Chapter 5
Notes
(16 August 2008)
P. 109: The
antibodies used by Siemens et al. (2004) were directed against the
cytoplasmic
component of cadherin-23. Why therefore they should label the strand
extracellularly is a mystery (see Gillespie et al., 2005, for further
discussion). Secondly, the dimensions of cadherin-23 and the tip link
do not
match, unless it is supposed that the tip link is a complex of multiple
cadherin-23 molecules. Thirdly, the tip link has to be able to extend
to
accommodate very large deflections of the hair bundle, while
transmitting the
effects of very small deflections to the mechanotransducer channels. At
first
sight, cadherin-23 does not appear to have the structure to allow this
to
occur; however, some molecular modelling by Sotomayor et al. (2005)
provides a
model of how this could happen (the molecule could unravel in stages,
with Ca2+
ions providing temporary adhesion between the different folds of
the
molecule,
hence transmitting tension through the molecule, even though it is much
shorter
than its full extension). (16 Aug
2008)
P. 117, section 5.3.2.4: Giga-ohm is a more generally used
alternative to gigohm
P. 134: He et al.
(2003) found that prestin knockout also leads to loss of stiffness of
the outer
hair cells. This may mean that motor effects arising elsewhere become
uncoupled
in some way, and so become unable to affect the dimensions of the whole
cell.
This would mean that prestin may not in fact be the motor protein.
However,
Zheng et al. (2000a) had also expressed prestin in a model cell system.
They
found that the cells showed nonlinear membrane capacitances, meaning
that the
membrane was changing under the influence of the electric field, and
giving
strong proof that the transfected protein, prestin, was indeed the
motor
protein. (16 Aug 2008).
P. 137: Because
thermal noise makes the channel open and close stochastically (i.e.
with a
random component),there is no lower absolute threshold. Even very weak
stimuli
will cause some redistribution of the channel between the open and
closed
states. The actual threshold then depends on the degree to which the
signal can
be discriminated against the random background noise.
Channel opening and closing with stimuli
at intensities well
under the apparent detection threshold explains a conundrum that is
sometimes
posed in relation to the active amplification and detection of
near-threshold
stimuli. If a stimulus is only just above its detection threshold at
the peak
of the travelling wave, its travelling wave after amplification will
also only
be just above the threshold for activating hair cells. How then does
the
amplification come about in the first place? - since before
amplification, i.e.
in the region of the cochlea when the wave is just entering the active
region, the
wave will be about 40 dB below threshold for activating hair cells The
answer
is that even a stimulus 40 dB below its apparent detection threshold
will have
some effect on the hair cells, and will still be amplified. The
signal-to-noise
ratio will be improved by the cochlear mechanics acting as a narrow
band
filter, so helping to reduce the amplification of thermal noise.(16
Aug 2008).
P. 149:
Measurement of the degree of even order distortion faces technical
difficulties, since for most realistic situations the difference
between the
primaries f2
and f1, and the difference tone f2 – f1
is large. Does one set the
primaries or the difference tone to the CF of the region being
measured? In
either case, the cochlear mechanical filtering will have a substantial
effect
on the relative levels of the measured responses. A similar problem
arises if
one tries to measure the degree of even order nonlinearity by comparing
the
relative levels of the fundamental f0 and its first harmonic
2f0. For these
reasons, little information is given in the text on the relative degree
of
even-order distortion. Cooper (1998) also points out a conundrum: from
the
levels of even order distortion that he measured from the harmonic 2f0,
he
would have expected to see much greater d.c. shifts in the position of
the
basilar membrane, since for most realistic input-output functions with
even
order nonlinearity we would have expected both to be produced together.
Is
there therefore a feedback loop that continuously maintains the zero
point of
the basilar membrane? (see discussion on p. 144: see also Zou et al.
(2006). (16 Aug
2008)
Zou,
Y, et al., (2006) Cochlear transducer operating point adaptation. J
Acoust
Soc Am.
119:2232-2241.
P. 134: the
question of whether a stimulus-evoked emission (in contrast to a
spontaneous
continuous oscillation as in Fig. 5.20) must always involve
amplification, is a
vexed one. For further discussions, see Allen and Fahey (1992), de Boer
et al. (2005), and Ren and Nuttall (2006).
de Boer, E et al. (2005) The Allen-Fahey experiment extended. J Acoust Soc Am. 117:1260-1266.
Ren, T and Nuttall, AL, (2006) Cochlear compression wave: an implication of the Allen-Fahey experiment. J Acoust Soc Am. 119:1940-1942.
Return to An Introduction to the Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing webpage