al, 2016;van den Bos et al, 2017), including differences in hearing sensitivity (Monroe et al, 2016), visual social preference (Barba-Escobedo and Gould, 2012), and growth performance in response to fasting (Meyer et al, 2013). To date, there is little evidence to indicate the existence of strain differences in sensitivity to toxicants (Chatla et al, 2016), or how genetic differences affect responses to toxicants (Coe et al, 2009).…”