Bryan K Ward1, Yoon H Lee1, Dale C Roberts2, Ethan Naylor3, Americo A Migliaccio1,2,4, Charles C Della Santina1,3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2. Department of Neurology. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 4. Balance and Vision Laboratory, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Magnetic vestibular stimulation (MVS) elicits nystagmus in C57BL/6J mice but not head tilt mice lacking Nox3, which is required for normal otoconial development. BACKGROUND: Humans have vertigo and nystagmus in strong magnetic fields within magnetic resonance imaging machines. The hypothesized mechanism is a Lorentz force driven by electrical current entering the utricular neuroepithelium, acting indirectly on crista hair cells via endolymph movement deflecting cupulae. We tested an alternate hypothesized mechanism: Lorentz action directly on crista hair cell stereocilia, driven by their currents independent of the utricle. METHODS: Before MVS, vestibulo-ocular reflex responses of eight C57BL/6J mice and six head tilt mice were measured during whole-body sinusoidal rotations and tilts using video-oculography. Mice were then placed within a 4.7 Tesla magnetic field with the horizontal semicircular canals approximately Earth-horizontal for ≥1 minute in several head orientations, while eye movements were recorded via infrared video in darkness. RESULTS: Outside the magnet, both C57BL/6J and head tilt mice had intact horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex, but only C57BL/6J mice exhibited static counter-roll responses to tilt (normal utiruclo-ocular reflex). When placed in the magnet nose-first, C57BL/6J mice had left-beating nystagmus, lasting a median of 32.8 seconds. When tail-first, nystagmus was right-beating and similar duration (median 28.0 s, p > 0.05). In contrast, head tilt mice lacked magnetic field-induced nystagmus (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C57BL/6J mice generate nystagmus in response to MVS, while mice deficient in Nox3 do not. This suggests 1) a normal utricle is necessary, and 2) functioning semicircular canals are insufficient, to generate MVS-induced nystagmus in mice.
HYPOTHESIS: Magnetic vestibular stimulation (MVS) elicits nystagmus in C57BL/6J mice but not head tiltmice lacking Nox3, which is required for normal otoconial development. BACKGROUND:Humans have vertigo and nystagmus in strong magnetic fields within magnetic resonance imaging machines. The hypothesized mechanism is a Lorentz force driven by electrical current entering the utricular neuroepithelium, acting indirectly on crista hair cells via endolymph movement deflecting cupulae. We tested an alternate hypothesized mechanism: Lorentz action directly on crista hair cell stereocilia, driven by their currents independent of the utricle. METHODS: Before MVS, vestibulo-ocular reflex responses of eight C57BL/6J mice and six head tiltmice were measured during whole-body sinusoidal rotations and tilts using video-oculography. Mice were then placed within a 4.7 Tesla magnetic field with the horizontal semicircular canals approximately Earth-horizontal for ≥1 minute in several head orientations, while eye movements were recorded via infrared video in darkness. RESULTS: Outside the magnet, both C57BL/6J and head tiltmice had intact horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex, but only C57BL/6J mice exhibited static counter-roll responses to tilt (normal utiruclo-ocular reflex). When placed in the magnet nose-first, C57BL/6J mice had left-beating nystagmus, lasting a median of 32.8 seconds. When tail-first, nystagmus was right-beating and similar duration (median 28.0 s, p > 0.05). In contrast, head tiltmice lacked magnetic field-induced nystagmus (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C57BL/6J mice generate nystagmus in response to MVS, while mice deficient in Nox3 do not. This suggests 1) a normal utricle is necessary, and 2) functioning semicircular canals are insufficient, to generate MVS-induced nystagmus in mice.
Authors: Americo A Migliaccio; Hamish G Macdougall; Lloyd B Minor; Charles C Della Santina Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2004-11-28 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Dale C Roberts; Vincenzo Marcelli; Joseph S Gillen; John P Carey; Charles C Della Santina; David S Zee Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Yoshiyuki Kawashima; Gwenaëlle S G Géléoc; Kiyoto Kurima; Valentina Labay; Andrea Lelli; Yukako Asai; Tomoko Makishima; Doris K Wu; Charles C Della Santina; Jeffrey R Holt; Andrew J Griffith Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Prem Jareonsettasin; Jorge Otero-Millan; Bryan K Ward; Dale C Roberts; Michael C Schubert; David S Zee Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Rainer Paffenholz; Rebecca A Bergstrom; Francesca Pasutto; Philipp Wabnitz; Robert J Munroe; Wolfgang Jagla; Ulrich Heinzmann; Andreas Marquardt; Armin Bareiss; Jürgen Laufs; Andreas Russ; Gabriele Stumm; John C Schimenti; David E Bergstrom Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2004-03-10 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: John B Phillips; Paul W Youmans; Rachel Muheim; Kelly A Sloan; Lukas Landler; Michael S Painter; Christopher R Anderson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ivan Tkáč; Michael A Benneyworth; Tessa Nichols-Meade; Elizabeth L Steuer; Sarah N Larson; Gregory J Metzger; Kâmil Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 4.668