Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Featured ArticleResearch Articles, Development/Plasticity/Repair

Developmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls Prevents Recovery from Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Disrupts the Functional Organization of the Inferior Colliculus

Baher A. Ibrahim, Jeremy J. Louie, Yoshitaka Shinagawa, Gang Xiao, Alexander R. Asilador, Helen J. K. Sable, Susan L. Schantz and Daniel A. Llano
Journal of Neuroscience 21 June 2023, 43 (25) 4580-4597; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0030-23.2023
Baher A. Ibrahim
1Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremy J. Louie
1Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yoshitaka Shinagawa
1Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gang Xiao
1Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
3Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander R. Asilador
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
3Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen J. K. Sable
6The Department of Psychology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee 38152
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan L. Schantz
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
3Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
4Department of Comparative Biosciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel A. Llano
1Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
2Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
3Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
5Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel A. Llano
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Exposure to combinations of environmental toxins is growing in prevalence; and therefore, understanding their interactions is of increasing societal importance. Here, we examined the mechanisms by which two environmental toxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and high-amplitude acoustic noise, interact to produce dysfunction in central auditory processing. PCBs are well established to impose negative developmental impacts on hearing. However, it is not known whether developmental exposure to this ototoxin alters the sensitivity to other ototoxic exposures later in life. Here, male mice were exposed to PCBs in utero, and later as adults were exposed to 45 min of high-intensity noise. We then examined the impacts of the two exposures on hearing and the organization of the auditory midbrain using two-photon imaging and analysis of the expression of mediators of oxidative stress. We observed that developmental exposure to PCBs blocked hearing recovery from acoustic trauma. In vivo two-photon imaging of the inferior colliculus (IC) revealed that this lack of recovery was associated with disruption of the tonotopic organization and reduction of inhibition in the auditory midbrain. In addition, expression analysis in the inferior colliculus revealed that reduced GABAergic inhibition was more prominent in animals with a lower capacity to mitigate oxidative stress. These data suggest that combined PCBs and noise exposure act nonlinearly to damage hearing and that this damage is associated with synaptic reorganization, and reduced capacity to limit oxidative stress. In addition, this work provides a new paradigm by which to understand nonlinear interactions between combinations of environmental toxins.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Exposure to common environmental toxins is a large and growing problem in the population. This work provides a new mechanistic understanding of how the prenatal and postnatal developmental changes induced by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) could negatively impact the resilience of the brain to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) later in adulthood. The use of state-of-the-art tools, including in vivo multiphoton microscopy of the midbrain helped in identifying the long-term central changes in the auditory system after the peripheral hearing damage induced by such environmental toxins. In addition, the novel combination of methods employed in this study will lead to additional advances in our understanding of mechanisms of central hearing loss in other contexts.

  • auditory midbrain
  • inferior colliculus
  • noise-induced hearing loss
  • oxidative stress
  • polychlorinated biphenyls
  • two-photon imaging

Introduction

Overexposure to occupational noise is considered one of the main factors negatively impacting hearing in the United States and Europe and is growing in prevalence (Bergström and Nyström, 1986; Daniell et al., 2006; Ding et al., 2019). Contamination of the environment with ototoxic chemicals could also exacerbate the effect of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are associated with hearing loss and other health deficits (Powers et al., 2006, 2009; Min et al., 2014; Wu et al., 1984; Safe, 1993; Goldey et al., 1995; Morse et al., 1996; Brouwer et al., 1999; Xie et al., 2019). PCBs were banned by the US Environment Protection Agency (Ross, 2004) but are highly chemically stable, which has led to widespread and persistent environmental contamination (Beyer and Biziuk, 2009). Given that PCBs can enter the placenta and breast milk (Jacobson et al., 1984), they also pose a developmental threat (Guo et al., 2004), including to the cochlea (Uziel, 1986; Goldey et al., 1995; Wong et al., 1997; Knipper et al., 2000; Song et al., 2008) and developmental exposure to PCBs impairs the hearing of humans and animals (Goldey et al., 1995; Herr et al., 1996; Crofton and Rice, 1999; Crofton et al., 2000; Lasky et al., 2002; Powers et al., 2006, 2009; Kenet et al., 2007; Jusko et al., 2014; Min et al., 2014; Palkovičová Murínová et al., 2016; Sadowski et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2021). Given the high population prevalence of dual exposure to PCBs and noise, the objective of the current study was to examine the interaction between developmental exposure to PCBs and NIHL later in adulthood in both the peripheral and central auditory systems. We, therefore, exposed mice to PCBs and noise overexposure similar to the sequence that also occurs in humans: prenatal + breastmilk exposure to PCBs followed by adult overexposure to noise. Given previous work showing changes in inhibitory tone in the major auditory integration center in the midbrain, the inferior colliculus (IC), after either PCB or noise overexposure (Abbott et al., 1999; Dong et al., 2010a, b; Auerbach et al., 2014; Poon et al., 2015; Bandara et al., 2016; Sadowski et al., 2016; Knipper et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021), we examined inhibitory neuronal activity in the IC of adult mice exposed to PCBs perinatally, noise in adulthood, or both, using two-photon imaging of the IC in vivo. In addition, given previous work showing that pathologic disruptions of inhibition may be related to oxidative stress (for review, see Ibrahim and Llano, 2019), we measured markers of oxidative stress in the IC. We observed that the developmental exposure to PCBs impaired the hearing of the male mice to low frequency pure tones. While developmental exposure to PCBs did not exacerbate the NIHL, it blocked the hearing recovery one week from acoustic trauma at the same low frequencies. Using two-photon imaging, developmental exposure to PCBs and high level of noise later in adulthood showed a disruption of the tonotopic maps of the dorsal cortex of the IC (DCIC), which was characterized with a wide nonresponsive zone to acoustic stimulation, increase in the stimulus level required to evoke the cellular activity of the responsive cells, and the downregulation of inhibition, which was associated with low resilience to oxidative stress. These results suggest nonlinear interactions between the developmental exposure to PCBs and NIHL at the level of both peripheral and central auditory system.

Materials and Methods

Animals

Wild-type female Swiss Webster (SW) mice (The Jackson Laboratory, #000689), approximately three months of age, were used for the initial PCBs dosing. The female mice were bred with male GAD67-GFP knock-in mice of the same SW background (developed and shared with permission from Yuchio Yanagawa at Gunma University and obtained from Douglas Oliver at the University of Connecticut) to produce offspring where GFP is exclusively expressed in the GABAergic cells (Tamamaki et al., 2003) to visualize and distinguish the GABAergic cells from non-GABAergic cells in the offspring. All procedures were performed following protocol #19104, which was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The mice were individually housed in standard plastic cages with corncob bedding, in a temperature-controlled and a humidity-controlled room that was maintained on a 12/12 h light/dark cycle (lights off at 7 P.M.). Food and tap water were available ad libitum.

PCB exposure

The timeline of the experimental procedures is shown in Figure 1A. Given that eating PCB-contaminated fish was reported to be one of the main routes of human exposure to PCBs (Fitzgerald et al., 1996, 1998), the Fox River PCB mixture, which mimics the PCB levels in contaminated Walleye fish from the Fox River of Northeast Wisconsin, was used in this study as previously done on rats (Powers et al., 2006; Sadowski et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2021). This PCB mixture consisted of 35% Aroclor 1242, 35% Aroclor 1248, 15% Aroclor 1254, and 15% Aroclor 1260 (Kostyniak et al., 2005). In study Phase I, the developmental toxicity of PCBs on hearing was examined in mice. The female mice were randomly assigned to three different groups receiving daily PCBs doses of 0, 6, or 12 mg/kg body weight. A dose of 6 mg/kg PCBs was reported to impair hearing in rats compared with lower doses (Powers et al., 2006). Exposure began 28 d before mating and continued until pups were weaned on postnatal day (P)21. The PCBs mixture was diluted in corn oil (Mazola) and pipetted onto 40–50 mg of vanilla wafer cookie (Nilla Vanilla Wafers) at a volume of 0.4 ml/kg. At the dosing time, each female mouse was taken to a separate empty plastic cage (with no bedding to easily identify the cookie pellet) at ∼1400 h. The PCBs-contaminated cookie was placed in the center of its dosing cage allowing the animal to fully eat it. Aligned with the previous report, it was found that the average time for the mouse to fully eat the cookie was 30 min (Cadot et al., 2012). The same dosing paradigm was followed in study Phase II, which examined the interaction between developmental exposure to PCBs and noise exposure in adulthood.

Breeding

In all study phases, each female mouse was paired with an unexposed GAD67-GFP male mouse of a SW background. After breeding, the females were monitored once daily for the presence of a sperm plug (i.e., gestational day 0), and mice were paired for 15 consecutive days regardless of whether a sperm plug was observed. The pups at day 7 of age were phenotyped for the presence of GFP under a fluorescence microscope via transcranial imaging (Tamamaki et al., 2003). This process was done by gently handling and placing each pup under a fluorescence microscope. GFP-positive pups were detected by examining the green fluorescent signals of the GFP (excitation: 472/30 nm, dichroic 505 nm, emission 520/35 nm long pass). Then, only GFP-positive pups were kept. After weaning, one male and one female from each litter were randomly selected to serve as subjects for this study. The pups were housed in same-exposure and same-sex cages of up to 5 mice/cage.

Noise exposure

In study Phase II, the paradigm of noise exposure was selected to induce a temporary threshold shift (Amanipour et al., 2018). Whether the animals were developmentally exposed to PCBs or not, the three-month-old animals were all exposed to 110 dB SPL broadband noise for 45 min (Fig. 2A). The noise was delivered by Fostex super tweeter (T925A, Fostex Crop) using a preamplifier (SLA1, Studio linear amplifier). The noise exposure was done under anesthesia induced with a mixture of ketamine hydrochloride (100 mg/kg), xylazine (3 mg/kg), and acepromazine (3 mg/kg) to avoid the possible occurrence of audiogenic seizures (AGS) as shown before in rats (Poon et al., 2015; Bandara et al., 2016). The exposure was done in a sound-attenuated dark room and was supervised from outside using an IR camera (ELP HD digital camera). The anesthesia was maintained during noise exposure using only ketamine (100 mg/kg).

ABR

As previously described (Lee et al., 2021), the auditory brainstem response (ABR) of three-month-old offspring was examined with or without noise exposure. In study Phase I, the ABR was taken from the offspring at three months of age. In study Phase II, the ABR was taken before (Pre-NIHL), immediately after (Post-NIHL-day 0), one week after (Post-NIHL-day 7), and four months after (Post-NIHL-day 120) noise exposure. ABRs were obtained at frequencies of 4, 5, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, and 24 kHz as well as white noise. Animals were anesthetized with the same (ketamine hydrochloride, xylazine, and acepromazine) mixture, and the anesthesia was maintained during ABR measurements using only ketamine (100 mg/kg). Three subdermal electrodes were inserted [(one at the vertex (active electrode), one behind the right ear (reference electrode), and one behind the left ear (the ground electrode)]. The mouse was placed 5 cm from the speaker on a heating pad. Stimuli were presented using a Tucker-Davis Technologies (TDT) system 3, ES1 free-field speaker, with waveforms being generated by RPvdsEx software. The output of the TDT speaker was calibrated at all the relevant frequencies, using a PCB 377A06 microphone and a Svantek 977 Sound and Vibration Analyser. Each frequency was presented for 5 ms (3 ms flat with 1 ms for both rise and fall times), at a rate of 21 Hz with a 45-ms analysis window. The ABR waveform was collected with TDT RA4PA Medusa Preamps with a 3 Hz to 5 kHz filter and was averaged over 500 repeats for one sound stimulus. The visual inspection of the deflections of ABR within 10 ms from the stimulus's onset continued until I-V waves were no longer present in the waveform. Although 86 dB SPL was the loudest level used, some animals were deaf at this level indicated by no identified ABR signals. To assign a numerical value for these unable to hear animals at 86 dB SPL sounds, a 90 dB SPL value was assumed as a threshold for those animals across different exposures. The reading of the ABR thresholds was conducted by an independent experimenter who was blind to the corresponding exposure groups of the animals. After ABR measurement, each animal was kept on a heating pad until a full recovery, then the animal was moved back to its home cage. After noise exposure, the hearing threshold shift was calculated on days 0, 7, and 120 indicated by [(Post-NIHL-day x) – (Pre-NIHL)], where x is the day after noise exposure, i.e., 0, 7, or 120.

Viral injection

In study Phase II, all mice across all groups were injected with AAV1.Syn.NES-jRGECO1a.WPRE.SV40 (100854-AAV1, Addgene) into the IC after the last ABR session (Post-NIHL-day 7). The virus drives the expression of the jRGECO1a in non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells via synapsin (Syn) promoter. The detailed surgical procedures were described before (Vaithiyalingam Chandra Sekaran et al., 2021). In brief, the surgery was done under aseptic techniques. Mice were firstly anesthetized intraperitoneally with the (ketamine hydrochloride, xylazine, and acepromazine) mixture. The anesthesia was maintained during the surgery using only ketamine (100 mg/kg). Then the mouse was placed into a Kopf Model 940 Small Animal Stereotaxic Instrument with a digital readout. After shaving and disinfecting the head with Povidone–iodide and 70% ethanol, a longitudinal incision was made in the scalp. The underneath surrounding tissue was injected with lidocaine (2% Covetrus) intradermally as a local anesthetic. Also, the mice were injected with carprofen (3 mg/kg, Henry Schein Medical) subcutaneously as an analgesic for postoperative pain management. To protect the eyes from drying an ophthalmic ointment was applied. A small craniotomy was made over the IC targeting the DCIC using a surgical drill following these coordinates from λ (x = 0.65–0.9 mm, y = 0.9 mm, and z = 0.4 mm). Glass micropipettes (3.5 inches, World Precision Instruments) were pulled using a micropipette puller (P-97, Sutter Instruments) and broken back to a tip diameter between 35 and 50 μm. The micropipette was filled with mineral oil (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc) and attached to a pressure injector (Nanoliter 2010, World Precision Instruments) connected to a pump controller (Micro4 Controller, World Precision Instruments). The amount of the virus solution was then withdrawn by a pressure injector, and 450 nl of the viral solution with titer equal to 1.7 × 1013 vgc/µl was injected into the DCIC at a flow rate (50 nl/min). After the injection, the micropipette was kept in its place for another 5 min to avoid any solution retraction. The incision was then sutured using 5/0 thread-size, nylon sutures (CP Medical). After the surgery, the animals were kept on a heating pad for recovery. After awakening, animals were returned to their home cages.

Craniotomy surgery for placing the cranial window and head post

The craniotomy was done four months after the viral injection, and the general procedures of craniotomy were previously described (Goldey et al., 2014), with modifications to place craniotomy over the IC. Before surgery, mice were anesthetized with the (ketamine hydrochloride, xylazine, and acepromazine) mixture. The anesthesia was maintained during the surgery and imaging using only ketamine (100 mg/kg). To prevent neural edema during or after the craniotomy, an intramuscular injection of dexamethasone sodium (4.8 mg/kg) was given just before the surgery using an insulin syringe. After placing the animal in the stereotaxic apparatus (David Kopf Instruments), both eyes were protected by applying Opti care lubricant eye gel (Aventix Animal Health). The hair on the scalp was then removed by massaging the scalp with a depilatory cream (Nair) using a cotton-tipped applicator and leaving the cream on the scalp for 4–5 min. The cream was then removed by a thin plastic sheet (flexible ruler) to leave a hair-free area on the scalp. The remaining tiny hairs were then removed by alcohol swab and the area was then sterilized by applying 10% povidone iodine (Dynarex) using a sterile cotton-tipped applicator. The medial incision was made with a scalpel blade #10, and 0.2 ml of 0.5% lidocaine was injected intradermally into the scalp. The skin extending from the medial line to the temporalis muscle was completely removed using a pair of microscissors to produce a wide skinless area above the skull. A pair of no. 5/45 forceps were used to remove any remaining periosteum. The remaining dried or firmly attached pieces of periosteum were removed with a scalpel blade #10. The skull was cleaned with sterile saline and dried with gently pressurized air. Using the stereotaxic apparatus, a wide area of ∼3 × 4 mm above the left IC was made. A microdrill bit (size #80, Grainger) was used to drill through the skull starting from the rostro-lateral region to λ. To prevent overheating of the superficial brain tissues and to mitigate the occasional spurts of skull bleeding during the drilling, ice-cold sterile saline was used to intermittently irrigate the surface. A stream of pressurized air was also applied during the drilling procedure to prevent overheating and remove the debris produced by the drilling. Caution was taken not to pierce the dura when performing the craniotomy while crossing the sagittal or the lambdoid sutures to avoid damaging the underlying sinuses. After drilling, the skull was irrigated in sterile saline and the bone flap (the undrilled bone over the craniotomy area) was gently examined for complete separation from the rest of the skull. Using a pair of no. 5/45 forceps, the bone flap was gently removed. To control the bleeding if it occurred, a piece of sterile hemostatic gel (Adsorbable Gelatin Sponge USP, hemosponge, GBI) which was presoaked in ice-cold saline, was applied to the bleeding spot. Once the bleeding ceased, the brain was kept covered in sterile saline. In some surgeries, the dura was peeled off from the surface of the IC while removing the bone flap. In the surgeries where the dura remained intact, a Bonn microprobe (F.S.T., item #10032-13) was used to pierce the dura in an area that is not above the IC and devoid of cortical vasculature (e.g., a part of exposed cerebellum). After piercing, the dura was carefully and gently lifted, and a pair of no. 5/45 forceps were used to grab the dura to gently tear it to the extent of the transverse sinus to avoid bleeding. The cover glass was secured by a wooden trimmed piece of sterile cotton swab by gently pressing the cover glass from the top. A titanium head post as described before (Goldey et al., 2014) was glued carefully on the top of the skull to be at the same level as the cover glass following the manufacturer's instructions, the C&B Metabond (Parkell).

Two-photon imaging

Immediately after surgery, the anesthetized animal was taken and secured under the microscope objective by clamping the arms of the head post to two perpendicular metal posts mounted on the microscope stage. A custom-built 2P microscope was used. The optical and the controlling components were supplied from Bruker, Olympus, and Thorlabs. The imaging of the DC was made using a 20× water-immersion objective (LUMPlanFI/IR, 20×, NA: 0.95, WD: 2 mm; Olympus Corporation). Since the jRGECO1a calcium indicator was expressed in non-GABAergic and GABAergic neurons, and the GFP was only expressed in the GABAergic cells in the GAD67-GFP knock-in mouse, this was a good tool to distinguish the GABAergic (green and red signals) from non-GABAergic cells (red signals only). For imaging both the GFP or jRGECO1a signals, the excitation light was generated by InSight X3 laser (Spectra-Physics Lasers) tuned to a wavelength of 920 or 1040 nm, respectively. A layer of a 1:1 mixture of Multipurpose wavelengths ultrasound gel (National therapy, Canada) with double deionized water was used to immerse the objective. This gel was able to trap the water and reduce its evaporation during imaging. The emitted signals were detected by a photomultiplier tube (Hamamatsu H7422PA-4) following a t565lp dichroic and a Chroma barrier et525/70m filter for GFP and et595/50m filter for jRGECO1a signals. Images (512 × 512 pixels) were collected at a frame rate of 29.9 Hz at the resonant galvo mode. Data were collected from the dorsal surface of the IC by scanning the surface of the IC based on the GFP and jRGECO1a signals through the medial and lateral horizons of the IC. Generally, each field of view was selected based on the expression of jRGECO1a and being acoustically active using a search stimulus that was 500-ms broadband noise with zero modulation at 80 dB SPL. The frame timing of the scanner and the sound stimuli were both digitized and time-locked using a Digidata 1440A (Molecular Devices) with Clampex version 10.3 (Molecular Devices).

Acoustic stimulation

Using a custom-made MATLAB (The MathWorks) code, 500-ms pure tones were generated. Each pure tone is one of the 35 (5 × 7) combinations of sound pressure levels (80, 70, 60, 50, 40 dB SPL) and carrier frequencies (5000–40,000 Hz with a half-octave gap) that was presented with a cosine window. Each run is composed of these 35 combinations that were played in random sequence to the mice with a 600-ms interstimulus interval by a TDT RP2.1 processor (Tucker-Davis Technologies) and delivered by a TDT ES1 speaker (Tucker-Davis Technologies). Thus, stimuli were delivered every 1100 ms. Given the relatively fast kinetics of rGECO1a compared with earlier indicators (half decay time ∼300 ms (Dana et al., 2016)), this interstimulus interval allowed for relatively dense sampling of stimulus space with minimal carryover of calcium waveforms between stimuli. Each animal was presented with different runs (mostly nine runs on average). Each run has a different random sequence of the 35 combinations.

The output of the TDT ES1 speaker was calibrated using a PCB 377A06 microphone, which feeds SigCal tool to generate a calibration file for all tested frequencies (5–40 kHz). To enable the custom-made MATLAB code to read this calibration file, the values were first processed by MATLAB signal processing toolbox (sptool) to generate a 256-tap FIR filter to apply the calibration using the following parameters [arbitrary magnitudes, least square, order: 256, sampling rate: 97,656.25, frequency vector (5–40 kHz), amplitude vector (40–80 dB SPL), and weight vector ones (1128)].

Data processing

Data collection

The data were collected as separate movies (512 × 512 pixels) in a resonant galvo mode. Depending on the amplitude and frequency combinations for each type of acoustic stimulus, 40 s was assigned as a movie's length for pure tone (35 stimulus combinations). Using ImageJ software (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/), the z-projection was used to compute one single image representing either the sum, the standard deviation, or the median of all the image sequences in the movie. Based on these single images, the region of interest (ROI) was manually drawn around each detectable cell body.

Motion correction and filtering

The imread function from the OpenCV library was used in grayscale mode to import images into a numpy array from a single folder containing TIFF images. The array was then exported as a single TIFF stack into a temporary folder using the mimwrite function from the imageio library, and the process was repeated for each folder. The NoRMCorre algorithm (Pnevmatikakis and Giovannucci, 2017) embedded in the CaImAn library (Giovannucci et al., 2019) was used to apply motion correction to each of the TIFF files. The data were then imported into a numpy array, rounded, and converted to 16-bit integers. The images were filtered using a 2D Gaussian filter with a σ value of 1 (Surface View)/2 (Prism View) in each direction, then a 1D Gaussian temporal filter with a σ value of 2 was applied using the ndimage.Gaussian_filter and ndimage.Gaussian_filter1d function from the scipy library, respectively.

Data extraction

The ROI sets, which were manually created using ImageJ, were imported using the read_roi_zip function from the read_roi library. The sets were then used to create two masks; one mask was used as a replica of the ROIs and the second mask was made around the original ROI (roughly four times larger in the area). The smaller mask was applied to find the average pixel value within each ROI, while the larger mask was applied to find the average pixel value of the neuropil. The neuropil correction was applied using the following equation (Akerboom et al., 2012): Corrected value=Date value−(0.4× Neuropil value)

Δf/f values were then calculated by using the following equation. Δff=(Peak value−Background value)Background value , where the background value is the slope estimating the background levels with fluorescence bleaching factored in. The data were then reorganized so that all segments with the same stimulus frequency and stimulus amplitude were grouped.

Cell flagging

The correlation coefficient between each of the trials was calculated using the stats. Pearsonr function from the scipy library. The average correlation coefficient was calculated for each stimulus frequency and stimulus amplitude. Similar to previous work (Wong and Borst, 2019), if the average correlation coefficient was above the threshold of 0.6, the cell was flagged as being responsive to that stimulus combination of frequency and amplitude, and the best frequency, which was defined as pure tone frequency that evoked the highest average response across all sound levels, was calculated for the cell (Barnstedt et al., 2015).

Tonotopic map generation

The average radius for all ROIs was calculated to ensure that all cells on the tonotopic map had uniform radii. A color key was also generated, with each shade of green representing one frequency. A blank canvas was generated using the Image module from the pillow library, and a circle was created for each cell and filled with the shade of green that represents the cell's best frequency (Barnstedt et al., 2015). Cells that were nonresponsive to stimuli were filled in red. The maps from all animals of the same group were aligned together based on the distance from the midline to construct a single map for each group. The tonotopic organization was determined by calculating the correlation between the distance (micrometers) of every cell from the most medial cell and its best frequency. The significant positive correlation is an indicator of the tonotopic organization when the cells are best tuned to lower and higher frequencies along the medial to the lateral axis. The statistics for the data set, such as the total number of cells, number of responsive cells, and number of nonresponsive cells were tallied up and exported in an Excel spreadsheet.

Population analysis

The average trace across all GABAergic cells and all non-GABAergic cells was plotted for each frequency and amplitude, similarly to the individual traces. The area under the curve (AUC) was used as a metric for calculation. For every animal, a heat map was generated within each cell type by normalizing all the values across the amplitude/frequency combinations to the highest value. Then one heat map was generated for each exposure group by averaging the normalized values at each amplitude/frequency combination. For every animal, the sound amplitude evokes 20% of the highest response was calculated as a threshold of the activity at each frequency. The (INH/EXC) ratio was calculated by dividing the AUC value of GABAergic cells over that of non-GABAergic cells at each amplitude/frequency combination for each animal across all exposure groups.

Tissue preparation and Western blotting

Tissue preparation and protein quantification

Either after the last ABR measurement or immediately after the two-photon imaging, the animals, which were still under anesthesia, were decapitated and their brains were quickly isolated from the skull. The brains were then immediately immersed in isopentane solution, which was precold using dry ice (Ibrahim and Briski, 2014; Alenazi et al., 2015). The frozen brains were then kept in the ultracold freezer (−80°C) until further processing. At the time of tissue extraction, the frozen brain was transferred to a cryostat (Leica) at −14°C and left for 5 min for equilibration. During this time, one mini tablet of protease and phosphatase inhibitor (#A32959, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was added to 10 ml of ice-cold N-PER Neuronal Protein Extraction reagent (#87792, Thermo Fisher Scientific) by vigorous vortexing until the tablet was completely dissolved. The brain was then sectioned (50 µm) at the level of the IC. For each section that showed the IC, a micropuncher (EMS-Core Sampling, #50-192-7735, Fisher Scientific) of 1 mm size, was used to dissect the tissue of the whole IC from the two hemispheres. All the dissected tissues from one animal were then dropped into the lysis solution (150 µl), which was then mechanically disrupted using an electrical homogenizer (Polytron). The homogenate was then centrifuged (10,000 × g for 10 min at 4°C), and the supernatant was then collected leaving the pellets behind. The protein concentration of the supernatant was then determined using Pierce BCA Protein Assay kit (#PI23225, Fisher Scientific) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The supernatant was then kept in the ultracold freezer (−80°C) until further processing.

Western blotting

The protein of the lysates was then adjusted to 20 mg total protein using 4× Laemmli Sample Buffer (#1610747, Bio-Rad). The protein sample was denatured and run on 4–15% Mini-PROTEAN TGX Precast Protein Gels as per the manufacturer's instructions (BIO-RAD). Blots were probed overnight at 4°C with antibodies recognizing GAD67 (1:1000, GAD1 (D1F2M) Rabbit mAb, #41318, Cell Signaling), SOD2 (1:1000, SOD2 (D9V9C) rabbit mAb, #13194, Cell Signaling) and actin (1:1000, β-actin antibody #4967, Cell Signaling). Blots were then processed using anti-rabbit IgG, HRP-linked antibody (#7074, Cell Signaling) followed by Super Signal West Pico PLUS Chemiluminescent Substrate (#34580, Thermo Fisher Scientific) as published before (Ibrahim et al., 2013).

Statistics

Statistical analysis was done by Origin Pro 2022 software. The litter was the unit of the analysis, and the sex was nested within the litter. One litter from the control group was excluded from the study as the dam of this litter abandoned its pups resulting in the pups' death. Also, not all litters have male and female pups, so the number of litters used in the analysis was different across the exposure groups and sexes. The normality of the data points within each group across the different sexes was examined by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Based on the outcome, the parametric one-way ANOVA and Fisher post hoc tests were used for normal data, while the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA and Donn post hoc tests were used for the non-normal data to examine the significant differences between the exposure groups. A χ2 test was used to examine the difference between the number of responsive versus nonresponsive cells to sound between each pair of groups. The significant effects were analyzed by the Fisher post hoc test, and the significance was called at p < 0.05 for all the statistical tests.

Results

Developmental exposure to PCBs impairs hearing in male mice

The toxic effect of developmental exposure to PCBs on hearing has been extensively studied in rats (Goldey et al., 1995; Herr et al., 1996; Crofton and Rice, 1999; Crofton et al., 2000; Lasky et al., 2002; Powers et al., 2006, 2009; Kenet et al., 2007; Sadowski et al., 2016; C.M. Lee et al., 2021), which do not provide a rich library of genetically modified models compared with mice. Examination of the toxic interaction between PCBs and noise on different cell types requires a genetically modified model that can aid in cell-type visualization. Therefore, mice were used in this study. To validate the mouse model for PCB studies, we first examined the toxic effect of PCBs on hearing in a mouse model that permits the examination of excitatory and inhibitory cell types. Given that fish are a primary source of PCBs exposure in humans (Persky et al., 2001; Judd et al., 2004; Roveda et al., 2006; Weintraub and Birnbaum, 2008), the Fox River PCB mixture (Sullivan et al., 1983) was used to simulate the human environmental exposure to PCBs.

Wild-type female SW mice were daily given a 40- to 50-mg Nella cookie contaminated with either 0, 6, or 12 mg/kg of Fox River PCBs mixture (corn oil based) for 28 d before the breeding with PCBs-unexposed GAD67-GFP knock-in male mice (Tamamaki et al., 2003). Dosing continued throughout pregnancy and lactation until the weaning of their pups. ABR measurements were then taken from the three-month-old offspring to measure their hearing across different PCB developmental exposure levels. Under this experimental paradigm (Fig. 1A), the prenatal and postnatal exposure to 6 or 12 mg/kg PCBs produced low-frequency (4 and 8 kHz) hearing impairment compared with vehicle-exposed dams (Fig. 1B), consistent with previous work (Powers et al., 2009). This hearing impairment was only significant in males (Fig. 1C,D). Therefore, only male offspring were selected for additional experiments. There was no difference in the hearing threshold of the pups that came from dams either exposed to 6 or 12 mg/kg of PCBs (Fig. 1), which indicated the toxic effect of the PCBs on the hearing of the mice was not dose dependent within the tested dose range. Therefore, the lower dose (6 mg/kg PCBs mixture) was used for the subsequent experiments.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Developmental exposure to PCBs impairs hearing in male mice. A, The timeline of the experimental design of the PCB dosing of dams and hearing assessment of the pups. B, A line plot of the hearing threshold across different frequencies for all pups came from dams under different exposures (one-way ANOVA: F(2,33) = 6.1, p = 0.005, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.002 and 0.007 for Oil vs 6 and 12 mg/kg PCB, respectively, and p = 0.58 for 6 vs 12 mg/kg PCB at 4 kHz and F(2,33) = 10.8, *p = 2.4 × 10−4 and 7.1 × 10–5 for Oil vs 6 and 12 mg/kg PCB, respectively, and p = 0.28 for 6 vs 12 mg/kg PCB at 8 kHz and F(2,32) = 3.1, p = 0.06 at 16 kHz and F(2,26) = 1.2, p = 0.31 at 24 kHz). C, A line plot of the hearing threshold across different frequencies for male pups came from dams under different exposures (one-way ANOVA: F(2,16) = 8.3, p = 0.003, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 9.1 × 10−4 and 0.01 for Oil vs 6 and 12 mg/kg PCB, respectively, and p = 0.19 for 6 vs 12 mg/kg PCB at 4 kHz and F(2,16) = 5.5, p = 0.02, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.02 and 0.005 for Oil vs 6 and 12 mg/kg PCB, respectively, and p = 0.43 for 6 vs 12 mg/kg PCB at 8 kHz and F(2,15) = 2.0, p = 0.17 at 16 kHz and F(2,11) = 1.1, p = 0.36 at 24 kHz). D, A line plot of the hearing threshold across different frequencies or female pups came from dams under different exposures (one-way ANOVA: F(2,14) = 1.1, p = 0.36 at 4 kHz and F(2,13) = 3.2, p = 0.08 at 8 kHz and F(2,14) = 1.1, p = 0.35 at 16 kHz and F(2,14) = 0.4, p = 0.67 at 24 kHz). * The significance against Oil-treated group.

Developmental exposure to PCB inhibits the recovery from NIHL

After showing the developmental toxicity of PCB exposure on the hearing of male mice, we next examined the toxic interaction between PCB exposure during development and NIHL in adulthood. An additional cohort of wild-type SW female mice were dosed with 6 mg/kg Fox River PCB mixture daily for 28 d before breeding with PCBs-unexposed GAD67-GFP knock-in male mice and throughout pregnancy and lactation until the weaning of their pups (Fig. 2A). At three months of age, the GFP-positive male pups were randomly divided into two groups: a group exposed to 110 dB SPL broadband noise for 45 min (noise-exposed; NE) and a sham group (noise-unexposed; NU). Hence, a total of four subgroups: Oil/NU, which is the control group of no PCBs or noise exposure; PCB/NU; Oil/NE; and PCB/NE. To measure the baseline hearing, an initial ABR was obtained from all offspring in all groups just before the noise or sham exposure at three months of age. To examine the acute toxic effect of noise exposure, another ABR was taken from all animals immediately after noise exposure (postnoise-day 0). This noise exposure paradigm was selected to induce a temporary threshold shift (Amanipour et al., 2018), so animals would regain their normal hearing one week after the acoustic trauma. Therefore, another ABR was taken from all animals one week after noise exposure (postnoise-day 7) to examine the hearing recovery of the animals after different exposures. Four months later, a final ABR was taken from all animals to assess any aging effect on the hearing baseline of the control group (Oil/NU) as well as the long-term effect of the other exposures on the peripheral auditory system.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Developmental exposure to PCB inhibits the recovery from NIHL. A, The timeline of the experimental design of the PCBs dosing of dams, the overexposure to the noise of the pups, and hearing assessment of the pups before or after noise overexposure. B, A bar graph showing the threshold to flat noise under different exposures across two-time points (days 0 and 120; one-way ANOVA: F(7,76) = 14.3, p = 9.6 × 10−12, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.009, 2.8 × 10−7, or 2.1 × 10−8 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, at day 0 and *p = 0.03, 9.3 × 10−6, or 3.9 × 10−7 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, at day 120 and #p = 4.8 × 10−4 or 0.7.1 × 10−5 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE or PCB/NE, respectively, at day 0 and #p = 0.03 or 0.005 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE or PCB/NE, respectively, at day 120 and p = 0.74 and 0.48 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE at days 0 and 120, respectively, and p = 0.45, 0.24, 0.57, 0.30 for day 0 vs 120 at Oil/NU, PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively). C, A line graph of the ABR threshold to pure tones from different exposure groups (at 5 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,36) = 8.7, p = 1.8 × 10−4, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.004, 1.6 × 10−4, or 5.2 × 10−5 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 0.19 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.11 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.79 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE; at 10 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,36) = 11.4, p = 2.0 × 10−5, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.005, 5.0 × 10−5, or 4.6 × 10−6 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.02 PCB/NU vs PCB/NE and p = 0.08 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and 0.63 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE; at 14 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,36) = 15.1, p = 1.6 × 10−6, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.02, 4.0 × 10−6, or 1.2 × 10−6 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.04 or 0.002 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE or PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 0.81 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE; at 16 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,34) = 12.6, p = 1.1 × 10−5, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.003, 1.7 × 10−5, or 3.5 × 10−6 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.04 or 0.02 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE or PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 0.81 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE; at 20 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,36) = 11.8, p = 1.6 × 10−5, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.002, 1.4 × 10−5, or 7.6 × 10−6 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, or PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 0.08 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.06 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.94 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE; and at 24 kHz, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, χ2 = 9.04, p = 0.03, post hoc Dunn's test: p = 1.0, 0.22, and 0.41 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 1.0 for all remaining comparisons). D, A bar graph of the hearing threshold shift to the flat noise immediately, a week, or four months after acoustic trauma for the pups from dams exposed to PCBs or Oil (PCB/NE vs Oil/NE; one-way ANOVA: F(5,38) = 4.4, p = 0.002, Fisher post hoc test: ap = 0.003, p = 0.42, and bp = 8.3 × 10−4 for day 0 vs 7, day 0 vs 120, and day 7 vs 120, respectively, at Oil/NE and p = 0.58, 0.15, and 0.06 for day 0 vs 7, day 0 vs 120, and day 7 vs 120, respectively, at PCB/NE and p = 0.85, $p = 0.03, and p = 0.63 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE at days 0, 7, and 120, respectively). E, A line graph of the hearing threshold shift to different pure tone frequencies immediately or a week after acoustic trauma for the pups from dams exposed to PCBs or Oil (PCB/NE vs Oil/NE; at 5 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,32) = 7.3, p = 7.0 × 10−4, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 1.5 × 10−4 and p = 0.32 for day 0 vs 7 at Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.007 for PCB/NE vs Oil/NE at day 7; at 10 kHz, one-way ANOVA: F(3,32) = 4.9, p = 0.007, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.002 and p = 0.39 for day 0 vs 7 at Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.02 for PCB/NE vs Oil/NE at day 7; and one-way ANOVA: F(3,32) = 1.7, p = 0.19 at 14 kHz, F(3,32) = 0.94, p = 0.42 at 16 kHz, F(3,32) = 0.17, p = 0.9 at 20 kHz, and F(3,32) = 0.51, p = 0.67 at 24 kHz). The exposure groups are plotted as Oil/NU: black, PCB/NU: red, Oil/NE: blue, and PCB/NE: purple. * The significance against (Oil/NU) group. # The significance against (PCB/NU) group. $ The significance against (Oil/NE) group. a The significance against day 0. b The significance against day 120.

We observed that all adults that had been exposed to PCB and/or noise showed higher hearing thresholds than those of the control group (Oil/NU) to flat noise (Fig. 2B) and all pure tone frequencies below 24 kHz (Fig. 2C). However, the hearing impairment induced by noise exposure was significantly greater than that induced by PCBs indicated by higher hearing thresholds in Oil/NE or PCB/NE groups than PCB/NU to flat noise and the central frequencies (between 5 and 20 kHz; Fig. 2B,C). Four months after the first ABR measurements, the hearing thresholds to flat noise of all groups did not change from those at day 0, which suggests any aging-related hearing effects across all groups are limited (Fig. 2B). Also, the difference between the thresholds of all groups was similar to the one measured at day 0 (Fig. 2B), which indicates that PCBs and/or noise exposures resulted in long-term permanent damage to the peripheral auditory system. Given the nonsignificant difference in the hearing threshold between the pups of the (Oil/NE) and (PCB/NE) groups for all tested stimuli (Fig. 2B,C), these data suggest that developmental exposure to a 6 mg/kg Fox River PCBs mixture did not exacerbate the acute effect of NIHL.

The hearing recovery under different exposures was assessed by comparing the hearing threshold shift at different time points after noise exposure (day 0, vs 7, and 120; see Materials and Methods). Initially, at day 0 or immediately after the noise exposure, the threshold shift of the animals of both Oil/NE and PCB/NE groups was increased indicating the acute damage of noise exposure to hearing. At day 7 or one week after noise exposure, while the threshold shift of the animals from the Oil/NE group was significantly reduced compared with that at day 0, the threshold shift of the animals from the PCB/NE group remained high indicating that the hearing recovery could be blocked by PCBs. At day 120 or four months after noise exposure, the threshold shift of the animals from the Oil/NE group recovered to be similar to that at day 0 or that of the animals from the PCB/NE group (Fig. 2D). The finding that the threshold shift of the animals from Oil/NE group was increased after hearing recovery suggests that noise exposure could accelerate the cochlear aging as a long-term effect after hearing recovery (Fernandez et al., 2015).

Moreover, it was found that the mice that came from dams treated with oil and exposed later to high levels of flat noise (Oil/NE) were able to regain their hearing one week after noise exposure, indicated by a significant reduction of the hearing threshold shift on day 7 compared with day 0 for low-frequency pure tones (5 and 10 kHz; Fig. 2E). In contrast, developmental exposure to the PCB mixture was found to prevent hearing recovery of the animals exposed later to high-level flat noise (PCB/NE) indicated by the nonsignificant reduction of the hearing threshold shift on day 7 compared with that on day 0 for all tested frequencies (Fig. 2E). Consistently, the threshold shift of the pups of the (Oil/NE) group on day 7 was significantly lower than that of the pups of the (PCB/NE) group for the low-frequency pure tones (5 and 10 kHz; Fig. 2E). Therefore, the above data suggest that developmental damage of the 6 mg/kg Fox River PCB mixture on hearing at flat noise and lower frequencies impairs the machinery of short-term hearing recovery after noise exposure later in adulthood. However, exposure to high levels of flat noise could accelerate cochlear aging as a long-term effect after hearing recovery.

The effect of PCBs and/or noise exposure on the auditory midbrain

The hyperactivity of the IC was reported after acoustic trauma through many studies (Mulders and Robertson, 2009; Manzoor et al., 2012; Wei, 2013; Gröschel et al., 2014), which could be associated with the development of tinnitus as a long-term effect after such acoustic insults, as reviewed previously (for review, see Berger and Coomber, 2015). Therefore, the IC is a good candidate to examine whether developmental exposure to PCBs could exacerbate the long-term negative central effects of noise exposure later in adulthood. The IC comprises a major lemniscal division, the central nucleus (ICC), that receives primarily ascending auditory projections (Willard and Ryugo, 1983; Willott, 2001; Oliver, 2005), and two nonlemniscal divisions known as the dorsal (DCIC) and lateral (LCIC) cortices that receive massive descending auditory as well as multisensory inputs (Coleman and Clerici, 1987; Saldaña et al., 1996; Winer et al., 1998; Bajo and Moore, 2005; Schreiner and Winer, 2005; Loftus et al., 2008; Lesicko et al., 2016; Vaithiyalingam Chandra Sekaran et al., 2021). To examine the differential impact of PCBs on excitatory versus inhibitory neurons in the IC, and because the IC is superficially accessible in mice (Fig. 3A), two-photon in vivo microscopy was used to monitor the evoked calcium signals of the DCIC neurons to pure tone stimuli. The calcium indicator jRGECO1a was delivered to the non-GABAergic and GABAergic neurons of the DCIC through a viral expression of the red calcium indicator driven by the Syn promoter after injecting the DCIC with adeno-associated virus (AAV) immediately after the final ABR measurement (postnoise-day 7). The expression of GFP in the GABAergic neurons of GAD67-GFP knock-in animals enabled us to distinctively monitor the activity of non-GABAergic (GFP-negative) and GABAergic (GFP-positive) neurons. Given that the chronic tinnitus-like behavior can take weeks or months after acoustic trauma to emerge (Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2011; Middleton et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2012), the acoustically evoked neuronal activity was imaged after 28–30 weeks of noise exposure to examine any possible long-term central effects. The recording of the evoked calcium signals to different (frequency/amplitude) combinations of pure tones was successfully achieved (Fig. 3B). Based on the best pure tone frequency of each responsive cell (Barnstedt et al., 2015), non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells of the DCIC of the animals from the Oil/NU group showed a similar tonotopic organization reported before (Barnstedt et al., 2015; Wong and Borst, 2019), which consisted of cells tuned to lower and higher frequencies along the rostromedial to the caudolateral axis, respectively. The positive correlation between the distance of each cell on the mediolateral axis and its best frequency is an indicator for the tonotopy shown by the Oil/NU group (Fig. 3C, first row). Although PCB/NU and Oil/NE groups showed a significant positive correlation between the distance of the cells along the mediolateral axis and their best frequency indicating a good tonotopic organization over the mediolateral axis, both groups had different profiles of how the best frequencies of the cells are spatially distributed. While the Oil/NE group showed a similar tonotopic map to that of the Oil/NU group featuring some medially located cells tuned to mostly low-frequency pure tones(Fig. 3C, third rows), the PCB/NU group showed a high-low-high map featuring some medially located cells tuned to high-frequency pure tones (Fig. 3C, second row), which was previously reported (Wong and Borst, 2019). This difference in the tonotopic organization of the DCIC neurons across different exposures suggests that the tonotopy of the DCIC could be reshaped based on environmental input. The PCB/NE group showed a complete disruption of tonotopy (Fig. 3C, fourth row) indicated by the lack of a correlation between the distance of the cells along the mediolateral axis and their best frequency. This disruption was characterized by a significant loss of the responsive non-GABAergic cells compared with all other groups (Fig. 3D). This nonresponsive zone was mostly located in the lateral areas where the cells were tuned to the higher frequencies (Fig. 3C, fourth row). Consistent with this finding, the distribution of the cells based on best frequency showed a significant low-frequency bias for GABAergic and non-GABAergic neurons in the PCB/NE group compared with all groups (Fig. 3E), which could indicate synaptic reorganization to compensate for the low-frequency hearing loss. A smaller effect was found in the Oil/NE group and PCB/NU groups (Fig. 3E), which could indicate a partial disruption of the DCIC tonotopy. Further, this loss of the neurons tuned to higher frequencies in the lateral areas of the DCIC of the PCB/NE group resulted in a complete reversal of tonotopy (higher to lower frequencies along the medial to the lateral axis) compared with all other groups (lower to higher frequencies along the medial to the lateral axis). However, it is not known whether the change in the tonotopic organization of the DCIC is driven by central and/or peripheral components. The significantly higher threshold to flat noise of the animals from PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE groups at the time of the two-photon imaging compared with that of the control (Oil/NU) group (Fig. 2B) suggests that the changes in the DCIC induced by different exposures could be because of peripheral damage. Although PCB/NE and Oil/NE groups shared a similar threshold to the flat noise four months after noise exposure (Fig. 2B), PCB/NE group had a disrupted tonotopy compared with that shown by the Oil/NE group, which indicates that the DCIC changes induced by PCBs and noise exposure (PCB/NE) was accompanied by central changes.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

The effect of PCBs and/or noise exposure on the DCIC cells. A, A brightfield image of the surface of the DCIC. B, The time traces of the evoked calcium signals by different stimuli of pure tones obtained from non-GABAergic (top) and GABAergic (bottom) cells of the DCIC imaged from the surface; The length and the color of the gradient green bars indicate the intensity and the frequency of the stimulus, respectively. C, Pseudocolor images show the activity of the cells on the DCIC across different animals from (Oil/NU: first row, PCB/NU: second row, Oil/NE: third row, and PCB/NE: fourth row) in response to the pure tone based on their best frequency as graded green circles for the responsive cells and solid red circles for the nonresponsive cells [Pearson correlation 0.69 (p = 2.4 × 10−37), 0.56 (p = 2.6 × 10−37), 0.7 (p = 6.5 × 10−69), and −0.007 (p = 0.92) for non-GABAergic cells of Oil/NU, PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and Pearson correlation 0.63 (p = 1.9 × 10−6), 0.56 (p = 3.7 × 10−13), 0.62 (p = 5.6 × 10−17), and −0.03 (p = 0.85) for GABAergic cells of Oil/NU, PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively]. D, A heat map showing the fraction of the responsive non-GABAergic [left; χ2 test: χ2 = 227 (*p < 0.001), 111 (*p < 0.001), and 9.9 (*p = 0.001) for Oil/NE vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and χ2 = 36.3 (#p < 0.001) and 311 (#p < 0.001) for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and χ2 = 181 ($p < 0.001) for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE) and GABAergic (right; χ2 test: χ2 = 79.8 (*p < 0.001), 54.6 (*p < 0.001), and 0.09 (p = 0.67) for Oil/NE vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and χ2 = 4.2 (#p = 0.04) and 65.2 (#p < 0.001) for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and χ2 = 42 ($p < 0.001) for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE] cells to sounds across all exposure groups. E, A cumulative distribution function for non-GABAergic (left; Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA: χ2 = 156, *p < 0.001 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and #p = 0.003 and #p = 7.1 × 10−7 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and $p < 0.001 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE) and GABAergic (right; Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA: χ2 = 59.9, *p = 5.0 × 10−6, *p = 4.2 × 10−4, *p < 0.001 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, and p = 1.0 and #p = 5.5 × 10−5 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, and $p = 7.0 × 10−7 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE) cells of the DCIC based on their best frequency. F, A line graph showing the fraction of evoked non-GABAergic [left; χ2 test: χ2 = 53.3 (*p < 0.001), χ2 = 0.0043 (p = 0.99), and 43.6 (#p < 0.001) for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, at 40 dB SPL and χ2 = 0.06 (p = 0.99), χ2 = 0.34 (p = 0.95), and 0.52 (p = 0.91) for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, at 60 dB SPL] and GABAergic [right; χ2 test: χ2 = 3.7 (p = 0.29), χ2 = 0.65 (p = 0.88), and χ2 = 9.9 (*p = 0.02) for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE at 40 dB SPL and χ2 = 0.42 (p = 0.92), χ2 = 5.1 (p = 0.16), and 0.001 (p = 0.99) for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, at 60 dB SPL] cells of the DCIC at each sound level within the responsive cell population across all exposure groups. The exposure groups are plotted as Oil/NU: black line, PCB/NU: red line, Oil/NE: blue line, and PCB/NE: purple line. * The significance against (Oil/NU) group. # The significance against (PCB/NU) group. $ The significance against (Oil/NE) group. Cereb: cerebellum; CTx: cortex, DCIC: dorsal cortex of the inferior colliculus, TS: the transverse sinus. A rainbow color code was selected for different frequencies, N.R in gray: nonresponsive cells.

Compared with the Oil/NU group, both PCB/NU and Oil/NE groups had more responsive GABAergic and non-GABAergic neurons to pure tone stimuli (Fig. 3C, second and third rows, D), which could indicate an increased gain induced by homeostatic plasticity after the peripheral damage and consistent with the previous finding showing the increased gain of the corticocollicular axons reported after noise-induced hearing loss (Asokan et al., 2018). To test this possibility, the average cellular response across all tested frequencies and amplitudes was calculated based on the AUC of the evoked response. Consistent with our hypothesis, there was an increase in the evoked cellular response of non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells of the Oil/NE and PCB/NU groups compared with control [Oil/NU; non-GABAergic cells: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, χ2 = 183.6, p = 1.49 × 10−39, post hoc Dunn's test: p = 1.5 × 10−10 or 5.1 × 10−7 for Oil/NE (median = 2700.7) or PCB/NU (median = 274.8) vs Oil/NU (median = 210.6), respectively, and GABAergic cells: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, χ2 = 66.7, p = 2.2 × 10−14, post hoc Dunn's test: p = 1.7 × 10−7 or 4.7 × 10−6 for Oil/NE (median = 2110.5) or PCB/NU (median = 228.9) vs Oil/NU (median = 105.2), respectively], indicating a higher gain of both cell types in Oil/NE and PCB/NU groups. In contrast, the response of non-GABAergic cells only of the PCB/NE group was reduced compared with the control [non-GABAergic cells: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, χ2 = 183.6, p = 1.49 × 10−39, post hoc Dunn's test: p = 1.95 × 10−7 for PCB/NE (median = 142) vs Oil/NU (median = 210.6) and GABAergic cells: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, χ2 = 66.7, p = 2.2 × 10−14, post hoc Dunn's test: p = 1.0 for PCB/NE (median = 112.96) vs Oil/NU (median = 105.2)], suggesting that the combination between PCBs and noise exposure did not induce a synaptic compensatory mechanism to the peripheral damage. These results suggest that the cellular gain could be modulated based on the degree of the peripheral or central damage induced by different exposures in a frequency-dependent manner. Within the population of responsive neurons of the DCIC to sound in the unexposed control animals (Oil/NU), it was found that 27.5% and 18.3% of responsive non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively, could be activated by sound at 40 dB SPL. Therefore, we asked whether a sound at 40 dB SPL could activate a similar percentage of cells in the DCIC of Oil/NE (hearing recovered) vs PCB/NE (hearing unrecovered). Whereas a similar percentage of non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells could be activated by a 40 dB SPL sound level in the Oil/NE compared with the Oil/NU group (27.6% and 23.3% of responsive non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively; Fig. 3F), a significantly lower percentage of cells were activated by a 40 dB sound level in the PCB/NE group (2.4% and 0.0% of responsive non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively; Fig. 3F). By interpolation, the PCB/NE group was found to require a higher sound level (53.8 and 52.6 dB SPL) to activate a similar fraction of the responsive non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively (Fig. 3F), as the Oil/NU group, which was consistent with the persistent toxic effect of PCBs that prevented the hearing recovery. Consistent with the hearing damage induced by PCB exposure, the DCIC cells of PCB/NU showed a significantly lower fraction of activated non-GABAergic cells by a 40 dB SPL sound level compared with those of the Oil/NU group (8.0% and 9.4% of responsive non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively; Fig. 3F) and then required a moderately higher sound level (47.6 and 42.5 dB SPL) to activate a similar percentage of non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells, respectively, compared with the Oil/NU group (Fig. 3F). In addition, all groups showed a similar fraction of activated cells at a 60 dB SPL sound level, suggesting that most differences were seen at relatively low sound pressure levels (Fig. 3F). The above data show that the combination of developmental exposure to PCBs and noise exposure in adulthood had a significant long-term negative impact on the DCIC neurons, which is characterized by a disruption of the tonotopic organization and an increase of the threshold of DCIC neurons.

The effect of PCBs and/or noise exposure on the inhibition and excitation balance of the DCIC

For each amplitude/frequency combination, the pooled AUC values of the calcium signals obtained from either non-GABAergic or GABAergic cells were calculated to examine excitatory or inhibitory activities, respectively, of the DCIC across different exposures. After normalizing the AUC values against the highest value across all amplitude/frequency combinations per each animal, a heat map was made by averaging the AUC values across all animals in each group. The visual assessment of these maps indicated that the frequency response areas (FRAs) in the exposure groups (PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE) were smaller compared with the control group (Oil/NU). To quantify this difference, the sound level evoking 20% of the highest response at each frequency was assigned as a sound threshold at that frequency for each animal within each group. Compared with the control group, all animals exposed to either PCBs, noise, or their combination required a significantly higher sound pressure level to get a 20% of response at 10 and 14.1 kHz for non-GABAergic cells and GABAergic cells (Fig. 4B,C). The PCB-exposed animals either those exposed to PCBs alone or PCBs combined with noise required a significantly higher sound level to achieve 20% activity of their GABAergic cells at 28.3 kHz (Fig. 4C). As indicated by the visual assessment of the heat maps, the FRA of inhibitory or GABAergic cells of the PCB/NE group was smaller than that of the control group (Oil/NU), which indicated a loss of inhibition induced by PCB exposure. Given that this loss of inhibition could be associated with a loss of excitation of a similar degree, the inhibition/excitation (INH/EXC) ratio was computed to examine the occurrence of inhibitory downregulation. The (INH/EXC) ratio was calculated by dividing the pooled AUC values of GABAergic by those of non-GABAergic cells at either each sound amplitude across different frequencies or at each sound frequency across different amplitudes. Although the (INH/EXC) ratio was not significantly different between all groups at all sound amplitudes (Fig. 4D), the (INH/EXC) ratio of all exposure groups was significantly lower than that of the control group (Oil/NU) at 5 kHz (Fig. 4E). In addition, the combination of PCBs and noise exposure (PCB/NE) resulted in a persistent low (INH/EXC) ratio at 7.1 kHz compared with the control group (Oil/NU). Also, the noise-exposed groups had a lower (INH/EXC) ratio than that of (PCB/NU) at 7.1 kHz (Fig. 4E). These data suggest that PCBs, noise, or their combination could manipulate the activity of the DCIC in a frequency-dependent manner. For instance, at higher frequencies (10–14 kHz), the PCBs and/or noise exposure increase the threshold of both excitatory and inhibitory activities in a balanced manner indicated by no change in the (INH/EXC) ratio. In contrast, the PCBs and/or noise exposure disrupted the balance between inhibition and excitation by downregulating the inhibition at 5 kHz with no change in the activity threshold. However, only the combination of PCBs and noise exposure extended the inhibitory downregulation at 7.1 kHz.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

The effect of PCBs and/or noise exposure on the inhibition and excitation balance of the DCIC. A, Heat maps showing the excitatory (left) and inhibitory (right) average response across the animals of each exposure group (Oil/NU: first row, PCB/NU: second row, Oil/NE: third row, and PCB/NE: fourth row). B, C, Line graphs showing the sound level required to evoke 20% of the sound response in non-GABAergic (one-way ANOVA: At 10 kHz, F(3,20) = 9.0, p = 5.7 × 10−4, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.0002, 0.002, and 0.0002 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.2 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.79 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.28 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and at 14.1 kHz, F(3,20) = 8.0, p = 0.001, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.004, 0.008, and 0.0001 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.62 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.18 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.06 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and F(3,20) = 0.24, p = 0.86 at 5 kHz, F(3,20) = 0.53, p = 0.67 at 7.1 kHz, F(3,20) = 1.7, p = 0.19 at 20 kHz, F(3,20) = 2.3, p = 0.1 at 28.3 kHz, and F(3,20) = 0.75, p = 0.35 at 40 kHz) or GABAergic (one-way ANOVA: at 10 kHz, F(3,20) = 6.9, p = 0.002, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.006, 0.02, and 0.0003 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.49 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.29 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.07 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and at 14.1 kHz, F(3,20) = 6.9, p = 0.002, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.0002 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.78 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.16 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.08 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and at 28.3 kHz, F(3,20) = 3.3, p = 0.04, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.02, p = 0.06 and *p = 0.01 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.46 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.92 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.37 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and F(3,20) = 1.1, p = 0.38 at 5 kHz, F(3,20) = 1.1, p = 0.36 at 7.1 kHz, F(3,20) = 1.6, p = 0.23 at 20 kHz, F(3,20) = 0.75, p = 0.35 at 40 kHz) cells, respectively, across different pure tone frequencies for each group. D, E, Line graphs showing the inhibition/excitation ratio across different amplitudes or frequencies (one-way ANOVA: at 5 kHz, F(3,18) = 4.9, p = 0.01, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.037, 0.039, and 0.001 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, Oil/NE, and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.73 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE, 0.23 for PCB/NU vs PCB/NE, and 0.09 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and at 7.1 kHz, F(3,16) = 5.4, p = 0.009, Fisher post hoc test: *p = 0.01 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, #p = 0.02 and 0.003 for PCB/NU vs Oil/NE and PCB/NE, respectively, p = 0.47 for Oil/NU vs PCB/NU, 0.06 for Oil/NU vs Oil/NE, and 0.24 for Oil/NE vs PCB/NE and F(3,19) = 1.8, p = 0.18 at 10 kHz, F(3,19) = 1.4, p = 0.27 at 14.1 kHz, F(3,18) = 0.36, p = 0.78 at 20 kHz, F(3,17) = 1.4, p = 0.29 at 28.3 kHz, and F(3,17) = 1.3, p = 0.30 at 40 kHz), respectively, of pure tone stimulus for each exposure group. The exposure groups are plotted as Oil/NU: black line, PCB/NU: red line, Oil/NE: blue line, and PCB/NE: purple line. * The significance against (Oil/NU) group. # The significance against (PCB/NU) group.

The association between the downregulation of inhibition and oxidative stress

Given that both PCB and noise exposure are associated with high levels of oxidative stress (Spreng, 2000; Samson et al., 2008; Bavithra et al., 2012; D.W. Lee et al., 2012; Selvakumar et al., 2012; Daiber et al., 2020; Mao and Chen, 2021; McCann et al., 2021), it was important to examine the capacity of the animals developmentally exposed to PCBs and/or noise in adulthood to mitigate oxidative stress. Therefore, the brains of the animals across different exposures were isolated at different time points (three months of age after the last ABR measurement which was postnoise-day 7 and seven months of age after the two-photon imaging). The brains were frozen and sectioned at the level of the IC. Then, multiple 1-mm biopsies were taken from the IC structure using a micro-puncture (Fig. 5A). The tissue specimens were processed for Western blotting to examine the levels of the metabolic enzyme sodium dismutase-2 (SOD2), which is one of the important enzymes that function to scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS; Fig. 5B). Although the levels of SOD2 showed no significant differences between the exposure groups, low SOD2 levels were found in older animals of higher body weight that were exposed to PCBs and/or noise indicated by a significant negative correlation between the SOD2 levels and the age or the body weight of the animals. This effect was stronger in the PCB/NE group (Fig. 5C,D). This finding was consistent with many reports showing that aging or higher body weight could induce higher levels of oxidative stress that could be associated with lower levels of SOD2 (Pansarasa et al., 1999; Tatone et al., 2006; Zeng et al., 2014; Balasubramanian et al., 2020). Moreover, consistent with the strong correlation between noise exposure and high levels of oxidative stress, low SOD2 levels were associated with higher hearing threshold values in the Oil/NE group only (Fig. 5E).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

The association between the downregulation of inhibition and oxidative stress. A, A cartoon image showing the process of tissue collection and gel running for Western blotting (some features were taken from https://biorender.com). B, An image showing the Western blottings of GAD67 (first row), actin (second row), and SOD2 (third row). C–F, Line graphs showing the correlation between the normalized expression levels of the SOD2 enzyme and either age, body weight, or the normalized expression level of the GAD67 enzyme for the (PCB/NE) group as well as ABR for the (Oil/NE) group. *p-values for each correlation.

GABAergic cells are known for their vulnerability to oxidative stress (for review, see Ibrahim and Llano, 2019), so we asked whether the downregulation of inhibition induced by PCBs and noise exposure is associated with high levels of oxidative stress. Therefore, the tissue specimens were processed for Western blotting to examine the levels of glutamate acid decarboxylase-67 (GAD67), which is the main cytosolic enzyme to produce GABA as an indicator for the level of inhibition, and SOD2 (Fig. 5B). Initially, the GAD67 levels showed no significant difference between the exposure groups, which was consistent with the previous report (Bandara et al., 2016). However, only the PCB/NE group showed a significant positive correlation between GAD67 and SOD2 (Fig. 5F) suggesting that GABAergic inhibition was retained in animals with a higher capacity to clear the ROS, which may suggest that at least part of the downregulation of inhibition seen after PCB and noise exposure may be related to an increase in oxidative stress in the IC.

Discussion

The current study shows that developmental exposure to PCBs resulted in a sex-dependent low-frequency hearing loss in mice, that prenatal and perinatal PCB exposure prevented the normal recovery of hearing after adult noise exposure, that PCB and noise exposure leads to downregulation of synaptic inhibition and disruption of tonotopy of the IC, and that this downregulation of inhibition may be related to increases in oxidative stress. Thus, this work provides a new mechanistic understanding of how an environmentally common combination of toxins leads to central changes in the auditory system and how developmental toxin exposure can have long-lasting neural consequences. Below we address the technical considerations and implications of this work.

Technical considerations and comparison with previous work

The female mice exposed to PCBs and the breeding GAD67-GFP knock-in male mice share the same SW background. The SW is a well-known outbred strain that has generally good hearing into young adulthood (Zheng et al., 1999). Consistent with that, the control animals showed no change in their hearing threshold throughout the study (seven months of age; Fig. 2B) indicating limited aging or genetic-related negative effects on hearing during the study. A relatively short duration/high intensity noise exposure paradigm was used in this study. This paradigm was used because previous work had shown that rats developmentally exposed to PCBs developed audiogenic seizures (AGS) after they were exposed to higher sound pressure levels (Poon et al., 2015; Bandara et al., 2016). Therefore, in our paradigm, mice were anesthetized during noise exposure, which limits the activity of the middle ear reflex (MER), which is known for its protective role against acoustic damage (Brask, 1979; Deiters et al., 2019). Thus, the particular noise exposure protocol here was more likely to cause hearing loss than in awake animals, as reflected in the increased hearing thresholds seen in this study.

Two-photon imaging of the IC was conducted under ketamine anesthesia. As a well-known anesthetic, ketamine has been used in some studies showing the large-scale tonotopic organization in the mouse auditory cortex (Stiebler et al., 1997; Linden et al., 2003; Guo et al., 2012; Yudintsev et al., 2021), which showed a similar topographical functional organization under ketamine and awake state (Guo et al., 2012). However, ketamine may broaden the bandwidth of the FRA and lengthen the response duration (Guo et al., 2012), which could impact the tonal selectivity and temporal properties of the responses. Also, ketamine was reported to increase the spontaneous activity of the IC cells in guinea pigs (Astl et al., 1996; Syka et al., 2000) and the auditory cortex of the rats, which resulted in trial-to-trial variability (Kisley and Gerstein, 1999). To correct for such variability between runs, the average response of all runs across the tested amplitudes at each frequency was taken. The same procedures were followed across all exposure groups.

Our results showed that the difference between the hearing thresholds and impact of PCB exposure in Phase II (Fig. 2C) was larger than that found in Phase I (Fig. 1C) across the tested frequencies. The cause of these cohort-effects are not known, though similar cohort effects have been seen in previous developmental PCB exposure work (Lee et al., 2021). In the current study, Phase I and Phase II were performed one year apart with separate outbred SW breeders purchased for each phase, suggesting that genetic variability may contribute to these differences (Cui et al., 1993). The differences seen in the two cohorts reinforce the need to use matched cohorts for PCB-based studies, particularly in outbred strains. However, despite these differences, the trends seen in both cohorts are highly consistent with previous studies establishing PCB effects on hearing (Goldey et al., 1995; Crofton and Rice, 1999; Crofton et al., 2000; Powers et al., 2006, 2009).

Our results showed that the low INH/EXC ratio found in PCB/NE observed via two-photon imaging was associated with no change in the expression level of GAD67 across all groups, while the previous study done on rats (Bandara et al., 2016) showed a decrease in IC GAD expression after PCB exposure. Such contradictory results could be explained by the difference in the experimental sampling and scaling. While the two-photon imaging was done on the DCIC, the whole IC tissue was dissected for protein quantification because of the technical difficulty to obtain a pure representative sample of the DCIC. Therefore, the results obtained by each technique could implicate subregion-specific changes in IC after the acoustic trauma. Consistent with that notion, and indicated by the click-evoked potentials measured from the external cortex of the IC and its central nucleus after acoustic trauma, it was found that the responses of the two IC subregions are different (Szczepaniak and Møller, 1996). Such differences could originate from the difference in input and output between the lemniscal (Willard and Ryugo, 1983; Willott, 2001; Oliver, 2005) and nonlemniscal (Coleman and Clerici, 1987; Saldaña et al., 1996; Winer et al., 1998; Bajo and Moore, 2005; Schreiner and Winer, 2005; Loftus et al., 2008) regions of the IC.

Implications

PCBs, hearing, and sex differences

Our data are consistent with multiple previous studies demonstrating that developmental PCB exposure causes hearing loss (Goldey et al., 1995; Herr et al., 1996; Crofton and Rice, 1999; Crofton et al., 2000; Lasky et al., 2002; Powers et al., 2006, 2009; Kenet et al., 2007). Several hypotheses exist to explain the impact of developmental PCB exposure on hearing. First, the toxic effect of PCBs on the thyroid gland leads to developmental alteration to the cochlea (Uziel, 1986; Goldey et al., 1995; Goldey and Crofton, 1998; Knipper et al., 2000; Song et al., 2008). Other studies showed the direct toxicity of PCBs on the development of the cochlea by allowing elevations of intracellular calcium concentration in the outer hair cells via ryanodine receptors (Wong et al., 1997; Bobbin, 2002; Sziklai, 2004). Our data also showed that the PCBs and/or noise exposure was associated with long-term permanent damage to hearing, which seemed to be uniquely driven by those exposures without aging-related effects at least four months after acoustic trauma or seven months of age, which is consistent with other reports showing hearing impairment at relevant time points (Powers et al., 2009; L. Liu et al., 2018). Also, the data showed that noise exposure can accelerate aging associated hearing loss after short-term hearing recovery, which was consistent with previous work (Fernandez et al., 2015).

Regarding the sex-dependent toxic effect of PCB exposure, previous studies reported that developmental exposure to PCBs showed mixed sex-dependent effects on behavior, locomotion, and vision in rats (Kremer et al., 1999; Geller et al., 2001; Vega-López et al., 2007; Cauli et al., 2013; Bell et al., 2016). Here, low-frequency hearing loss induced by developmental exposure to PCBs was only shown in male offspring. This finding could implicate the possible protective role of estrogen against hearing loss. For example, postmenopausal women were found to have a higher ABR threshold compared with younger women or men (Wharton and Church, 1990). Similar increases in thresholds were found in ovariectomized rats compared with the controls (Coleman et al., 1994). Estrogen was also found to have a protective effect against cochlear injury, gentamicin ototoxicity, noise, or age-related hearing loss (Nakamagoe et al., 2010; Tabuchi et al., 2011; Caras, 2013; Milon et al., 2018).

PCBs, noise, and the central auditory system

In addition to its negative impact on the peripheral auditory system, many studies examined the central effects of developmental exposure to PCBs or NIHL. The reduction of GABAergic inhibition (Poon et al., 2015; Bandara et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2021) and tonotopic reorganization (Kenet et al., 2007; Izquierdo et al., 2008; Pienkowski and Eggermont, 2009) are the most central common effects of PCBs and noise exposure. Consistent with previous reports, the DCIC of control animals showed a tonotopic map of non-GABAergic and GABAergic cells along the mediolateral axis (Barnstedt et al., 2015; Wong and Borst, 2019). Although similar distributions of responsive cells were seen after PCB exposure or noise exposure, there were more responsive cells to sound than control (Fig. 3C,D), which could be because of compensatory plasticity (Wang et al., 1996; Mulders and Robertson, 2009; Niu et al., 2013; Auerbach et al., 2014; Asokan et al., 2018). After PCB or noise exposure, the tuning frequencies of the cells were biased toward low frequencies (Fig. 3E), which could represent a compensatory mechanism in response to low-frequency hearing loss. In addition, the disruption of the tonotopic organization of the DCIC following the combination of PCBs and noise exposure involved both non-GABAergic and GABAergic cell populations. This tonotopic disruption was characterized by low responsiveness to sound and a possibility of reversed tonotopy of cells. The lower fraction of the responsive cells to sound in the PCB/NE group was only significant within the non-GABAergic neuronal population compared with the control group, which could indicate a selective synaptic mechanism targeting those cells. Our data are consistent with previous work showing that the PCB exposure disrupts the tonotopy of the primary AC, which was characterized by a nonresponsive zone to sound or a reversed tonotopy (Kenet et al., 2007). Given that different exposure groups had higher hearing thresholds compared with the control at the time of two-photon imaging (four months after noise exposure), the changes in the DCIC could be related to peripheral hearing loss, which is well established to cause changes at the level of the IC (Ma et al., 2006; Izquierdo et al., 2008; Mulders and Robertson, 2011; Manzoor et al., 2012; Gröschel et al., 2014; Heeringa and van Dijk, 2014; Vogler et al., 2014). However, noise-exposed animals with or without PCBs exposure had similar hearing thresholds at the time of imaging, while the DCIC of the PCB/NE group showed a disrupted tonotopic organization. These data suggest that collicular changes induced by the combination between PCBs and noise exposure lead to central reorganization independent of peripheral hearing loss. For instance, the presence of tonotopic disruption at the level of the midbrain suggests that disruption in the AC may be inherited from lower centers. Alternatively, given the massive feedback to the DCIC from the AC (Asilador and Llano, 2020; Vaithiyalingam Chandra Sekaran et al., 2021; Yudintsev et al., 2021), the tonotopic disruption observed in the current study could be related to disrupted top-down corticocollicular inputs. Future work will be needed to sort out these possibilities.

PCBs, noise, GABA, and oxidative stress

PCB exposure in rats was associated with audiogenic seizures, which were associated with the downregulation of the inhibition indicated by the lower levels of the GAD56 enzyme (Bandara et al., 2016). Also, the NIHL causes neural hyperactivity in the central auditory system as reviewed (for review, see Zhao et al., 2016). Therefore, it was important to examine the balance between excitation and inhibition following PCBs exposure and/or noise exposure. The current study demonstrated that the PCB/NE group showed the smallest FRA for inhibitory neurons. It was also found that all PCB-exposed animals and/or high-level noise required a higher sound level to reach 20% of its response in both GABAergic and non-GABAergic cell populations. Moreover, a lower INH/EXC ratio was shown by all exposure groups at 5 kHz and by PCB/NE at 7.1 kHz, which suggests that the disruption of the balance between the excitation and inhibition by those exposures could be frequency-dependent. These results were supported by previous findings of PCB-induced disruption of the dynamics between the excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission in the AC (Kenet et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2021). At the level of the IC, PCBs exposure was found to decrease the inhibition by reducing the level of GAD65 expression (Bandara et al., 2016). In addition, noise-induced hearing loss was found to disrupt the balance between inhibition and excitation in the IC and AC in mice (Scholl and Wehr, 2008; Roberts et al., 2010; H. Wang et al., 2011; Sturm et al., 2017).

Many GABAergic cells lack adequate defense mechanisms against oxidative stress (Ibrahim and Llano, 2019), which makes them more vulnerable to oxidative stress compared with other types of neurons. Given that PCBs and noise exposure are linked with an increase in oxidative and metabolic stress (Pessah et al., 2019; Daiber et al., 2020; J. Liu et al., 2020; McCann et al., 2021), the downregulation of inhibition could be associated with a higher level of oxidative stress. The IC is among the most metabolically active regions in the brain (Landau et al., 1955; Sokoloff, 1981; Gross et al., 1987; Zeller et al., 1997; Bordia and Zahr, 2020). Therefore, we examined the association between the downregulation of inhibition and the oxidative stress indicated by the expression levels of both GAD67 and SOD2, respectively. As expected, the exposure to PCBs and/or noise promoted a positive correlation between oxidative stress, as indicated by the high levels of SOD2, and age and weight gain, which was consistent with previous reports (Pansarasa et al., 1999; Tatone et al., 2006; Zeng et al., 2014; Balasubramanian et al., 2020). Despite the absence of change in the level of both GAD67 and SOD2 levels across groups, a positive correlation between GAD67 and SOD2 expression was found in the PCB/NE group only, suggesting that GABAergic inhibition was retained in animals with a higher capacity to clear ROS. Indeed, future studies will be required to investigate the expression levels of different components involved in GABA production and/or function such as GAD65, which was reported to be reduced by PCB exposure in rats (Bandara et al., 2016), and GABA receptors. In addition, regional heterogeneity to oxidative stress, possibly related to perineuronal net expression, may lead to differential sensitivity to PCBs and noise based on the IC subregion (Schofield and Beebe, 2019).

Interactions between PCBs and noise exposure

Most of the effects of combined exposure to PCBs and noise were not entirely predictable by the effects of exposure to either PCBs or noise individually. For example, PCBs and noise exposure appear to combine nonlinearly to produce peripheral hearing loss. This interaction is evidenced by the finding that developmental exposure to PCBs did not exacerbate acute NIHL, but it prevented hearing recovery after one week of the acoustic trauma (Fig. 2). Centrally at the level of the DCIC, while the individual exposures to PCBs or noise increased the number of responsive cells and their gain, the combined exposure to PCBs and noise reversed those effects (Fig. 3F). However, some linear interactions were also shown. These nonlinear interactions emphasize the need to conduct studies that examine the impact of both individual and combined toxin exposure on the developing auditory system.

In conclusion, developmental exposure to PCBs was found to impair the hearing of the male offspring of PCB-treated mouse dams and to prevent hearing recovery after acoustic trauma. PCBs exposure and noise exposure resulted in the disruption of the tonotopic map of the DCIC that was characterized by a wide nonresponsive zone to sound, reversed, and low-frequency-biased tonotopy. Such effects were associated with the disruption of the excitation and inhibition balance via the downregulation of inhibition at lower frequencies and associated with diminished capacity to reduce oxidative stress. Given the level of PCBs still present in the environment, and the high (and growing) incidence of low-level noise exposure in our society (Beyer and Biziuk, 2009; Flamme et al., 2012; Lie et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2018), the current data in combination with previous work suggest that the auditory consequences of these exposures are likely widespread, synergistic, sex-dependent and involve disruption to broad areas of the central auditory system. Future work will be needed to understand the mechanisms by which these changes occur so that approaches may be designed to mitigate the damage caused by these common environmental toxicants.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Postdoctoral Trainee in Endocrine, Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Grant T32 ES007326, the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC016599, and the NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs Grant S10 OD023569.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed Daniel A. Llano at d-llano{at}illinois.edu

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abbott SD,
    2. Hughes LF,
    3. Bauer CA,
    4. Salvi R,
    5. Caspary DM
    (1999) Detection of glutamate decarboxylase isoforms in rat inferior colliculus following acoustic exposure. Neuroscience 93:1375–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(99)00300-0 pmid:10501462
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Akerboom J, et al
    . (2012) Optimization of a GCaMP calcium indicator for neural activity imaging. J Neurosci 32:13819–13840. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2601-12.2012 pmid:23035093
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Alenazi FSH,
    2. Ibrahim BA,
    3. Briski KP
    (2015) Estradiol regulates dorsal vagal complex signal transduction pathway transcriptional reactivity to the AMPK activator 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-riboside (AICAR). J Mol Neurosci 56:907–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12031-015-0541-6 pmid:25796381
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Amanipour RM,
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Duvey G,
    4. Celanire S,
    5. Walton JP,
    6. Frisina RD
    (2018) Noise-induced hearing loss in mice: effects of high and low levels of noise trauma in CBA mice. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2018:1210–1213.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Asilador A,
    2. Llano DA
    (2020) Top-down inference in the auditory system: potential roles for corticofugal projections. Front Neural Circuits 14:615259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2020.615259 pmid:33551756
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Asokan MM,
    2. Williamson RS,
    3. Hancock KE,
    4. Polley DB
    (2018) Sensory overamplification in layer 5 auditory corticofugal projection neurons following cochlear nerve synaptic damage. Nat Commun 9:2468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04852-y pmid:29941910
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Astl J,
    2. Popelár J,
    3. Kvasnák E,
    4. Syka J
    (1996) Comparison of response properties of neurons in the inferior colliculus of guinea pigs under different anesthetics. Audiology 35:335–345. https://doi.org/10.3109/00206099609071954 pmid:9018367
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Auerbach BD,
    2. Rodrigues PV,
    3. Salvi RJ
    (2014) Central gain control in tinnitus and hyperacusis. Front Neurol 5:206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00206 pmid:25386157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bajo VM,
    2. Moore DR
    (2005) Descending projections from the auditory cortex to the inferior colliculus in the gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus. J Comp Neurol 486:101–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.20542 pmid:15844210
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Balasubramanian P,
    2. Asirvatham-Jeyaraj N,
    3. Monteiro R,
    4. Sivasubramanian MK,
    5. Hall D,
    6. Subramanian M
    (2020) Obesity-induced sympathoexcitation is associated with Nrf2 dysfunction in the rostral ventrolateral medulla. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 318:R435–R444. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00206.2019 pmid:31823672
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Bandara SB,
    2. Eubig PA,
    3. Sadowski RN,
    4. Schantz SL
    (2016) Developmental PCB exposure increases audiogenic seizures and decreases glutamic acid decarboxylase in the inferior colliculus. Toxicol Sci 149:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfv237 pmid:26543103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Barnstedt O,
    2. Keating P,
    3. Weissenberger Y,
    4. King AJ,
    5. Dahmen JC
    (2015) Functional microarchitecture of the mouse dorsal inferior colliculus revealed through in vivo two-photon calcium imaging. J Neurosci 35:10927–10939. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0103-15.2015 pmid:26245957
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Bavithra S,
    2. Selvakumar K,
    3. Pratheepa Kumari R,
    4. Krishnamoorthy G,
    5. Venkataraman P,
    6. Arunakaran J
    (2012) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs)-induced oxidative stress plays a critical role on cerebellar dopaminergic receptor expression: ameliorative role of quercetin. Neurotox Res 21:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12640-011-9253-z pmid:21748531
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Bell MR,
    2. Hart BG,
    3. Gore AC
    (2016) Two-hit exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls at gestational and juvenile life stages: 2. Sex-specific neuromolecular effects in the brain. Mol Cell Endocrinol 420:125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2015.11.024 pmid:26620572
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Berger JI,
    2. Coomber B
    (2015) Tinnitus-related changes in the inferior colliculus. Front Neurol 6:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00061 pmid:25870582
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Bergström B,
    2. Nyström B
    (1986) Development of hearing loss during long-term exposure to occupational noise. A 20-year follow-up study. Scand Audiol 15:227–234. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992028609042148
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Beyer A,
    2. Biziuk M
    (2009) Environmental fate and global distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 201:137–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0032-6_5 pmid:19484591
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Bobbin RP
    (2002) Caffeine and ryanodine demonstrate a role for the ryanodine receptor in the organ of Corti. Hear Res 174:172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(02)00654-8 pmid:12433408
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Bordia T,
    2. Zahr NM
    (2020) The inferior colliculus in alcoholism and beyond. Front Syst Neurosci 14:606345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2020.606345 pmid:33362482
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Brask T
    (1979) The noise protection effect of the stapedius reflex. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 360:116–117. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016487809123490 pmid:287319
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Brouwer A,
    2. Longnecker MP,
    3. Birnbaum LS,
    4. Cogliano J,
    5. Kostyniak P,
    6. Moore J,
    7. Schantz S,
    8. Winneke G
    (1999) Characterization of potential endocrine-related health effects at low-dose levels of exposure to PCBs. Environ Health Perspect 107 [Suppl 4]:639–649. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.99107s4639 pmid:10421775
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Cadot S,
    2. Frenz D,
    3. Maconochie M
    (2012) A novel method for retinoic acid administration reveals differential and dose-dependent downregulation of Fgf3 in the developing inner ear and anterior CNS. Dev Dyn 241:741–758. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.23748 pmid:22334445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Caras ML
    (2013) Estrogenic modulation of auditory processing: a vertebrate comparison. Front Neuroendocrinol 34:285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2013.07.006 pmid:23911849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Cauli O,
    2. Piedrafita B,
    3. Llansola M,
    4. Felipo V
    (2013) Gender differential effects of developmental exposure to methyl-mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls 126 or 153, or its combinations on motor activity and coordination. Toxicology 311:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2012.11.016 pmid:23220684
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Coleman JR,
    2. Clerici WJ
    (1987) Sources of projections to subdivisions of the inferior colliculus in the rat. J Comp Neurol 262:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902620204 pmid:3624552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Coleman JR,
    2. Campbell D,
    3. Cooper WA,
    4. Welsh MG,
    5. Moyer J
    (1994) Auditory brainstem responses after ovariectomy and estrogen replacement in rat. Hear Res 80:209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(94)90112-0 pmid:7896579
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Crofton KM,
    2. Rice DC
    (1999) Low-frequency hearing loss following perinatal exposure to 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB 126) in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol 21:299–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-0362(98)00065-8 pmid:10386834
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Crofton KM,
    2. Ding D,
    3. Padich R,
    4. Taylor M,
    5. Henderson D
    (2000) Hearing loss following exposure during development to polychlorinated biphenyls: a cochlear site of action. Hear Res 144:196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(00)00062-9 pmid:10831878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Cui S,
    2. Chesson C,
    3. Hope R
    (1993) Genetic variation within and between strains of outbred Swiss mice. Lab Anim 27:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367793780810397 pmid:8501892
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Daiber A,
    2. Kröller-Schön S,
    3. Oelze M,
    4. Hahad O,
    5. Li H,
    6. Schulz R,
    7. Steven S,
    8. Münzel T
    (2020) Oxidative stress and inflammation contribute to traffic noise-induced vascular and cerebral dysfunction via uncoupling of nitric oxide synthases. Redox Biol 34:101506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2020.101506 pmid:32371009
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Dana H,
    2. Mohar B,
    3. Sun Y,
    4. Narayan S,
    5. Gordus A,
    6. Hasseman JP,
    7. Tsegaye G,
    8. Holt GT,
    9. Hu A,
    10. Walpita D,
    11. Patel R,
    12. Macklin JJ,
    13. Bargmann CI,
    14. Ahrens MB,
    15. Schreiter ER,
    16. Jayaraman V,
    17. Looger LL,
    18. Svoboda K,
    19. Kim DS
    (2016) Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity. Elife 5:e12727. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Daniell WE,
    2. Swan SS,
    3. McDaniel MM,
    4. Camp JE,
    5. Cohen MA,
    6. Stebbins JG
    (2006) Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States. Occup Environ Med 63:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.024588 pmid:16551755
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Deiters KK,
    2. Flamme GA,
    3. Tasko SM,
    4. Murphy WJ,
    5. Greene NT,
    6. Jones HG,
    7. Ahroon WA
    (2019) Generalizability of clinically measured acoustic reflexes to brief sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 146:3993. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5132705 pmid:31795698
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ding T,
    2. Yan A,
    3. Liu K
    (2019) What is noise-induced hearing loss? Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 80:525–529. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2019.80.9.525 pmid:31498679
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Oliver DL
    (2005) Neuronal organization in the inferior colliculus. In: The inferior colliculus (JA Winer and CE Schreiner, eds), pp 69–114. New York: Springer.
  36. ↵
    1. Dong S,
    2. Rodger J,
    3. Mulders WH,
    4. Robertson D
    (2010a) Tonotopic changes in GABA receptor expression in guinea pig inferior colliculus after partial unilateral hearing loss. Brain Res 1342:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.067 pmid:20438718
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Dong S,
    2. Mulders WH,
    3. Rodger J,
    4. Woo S,
    5. Robertson D
    (2010b) Acoustic trauma evokes hyperactivity and changes in gene expression in guinea-pig auditory brainstem. Eur J Neurosci 31:1616–1628.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Fernandez KA,
    2. Jeffers PW,
    3. Lall K,
    4. Liberman MC,
    5. Kujawa SG
    (2015) Aging after noise exposure: acceleration of cochlear synaptopathy in “recovered” ears. J Neurosci 35:7509–7520. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5138-14.2015 pmid:25972177
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Fitzgerald EF,
    2. Brix KA,
    3. Deres DA,
    4. Hwang SA,
    5. Bush B,
    6. Lambert G,
    7. Tarbell A
    (1996) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE) exposure among Native American men from contaminated Great Lakes fish and wildlife. Toxicol Ind Health 12:361–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/074823379601200308 pmid:8843553
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Fitzgerald EF,
    2. Hwang SA,
    3. Bush B,
    4. Cook K,
    5. Worswick P
    (1998) Fish consumption and breast milk PCB concentrations among Mohawk women at Akwesasne. Am J Epidemiol 148:164–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009620 pmid:9676698
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Flamme GA,
    2. Stephenson MR,
    3. Deiters K,
    4. Tatro A,
    5. van Gessel D,
    6. Geda K,
    7. Wyllys K,
    8. McGregor K
    (2012) Typical noise exposure in daily life. Int J Audiol 51 [Suppl 1]:S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.635316 pmid:22264061
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Geller AM,
    2. Oshiro WM,
    3. Haykal-Coates N,
    4. Kodavanti PR,
    5. Bushnell PJ
    (2001) Gender-dependent behavioral and sensory effects of a commercial mixture of polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclor 1254) in rats. Toxicol Sci 59:268–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/59.2.268 pmid:11158720
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Giovannucci A,
    2. Friedrich J,
    3. Gunn P,
    4. Kalfon J,
    5. Brown BL,
    6. Koay SA,
    7. Taxidis J,
    8. Najafi F,
    9. Gauthier JL,
    10. Zhou P,
    11. Khakh BS,
    12. Tank DW,
    13. Chklovskii DB,
    14. Pnevmatikakis EA
    (2019) CaImAn an open source tool for scalable calcium imaging data analysis. Elife 8:e38173. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Goldey ES,
    2. Crofton KM
    (1998) Thyroxine replacement attenuates hypothyroxinemia, hearing loss, and motor deficits following developmental exposure to Aroclor 1254 in rats. Toxicol Sci 45:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/45.1.94
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Goldey ES,
    2. Kehn LS,
    3. Lau C,
    4. Rehnberg GL,
    5. Crofton KM
    (1995) Developmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclor 1254) reduces circulating thyroid hormone concentrations and causes hearing deficits in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 135:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.1995.1210 pmid:7482542
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Goldey GJ,
    2. Roumis DK,
    3. Glickfeld LL,
    4. Kerlin AM,
    5. Reid RC,
    6. Bonin V,
    7. Schafer DP,
    8. Andermann ML
    (2014) Removable cranial windows for long-term imaging in awake mice. Nat Protoc 9:2515–2538. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.165 pmid:25275789
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Gross PM,
    2. Sposito NM,
    3. Pettersen SE,
    4. Panton DG,
    5. Fenstermacher JD
    (1987) Topography of capillary density, glucose metabolism, and microvascular function within the rat inferior colliculus. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 7:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.1987.38 pmid:3558498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Gröschel M,
    2. Ryll J,
    3. Götze R,
    4. Ernst A,
    5. Basta D
    (2014) Acute and long-term effects of noise exposure on the neuronal spontaneous activity in cochlear nucleus and inferior colliculus brain slices. Biomed Res Int 2014:909260. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/909260 pmid:25110707
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Guo W,
    2. Chambers AR,
    3. Darrow KN,
    4. Hancock KE,
    5. Shinn-Cunningham BG,
    6. Polley DB
    (2012) Robustness of cortical topography across fields, laminae, anesthetic states, and neurophysiological signal types. J Neurosci 32:9159–9172. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0065-12.2012 pmid:22764225
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Guo YL,
    2. Lambert GH,
    3. Hsu CC,
    4. Hsu MM
    (2004) Yucheng: health effects of prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and dibenzofurans. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77:153–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-003-0487-9 pmid:14963712
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Heeringa AN,
    2. van Dijk P
    (2014) The dissimilar time course of temporary threshold shifts and reduction of inhibition in the inferior colliculus following intense sound exposure. Hear Res 312:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.004 pmid:24650953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Herr DW,
    2. Goldey ES,
    3. Crofton KM
    (1996) Developmental exposure to Aroclor 1254 produces low-frequency alterations in adult rat brainstem auditory evoked responses. Fundam Appl Toxicol 33:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/33.1.120 pmid:8812251
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Ibrahim BA,
    2. Briski KP
    (2014) Role of dorsal vagal complex A2 noradrenergic neurons in hindbrain glucoprivic inhibition of the luteinizing hormone surge in the steroid-primed ovariectomized female rat: effects of 5-thioglucose on A2 functional biomarker and AMPK activity. Neuroscience 269:199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.02.015 pmid:24631866
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Ibrahim BA,
    2. Llano DA
    (2019) Aging and central auditory disinhibition: is it a reflection of homeostatic downregulation or metabolic vulnerability? Brain Sci 9:351.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Ibrahim BA,
    2. Tamrakar P,
    3. Gujar AD,
    4. Cherian AK,
    5. Briski KP
    (2013) Caudal fourth ventricular administration of the AMPK activator 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-riboside regulates glucose and counterregulatory hormone profiles, dorsal vagal complex metabolosensory neuron function, and hypothalamic Fos expression. J Neurosci Res 91:1226–1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23230 pmid:23825033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Izquierdo MA,
    2. Gutiérrez-Conde PM,
    3. Merchán MA,
    4. Malmierca MS
    (2008) Non-plastic reorganization of frequency coding in the inferior colliculus of the rat following noise-induced hearing loss. Neuroscience 154:355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.01.057 pmid:18384972
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Jacobson JL,
    2. Fein GG,
    3. Jacobson SW,
    4. Schwartz PM,
    5. Dowler JK
    (1984) The transfer of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) across the human placenta and into maternal milk. Am J Public Health 74:378–379. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.74.4.378 pmid:6322600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Judd N,
    2. Griffith WC,
    3. Faustman EM
    (2004) Contribution of PCB exposure from fish consumption to total dioxin-like dietary exposure. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 40:125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.06.004 pmid:15450716
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Jusko TA,
    2. Sisto R,
    3. Iosif AM,
    4. Moleti A,
    5. Wimmerová S,
    6. Lancz K,
    7. Tihányi J,
    8. Sovčiková E,
    9. Drobná B,
    10. Palkovičová L,
    11. Jurečková D,
    12. Thevenet-Morrison K,
    13. Verner MA,
    14. Sonneborn D,
    15. Hertz-Picciotto I,
    16. Trnovec T
    (2014) Prenatal and postnatal serum PCB concentrations and cochlear function in children at 45 months of age. Environ Health Perspect 122:1246–1252. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307473 pmid:25051575
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Kenet T,
    2. Froemke RC,
    3. Schreiner CE,
    4. Pessah IN,
    5. Merzenich MM
    (2007) Perinatal exposure to a noncoplanar polychlorinated biphenyl alters tonotopy, receptive fields, and plasticity in rat primary auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:7646–7651. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701944104 pmid:17460041
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Kisley MA,
    2. Gerstein GL
    (1999) Trial-to-trial variability and state-dependent modulation of auditory-evoked responses in cortex. J Neurosci 19:10451–10460. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-23-10451.1999 pmid:10575042
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Knipper M,
    2. Zinn C,
    3. Maier H,
    4. Praetorius M,
    5. Rohbock K,
    6. Köpschall I,
    7. Zimmermann U
    (2000) Thyroid hormone deficiency before the onset of hearing causes irreversible damage to peripheral and central auditory systems. J Neurophysiol 83:3101–3112. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2000.83.5.3101 pmid:10805704
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Knipper M,
    2. Singer W,
    3. Schwabe K,
    4. Hagberg GE,
    5. Li Hegner Y,
    6. Rüttiger L,
    7. Braun C,
    8. Land R
    (2021) Disturbed balance of inhibitory signaling links hearing loss and cognition. Front Neural Circuits 15:785603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2021.785603 pmid:35069123
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Kostyniak PJ,
    2. Hansen LG,
    3. Widholm JJ,
    4. Fitzpatrick RD,
    5. Olson JR,
    6. Helferich JL,
    7. Kim KH,
    8. Sable HJ,
    9. Seegal RF,
    10. Pessah IN,
    11. Schantz SL
    (2005) Formulation and characterization of an experimental PCB mixture designed to mimic human exposure from contaminated fish. Toxicol Sci 88:400–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfi338 pmid:16177234
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Kremer H,
    2. Lilienthal H,
    3. Hany J,
    4. Roth-Härer A,
    5. Winneke G
    (1999) Sex-dependent effects of maternal PCB exposure on the electroretinogram in adult rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol 21:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-0362(98)00030-0 pmid:10023797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Landau WM,
    2. Freygang WH,
    3. Roland LP,
    4. Sokoloff L,
    5. Kety SS
    (1955) The local circulation of the living brain; values in the unanesthetized and anesthetized cat. Trans Am Neurol Assoc (80th Meeting):125–129.
  67. ↵
    1. Lasky RE,
    2. Widholm JJ,
    3. Crofton KM,
    4. Schantz SL
    (2002) Perinatal exposure to Aroclor 1254 impairs distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in rats. Toxicol Sci 68:458–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/68.2.458 pmid:12151642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Lee CM,
    2. Sadowski RN,
    3. Schantz SL,
    4. Llano DA
    (2021) Developmental PCB exposure disrupts synaptic transmission and connectivity in the rat auditory cortex, independent of its effects on peripheral hearing threshold. eNeuro 8:ENEURO.0321-20.2021.
  69. ↵
    1. Lee DW,
    2. Notter SA,
    3. Thiruchelvam M,
    4. Dever DP,
    5. Fitzpatrick R,
    6. Kostyniak PJ,
    7. Cory-Slechta DA,
    8. Opanashuk LA
    (2012) Subchronic polychlorinated biphenyl (Aroclor 1254) exposure produces oxidative damage and neuronal death of ventral midbrain dopaminergic systems. Toxicol Sci 125:496–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr313 pmid:22094459
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Lesicko AM,
    2. Hristova TS,
    3. Maigler KC,
    4. Llano DA
    (2016) Connectional modularity of top-down and bottom-up multimodal inputs to the lateral cortex of the mouse inferior colliculus. J Neurosci 36:11037–11050. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4134-15.2016 pmid:27798184
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Lie A,
    2. Skogstad M,
    3. Johannessen HA,
    4. Tynes T,
    5. Mehlum IS,
    6. Nordby KC,
    7. Engdahl B,
    8. Tambs K
    (2016) Occupational noise exposure and hearing: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 89:351–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1083-5 pmid:26249711
    OpenUrlPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Linden JF,
    2. Liu RC,
    3. Sahani M,
    4. Schreiner CE,
    5. Merzenich MM
    (2003) Spectrotemporal structure of receptive fields in areas AI and AAF of mouse auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 90:2660–2675. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00751.2002 pmid:12815016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Tan Y,
    3. Song E,
    4. Song Y
    (2020) A critical review of polychlorinated biphenyls metabolism, metabolites, and their correlation with oxidative stress. Chem Res Toxicol 33:2022–2042. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00078 pmid:32677429
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Liu L,
    2. Xuan C,
    3. Shen P,
    4. He T,
    5. Chang Y,
    6. Shi L,
    7. Tao S,
    8. Yu Z,
    9. Brown RE,
    10. Wang J
    (2018) Hippocampal mechanisms underlying impairment in spatial learning long after establishment of noise-induced hearing loss in CBA mice. Front Syst Neurosci 12:35. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2018.00035 pmid:30087600
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Loftus WC,
    2. Malmierca MS,
    3. Bishop DC,
    4. Oliver DL
    (2008) The cytoarchitecture of the inferior colliculus revisited: a common organization of the lateral cortex in rat and cat. Neuroscience 154:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.01.019 pmid:18313229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Longenecker RJ,
    2. Galazyuk AV
    (2011) Development of tinnitus in CBA/CaJ mice following sound exposure. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12:647–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-011-0276-1 pmid:21667173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Ma WL,
    2. Hidaka H,
    3. May BJ
    (2006) Spontaneous activity in the inferior colliculus of CBA/J mice after manipulations that induce tinnitus. Hear Res 212:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2005.10.003 pmid:16307852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Manzoor NF,
    2. Licari FG,
    3. Klapchar M,
    4. Elkin RL,
    5. Gao Y,
    6. Chen G,
    7. Kaltenbach JA
    (2012) Noise-induced hyperactivity in the inferior colliculus: its relationship with hyperactivity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus. J Neurophysiol 108:976–988. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00833.2011 pmid:22552192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Mao H,
    2. Chen Y
    (2021) Noise-induced hearing loss: updates on molecular targets and potential interventions. Neural Plast 2021:4784385. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4784385 pmid:34306060
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. McCann MS,
    2. Fernandez HR,
    3. Flowers SA,
    4. Maguire-Zeiss KA
    (2021) Polychlorinated biphenyls induce oxidative stress and metabolic responses in astrocytes. Neurotoxicology 86:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2021.07.001 pmid:34265337
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Middleton JW,
    2. Kiritani T,
    3. Pedersen C,
    4. Turner JG,
    5. Shepherd GM,
    6. Tzounopoulos T
    (2011) Mice with behavioral evidence of tinnitus exhibit dorsal cochlear nucleus hyperactivity because of decreased GABAergic inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:7601–7606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100223108 pmid:21502491
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. Milon B,
    2. Mitra S,
    3. Song Y,
    4. Margulies Z,
    5. Casserly R,
    6. Drake V,
    7. Mong JA,
    8. Depireux DA,
    9. Hertzano R
    (2018) The impact of biological sex on the response to noise and otoprotective therapies against acoustic injury in mice. Biol Sex Differ 9:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-018-0171-0 pmid:29530094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Min JY,
    2. Kim R,
    3. Min KB
    (2014) Serum polychlorinated biphenyls concentrations and hearing impairment in adults. Chemosphere 102:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.11.046 pmid:24360845
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Morse DC,
    2. Wehler EK,
    3. Wesseling W,
    4. Koeman JH,
    5. Brouwer A
    (1996) Alterations in rat brain thyroid hormone status following pre- and postnatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclor 1254). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 136:269–279. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.1996.0034 pmid:8619235
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Mulders WH,
    2. Robertson D
    (2009) Hyperactivity in the auditory midbrain after acoustic trauma: dependence on cochlear activity. Neuroscience 164:733–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.08.036 pmid:19699277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Mulders WH,
    2. Robertson D
    (2011) Progressive centralization of midbrain hyperactivity after acoustic trauma. Neuroscience 192:753–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.06.046 pmid:21723924
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Nakamagoe M,
    2. Tabuchi K,
    3. Uemaetomari I,
    4. Nishimura B,
    5. Hara A
    (2010) Estradiol protects the cochlea against gentamicin ototoxicity through inhibition of the JNK pathway. Hear Res 261:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2010.01.004 pmid:20074632
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Niu Y,
    2. Kumaraguru A,
    3. Wang R,
    4. Sun W
    (2013) Hyperexcitability of inferior colliculus neurons caused by acute noise exposure. J Neurosci Res 91:292–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23152 pmid:23151900
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Palkovičová Murínová Ľ,
    2. Moleti A,
    3. Sisto R,
    4. Wimmerová S,
    5. Jusko TA,
    6. Tihányi J,
    7. Jurečková D,
    8. Kováč J,
    9. Koštiaková V,
    10. Drobná B,
    11. Trnovec T
    (2016) PCB exposure and cochlear function at age 6 years. Environ Res 151:428–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.08.017 pmid:27552711
    OpenUrlPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Pansarasa O,
    2. Bertorelli L,
    3. Vecchiet J,
    4. Felzani G,
    5. Marzatico F
    (1999) Age-dependent changes of antioxidant activities and markers of free radical damage in human skeletal muscle. Free Radic Biol Med 27:617–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(99)00108-2 pmid:10490283
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Persky V,
    2. Turyk M,
    3. Anderson HA,
    4. Hanrahan LP,
    5. Falk C,
    6. Steenport DN,
    7. Chatterton R,
    8. Freels S
    ; Great Lakes Consortium (2001) The effects of PCB exposure and fish consumption on endogenous hormones. Environ Health Perspect 109:1275–1283. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.011091275 pmid:11748036
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Pessah IN,
    2. Lein PJ,
    3. Seegal RF,
    4. Sagiv SK
    (2019) Neurotoxicity of polychlorinated biphenyls and related organohalogens. Acta Neuropathol 138:363–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-019-01978-1 pmid:30976975
    OpenUrlPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Pienkowski M,
    2. Eggermont JJ
    (2009) Long-term, partially-reversible reorganization of frequency tuning in mature cat primary auditory cortex can be induced by passive exposure to moderate-level sounds. Hear Res 257:24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2009.07.011 pmid:19647789
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Pnevmatikakis EA,
    2. Giovannucci A
    (2017) NoRMCorre: an online algorithm for piecewise rigid motion correction of calcium imaging data. J Neurosci Methods 291:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.07.031 pmid:28782629
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Poon E,
    2. Bandara SB,
    3. Allen JB,
    4. Sadowski RN,
    5. Schantz SL
    (2015) Developmental PCB exposure increases susceptibility to audiogenic seizures in adulthood. Neurotoxicology 46:117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2014.12.007 pmid:25543072
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Powers BE,
    2. Widholm JJ,
    3. Lasky RE,
    4. Schantz SL
    (2006) Auditory deficits in rats exposed to an environmental PCB mixture during development. Toxicol Sci 89:415–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfj051 pmid:16317017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Powers BE,
    2. Poon E,
    3. Sable HJ,
    4. Schantz SL
    (2009) Developmental exposure to PCBs, MeHg, or both: long-term effects on auditory function. Environ Health Perspect 117:1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800428 pmid:19654920
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Roberts LE,
    2. Eggermont JJ,
    3. Caspary DM,
    4. Shore SE,
    5. Melcher JR,
    6. Kaltenbach JA
    (2010) Ringing ears: the neuroscience of tinnitus. J Neurosci 30:14972–14979. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4028-10.2010 pmid:21068300
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Ross G
    (2004) The public health implications of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the environment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 59:275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.003 pmid:15388267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Roveda AM,
    2. Veronesi L,
    3. Zoni R,
    4. Colucci ME,
    5. Sansebastiano G
    (2006) Exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in food and cancer risk: recent advances. Ig Sanita Pubbl 62:677–696. pmid:17256022
    OpenUrlPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Sadowski RN,
    2. Stebbings KA,
    3. Slater BJ,
    4. Bandara SB,
    5. Llano DA,
    6. Schantz SL
    (2016) Developmental exposure to PCBs alters the activation of the auditory cortex in response to GABA. Neurotoxicology 56:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2016.07.006 pmid:27422581
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Safe S
    (1993) Toxicology, structure-function relationship, and human and environmental health impacts of polychlorinated biphenyls: progress and problems. Environ Health Perspect 100:259–268. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.93100259 pmid:8354174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Saldaña E,
    2. Feliciano M,
    3. Mugnaini E
    (1996) Distribution of descending projections from primary auditory neocortex to inferior colliculus mimics the topography of intracollicular projections. J Comp Neurol 371:15–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960715)371:1<15::AID-CNE2>3.0.CO;2-O
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Samson J,
    2. Wiktorek-Smagur A,
    3. Politanski P,
    4. Rajkowska E,
    5. Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska M,
    6. Dudarewicz A,
    7. Sha SH,
    8. Schacht J,
    9. Sliwinska-Kowalska M
    (2008) Noise-induced time-dependent changes in oxidative stress in the mouse cochlea and attenuation by D-methionine. Neuroscience 152:146–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.11.015 pmid:18234425
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Schofield BR,
    2. Beebe NL
    (2019) Subtypes of GABAergic cells in the inferior colliculus. Hear Res 376:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.10.001 pmid:30314930
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Scholl B,
    2. Wehr M
    (2008) Disruption of balanced cortical excitation and inhibition by acoustic trauma. J Neurophysiol 100:646–656. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90406.2008 pmid:18525018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Schreiner CE,
    2. Winer JA
    (2005) The inferior colliculus. New York: Springer.
  108. ↵
    1. Selvakumar K,
    2. Bavithra S,
    3. Krishnamoorthy G,
    4. Venkataraman P,
    5. Arunakaran J
    (2012) Polychlorinated biphenyls-induced oxidative stress on rat hippocampus: a neuroprotective role of quercetin. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:980314. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/980314 pmid:22272182
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Sokoloff L
    (1981) Localization of functional activity in the central nervous system by measurement of glucose utilization with radioactive deoxyglucose. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1:7–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.1981.4 pmid:7035471
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Song L,
    2. McGee J,
    3. Walsh EJ
    (2008) The influence of thyroid hormone deficiency on the development of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 9:464–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-008-0140-0 pmid:18855071
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Spreng M
    (2000) Central nervous system activation by noise. Noise Health 2:49–58.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Stiebler I,
    2. Neulist R,
    3. Fichtel I,
    4. Ehret G
    (1997) The auditory cortex of the house mouse: left-right differences, tonotopic organization and quantitative analysis of frequency representation. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 181:559–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050140 pmid:9449817
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Sturm JJ,
    2. Zhang-Hooks YX,
    3. Roos H,
    4. Nguyen T,
    5. Kandler K
    (2017) Noise trauma-induced behavioral gap detection deficits correlate with reorganization of excitatory and inhibitory local circuits in the inferior colliculus and are prevented by acoustic enrichment. J Neurosci 37:6314–6330. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0602-17.2017 pmid:28583912
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. ↵
    1. Sullivan JR,
    2. Delfino JJ,
    3. Buelow CR,
    4. Sheffy TB
    (1983) Polychlorinated biphenyls in the fish and sediment of the Lower Fox River, Wisconsin. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 30:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01610099 pmid:6403087
    OpenUrlPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Syka J,
    2. Popelár J,
    3. Kvasnák E,
    4. Astl J
    (2000) Response properties of neurons in the central nucleus and external and dorsal cortices of the inferior colliculus in guinea pig. Exp Brain Res 133:254–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000426 pmid:10968227
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Szczepaniak WS,
    2. Møller AR
    (1996) Evidence of neuronal plasticity within the inferior colliculus after noise exposure: a study of evoked potentials in the rat. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 100:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(95)00234-0 pmid:8617154
    OpenUrlPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Sziklai I
    (2004) The significance of the calcium signal in the outer hair cells and its possible role in tinnitus of cochlear origin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 261:517–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-004-0745-9 pmid:15609110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Tabuchi K,
    2. Nakamagoe M,
    3. Nishimura B,
    4. Hayashi K,
    5. Nakayama M,
    6. Hara A
    (2011) Protective effects of corticosteroids and neurosteroids on cochlear injury. Med Chem 7:140–144. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340611794859334 pmid:21222613
    OpenUrlPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Tamamaki N,
    2. Yanagawa Y,
    3. Tomioka R,
    4. Miyazaki J,
    5. Obata K,
    6. Kaneko T
    (2003) Green fluorescent protein expression and colocalization with calretinin, parvalbumin, and somatostatin in the GAD67-GFP knock-in mouse. J Comp Neurol 467:60–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10905 pmid:14574680
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Tatone C,
    2. Carbone MC,
    3. Falone S,
    4. Aimola P,
    5. Giardinelli A,
    6. Caserta D,
    7. Marci R,
    8. Pandolfi A,
    9. Ragnelli AM,
    10. Amicarelli F
    (2006) Age-dependent changes in the expression of superoxide dismutases and catalase are associated with ultrastructural modifications in human granulosa cells. Mol Hum Reprod 12:655–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gal080 pmid:17005595
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Turner J,
    2. Larsen D,
    3. Hughes L,
    4. Moechars D,
    5. Shore S
    (2012) Time course of tinnitus development following noise exposure in mice. J Neurosci Res 90:1480–1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.22827 pmid:22434653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Uziel A
    (1986) Periods of sensitivity to thyroid hormone during the development of the organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 429:23–27. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016488609122726 pmid:3461670
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Vaithiyalingam Chandra Sekaran N,
    2. Deshpande MS,
    3. Ibrahim BA,
    4. Xiao G,
    5. Shinagawa Y,
    6. Llano DA
    (2021) Patterns of unilateral and bilateral projections from layers 5 and 6 of the auditory cortex to the inferior colliculus in mouse. Front Syst Neurosci 15:674098. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2021.674098 pmid:34744644
    OpenUrlPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Vega-López A,
    2. Galar-Martínez M,
    3. Jiménez-Orozco FA,
    4. García-Latorre E,
    5. Domínguez-López ML
    (2007) Gender related differences in the oxidative stress response to PCB exposure in an endangered goodeid fish (Girardinichthys viviparus). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 146:672–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.04.022 pmid:16829149
    OpenUrlPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Vogler DP,
    2. Robertson D,
    3. Mulders WH
    (2014) Hyperactivity following unilateral hearing loss in characterized cells in the inferior colliculus. Neuroscience 265:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.01.017 pmid:24468107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Wang H,
    2. Brozoski TJ,
    3. Caspary DM
    (2011) Inhibitory neurotransmission in animal models of tinnitus: maladaptive plasticity. Hear Res 279:111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.04.004 pmid:21527325
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Salvi RJ,
    3. Powers N
    (1996) Plasticity of response properties of inferior colliculus neurons following acute cochlear damage. J Neurophysiol 75:171–183. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1996.75.1.171 pmid:8822550
    OpenUrlPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Weber R,
    2. Herold C,
    3. Hollert H,
    4. Kamphues J,
    5. Ungemach L,
    6. Blepp M,
    7. Ballschmiter K
    (2018) Life cycle of PCBs and contamination of the environment and of food products from animal origin. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25:16325–16343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1811-y pmid:29589245
    OpenUrlPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Wei S
    (2013) Peripheral hearing loss causes hyperexcitability of the inferior colliculus. J Otol 8:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-2930(13)50005-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. ↵
    1. Weintraub M,
    2. Birnbaum LS
    (2008) Catfish consumption as a contributor to elevated PCB levels in a non-Hispanic black subpopulation. Environ Res 107:412–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.03.001 pmid:18407261
    OpenUrlPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Wharton JA,
    2. Church GT
    (1990) Influence of menopause on the auditory brainstem response. Audiology 29:196–201. https://doi.org/10.3109/00206099009072850 pmid:2222288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Willard FH,
    2. Ryugo DK
    (1983) Anatomy of the central auditory system. In: The auditory psychobiology of the mouse (JF Willott, ed), pp 201–304. Springfield: Thomas.
  133. ↵
    1. Willott JF
    (2001) Handbook of mouse auditory research: from behavior to molecular biology. Boca Raton: CRC.
  134. ↵
    1. Winer JA,
    2. Larue DT,
    3. Diehl JJ,
    4. Hefti BJ
    (1998) Auditory cortical projections to the cat inferior colliculus. J Comp Neurol 400:147–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19981019)400:2<147::AID-CNE1>3.0.CO;2-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Wong AB,
    2. Borst JGG
    (2019) Tonotopic and non-auditory organization of the mouse dorsal inferior colliculus revealed by two-photon imaging. Elife 8:e49091. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49091
    OpenUrl
  136. ↵
    1. Wong PW,
    2. Brackney WR,
    3. Pessah IN
    (1997) Ortho-substituted polychlorinated biphenyls alter microsomal calcium transport by direct interaction with ryanodine receptors of mammalian brain. J Biol Chem 272:15145–15153. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.24.15145 pmid:9182535
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. ↵
    1. Wu YC,
    2. Hsieh RP,
    3. Lü YC
    (1984) Altered distribution of lymphocyte subpopulations and augmentation of lymphocyte proliferation in chronic PCB poisoned patients. Zhonghua Min Guo Wei Sheng Wu Ji Mian Yi Xue Za Zhi 17:177–187.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  138. ↵
    1. Xie XL,
    2. Zhou WT,
    3. Zhang KK,
    4. Yuan Y,
    5. Qiu EM,
    6. Shen YW,
    7. Wang Q
    (2019) PCB52 induces hepatotoxicity in male offspring through aggravating loss of clearance capacity and activating the apoptosis: sex-biased effects on rats. Chemosphere 227:389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.077 pmid:31003123
    OpenUrlPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. Yudintsev G,
    2. Asilador AR,
    3. Sons S,
    4. Vaithiyalingam Chandra Sekaran N,
    5. Coppinger M,
    6. Nair K,
    7. Prasad M,
    8. Xiao G,
    9. Ibrahim BA,
    10. Shinagawa Y,
    11. Llano DA
    (2021) Evidence for layer-specific connectional heterogeneity in the mouse auditory corticocollicular system. J Neurosci 41:9906–9918. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2624-20.2021 pmid:34670851
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. ↵
    1. Zeller K,
    2. Rahner-Welsch S,
    3. Kuschinsky W
    (1997) Distribution of Glut1 glucose transporters in different brain structures compared to glucose utilization and capillary density of adult rat brains. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 17:204–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-199702000-00010 pmid:9040500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Zeng L,
    2. Yang Y,
    3. Hu Y,
    4. Sun Y,
    5. Du Z,
    6. Xie Z,
    7. Zhou T,
    8. Kong W
    (2014) Age-related decrease in the mitochondrial sirtuin deacetylase Sirt3 expression associated with ROS accumulation in the auditory cortex of the mimetic aging rat model. PLoS One 9:e88019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088019 pmid:24505357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Zhao Y,
    2. Song Q,
    3. Li X,
    4. Li C
    (2016) Neural hyperactivity of the central auditory system in response to peripheral damage. Neural Plast 2016:2162105. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2162105 pmid:26881094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. ↵
    1. Zheng QY,
    2. Johnson KR,
    3. Erway LC
    (1999) Assessment of hearing in 80 inbred strains of mice by ABR threshold analyses. Hear Res 130:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(99)00003-9 pmid:10320101
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 43 (25)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 43, Issue 25
21 Jun 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Developmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls Prevents Recovery from Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Disrupts the Functional Organization of the Inferior Colliculus
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Developmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls Prevents Recovery from Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Disrupts the Functional Organization of the Inferior Colliculus
Baher A. Ibrahim, Jeremy J. Louie, Yoshitaka Shinagawa, Gang Xiao, Alexander R. Asilador, Helen J. K. Sable, Susan L. Schantz, Daniel A. Llano
Journal of Neuroscience 21 June 2023, 43 (25) 4580-4597; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0030-23.2023

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Developmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls Prevents Recovery from Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Disrupts the Functional Organization of the Inferior Colliculus
Baher A. Ibrahim, Jeremy J. Louie, Yoshitaka Shinagawa, Gang Xiao, Alexander R. Asilador, Helen J. K. Sable, Susan L. Schantz, Daniel A. Llano
Journal of Neuroscience 21 June 2023, 43 (25) 4580-4597; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0030-23.2023
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • auditory midbrain
  • inferior colliculus
  • noise-induced hearing loss
  • oxidative stress
  • polychlorinated biphenyls
  • two-photon imaging

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • ALS-associated KIF5A mutation causes locomotor deficits associated with cytoplasmic inclusions, alterations of neuromuscular junctions and motor neuron loss
  • Anatomical diversity of the adult corticospinal tract revealed by single cell transcriptional profiling
  • Expectation cues and false percepts generate stimulus-specific activity in distinct layers of the early visual cortex Laminar profile of visual false percepts
Show more Research Articles

Development/Plasticity/Repair

  • Anatomical diversity of the adult corticospinal tract revealed by single cell transcriptional profiling
  • Structural and functional development of inhibitory connections from the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body to the superior paraolivary nucleus
  • Presynaptic kainate receptors onto somatostatin interneurons are recruited by activity throughout development and contribute to cortical sensory adaptation
Show more Development/Plasticity/Repair
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.