Literature DB >> 22975204

Prediction of cochlear implant performance by genetic mutation: the spiral ganglion hypothesis.

Robert W Eppsteiner1, A Eliot Shearer, Michael S Hildebrand, Adam P Deluca, Haihong Ji, Camille C Dunn, Elizabeth A Black-Ziegelbein, Thomas L Casavant, Terry A Braun, Todd E Scheetz, Steven E Scherer, Marlan R Hansen, Bruce J Gantz, Richard J H Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Up to 7% of patients with severe-to-profound deafness do not benefit from cochlear implantation. Given the high surgical implantation and clinical management cost of cochlear implantation (>$1 million lifetime cost), prospective identification of the worst performers would reduce unnecessary procedures and healthcare costs. Because cochlear implants bypass the membranous labyrinth but rely on the spiral ganglion for functionality, we hypothesize that cochlear implant (CI) performance is dictated in part by the anatomic location of the cochlear pathology that underlies the hearing loss. As a corollary, we hypothesize that because genetic testing can identify sites of cochlear pathology, it may be useful in predicting CI performance.
METHODS: 29 adult CI recipients with idiopathic adult-onset severe-to-profound hearing loss were studied. DNA samples were subjected to solution-based sequence capture and massively parallel sequencing using the OtoSCOPE(®) platform. The cohort was divided into three CI performance groups (good, intermediate, poor) and genetic causes of deafness were correlated with audiometric data to determine whether there was a gene-specific impact on CI performance.
RESULTS: The genetic cause of deafness was determined in 3/29 (10%) individuals. The two poor performers segregated mutations in TMPRSS3, a gene expressed in the spiral ganglion, while the good performer segregated mutations in LOXHD1, a gene expressed in the membranous labyrinth. Comprehensive literature review identified other good performers with mutations in membranous labyrinth-expressed genes; poor performance was associated with spiral ganglion-expressed genes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the underlying hypothesis that mutations in genes preferentially expressed in the spiral ganglion portend poor CI performance while mutations in genes expressed in the membranous labyrinth portend good CI performance. Although the low mutation rate in known deafness genes in this cohort likely relates to the ascertainment characteristics (postlingual hearing loss in adult CI recipients), these data suggest that genetic testing should be implemented as part of the CI evaluation to test this association prospectively.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22975204      PMCID: PMC3461332          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.08.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  81 in total

1.  Comparison of rehabilitation results in deaf patients with and without genetically related hearing loss.

Authors:  Maciej Wróbel; Magdalena Magierska-Krzysztoń; Krzysztof Szyfter; Dorota Mietkiewska; Witold Szyfter; Małgorzata Rydzanicz; Krzysztof Szyfter; Michał Karlik
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2008-09

2.  Genetic characteristics in children with cochlear implants and the corresponding auditory performance.

Authors:  Chen-Chi Wu; Tien-Chen Liu; Shih-Hao Wang; Chuan-Jen Hsu; Che-Ming Wu
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 3.  Audiologic management of auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder in children: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Patricia Roush; Tobi Frymark; Rebecca Venediktov; Beverly Wang
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 1.493

4.  Better speech performance in cochlear implant patients with GJB2-related deafness.

Authors:  Kunihiro Fukushima; Kennichi Sugata; Norio Kasai; Shouichirou Fukuda; Rie Nagayasu; Naomi Toida; Nobuhiko Kimura; Teruaki Takishita; Mehmet Gunduz; Kazunori Nishizaki
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2002-02-01       Impact factor: 1.675

Review 5.  Cochlear implantation of a patient with a previously undescribed mitochondrial DNA defect.

Authors:  P R Counter; M P Hilton; D Webster; T Wardell; R W Taylor; G Besley; D M Turnbull; P J Robinson
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.469

6.  Tmprss3, a transmembrane serine protease deficient in human DFNB8/10 deafness, is critical for cochlear hair cell survival at the onset of hearing.

Authors:  Lydie Fasquelle; Hamish S Scott; Marc Lenoir; Jing Wang; Guy Rebillard; Sophie Gaboyard; Stéphanie Venteo; Florence François; Anne-Laure Mausset-Bonnefont; Stylianos E Antonarakis; Elizabeth Neidhart; Christian Chabbert; Jean-Luc Puel; Michel Guipponi; Benjamin Delprat
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Performance of cochlear implant recipients with GJB2-related deafness.

Authors:  Glenn E Green; Daryl A Scott; Joshua M McDonald; Holly F B Teagle; Bruce J Tomblin; Linda J Spencer; George G Woodworth; John F Knutson; Bruce J Gantz; Val C Sheffield; Richard J H Smith
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2002-05-01

8.  Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  J B Nadol; Y S Young; R J Glynn
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 1.547

9.  Predominance of genetic diagnosis and imaging results as predictors in determining the speech perception performance outcome after cochlear implantation in children.

Authors:  Chen-Chi Wu; Yi-Chin Lee; Pei-Jer Chen; Chuan-Jen Hsu
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2008-03

10.  The transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS3) mutated in deafness DFNB8/10 activates the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) in vitro.

Authors:  Michel Guipponi; Grégoire Vuagniaux; Marie Wattenhofer; Kazunori Shibuya; Maria Vazquez; Loretta Dougherty; Nathalie Scamuffa; Elizabeth Guida; Michiyo Okui; Colette Rossier; Manuela Hancock; Karine Buchet; Alexandre Reymond; Edith Hummler; Phillip L Marzella; Jun Kudoh; Nobuyoshi Shimizu; Hamish S Scott; Stylianos E Antonarakis; Bernard C Rossier
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 6.150

View more
  42 in total

1.  Genes Implicated in Rare Congenital Inner Ear and Cochleovestibular Nerve Malformations.

Authors:  Elina Kari; Lorida Llaci; John L Go; Marcus Naymik; James A Knowles; Suzanne M Leal; Sampath Rangasamy; Matthew J Huentelman; Winnie Liang; Rick A Friedman; Isabelle Schrauwen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 2.  Congenital hearing loss.

Authors:  Anna M H Korver; Richard J H Smith; Guy Van Camp; Mark R Schleiss; Maria A K Bitner-Glindzicz; Lawrence R Lustig; Shin-Ichi Usami; An N Boudewyns
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 52.329

Review 3.  [Personalized medicine in otology. The role of genetic diagnostics in patients with hearing impairment].

Authors:  N Friese; K Braun; M Müller; A Tropitzsch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Mutations in LOXHD1 gene cause various types and severities of hearing loss.

Authors:  Kentaro Mori; Hideaki Moteki; Yumiko Kobayashi; Hela Azaiez; Kevin T Booth; Shin-Ya Nishio; Hiroaki Sato; Richard J H Smith; Shin-Ichi Usami
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 1.547

Review 5.  Massively Parallel Sequencing for Genetic Diagnosis of Hearing Loss: The New Standard of Care.

Authors:  A Eliot Shearer; Richard J H Smith
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 3.497

6.  Outcomes of cochlear implantation in children with Usher syndrome: a long-term observation.

Authors:  Agnieszka Remjasz-Jurek; Pedro Clarós; Astrid Clarós-Pujol; Carmen Pujol; Andrés Clarós
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-10-15       Impact factor: 3.236

7.  A novel mutation of TMPRSS3 related to milder auditory phenotype in Korean postlingual deafness: a possible future implication for a personalized auditory rehabilitation.

Authors:  Juyong Chung; Sang Min Park; Sun O Chang; Taesu Chung; Kyoung Yeul Lee; Ah Reum Kim; Joo Hyun Park; Veronica Kim; Woong-Yang Park; Seung-Ha Oh; Dongsup Kim; Woo Jin Park; Byung Yoon Choi
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  Cochlear Implantation and Electric Acoustic Stimulation in Children With TMPRSS3 Genetic Mutation.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; William Morrel; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Screening Strategies for Deafness Genes and Functional Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Eric Nisenbaum; Sandra Prentiss; Denise Yan; Aida Nourbakhsh; Molly Smeal; Meredith Holcomb; Ivette Cejas; Fred Telischi; Xue Zhong Liu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.619

10.  Prospective cohort study reveals MMP-9, a neuroplasticity regulator, as a prediction marker of cochlear implantation outcome in prelingual deafness treatment.

Authors:  Monika Matusiak; Dominika Oziębło; Monika Ołdak; Emilia Rejmak; Leszek Kaczmarek; Piotr Henryk Skarżyński; Henryk Skarżyński
Journal:  Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 5.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.