On the value of diverse organisms in auditory research: From fish to flies to humans.

Historically, diverse organisms have contributed to our understanding of auditory function. In recent years, the laboratory mouse has become the prevailing non-human model in auditory research, particularly for biomedical studies. There are many questions in auditory research for which the mouse is the most appropriate (or the only) model system available. But mice cannot provide answers for all auditory problems of basic and applied importance, nor can any single model system provide a synthetic understanding of the diverse solutions that have evolved to facilitate effective detection and use of acoustic information. In this review, spurred by trends in funding and publishing and inspired by parallel observations in other domains of neuroscience, we highlight a few examples of the profound impact and lasting benefits of comparative and basic organismal research in the auditory system. We begin with the serendipitous discovery of hair cell regeneration in non-mammalian vertebrates, a finding that has fueled an ongoing search for pathways to hearing restoration in humans. We then turn to the problem of sound source localization - a fundamental task that most auditory systems have been compelled to solve despite large variation in the magnitudes and kinds of spatial acoustic cues available, begetting varied direction-detecting mechanisms. Finally, we consider the power of work in highly specialized organisms to reveal exceptional solutions to sensory problems - and the diverse returns of deep neuroethological inquiry - via the example of echolocating bats. Throughout, we consider how discoveries made possible by comparative and curiosity-driven organismal research have driven fundamental scientific, biomedical, and technological advances in the auditory field.

Putative COVID-19 therapies imatinib, lopinavir, ritonavir, and ivermectin cause hair cell damage: A targeted screen in the zebrafish lateral line.

The biomedical community is rapidly developing COVID-19 drugs to bring much-need therapies to market, with over 900 drugs and drug combinations currently in clinical trials. While this pace of drug development is necessary, the risk of producing therapies with significant side-effects is also increased. One likely side-effect of some COVID-19 drugs is hearing loss, yet hearing is not assessed during preclinical development or clinical trials. We used the zebrafish lateral line, an established model for drug-induced sensory hair cell damage, to assess the ototoxic potential of seven drugs in clinical trials for treatment of COVID-19. We found that ivermectin, lopinavir, imatinib, and ritonavir were significantly toxic to lateral line hair cells. By contrast, the approved COVID-19 therapies dexamethasone and remdesivir did not cause damage. We also did not observe damage from the antibiotic azithromycin. Neither lopinavir nor ritonavir altered the number of pre-synaptic ribbons per surviving hair cell, while there was an increase in ribbons following imatinib or ivermectin exposure. Damage from lopinavir, imatinib, and ivermectin was specific to hair cells, with no overall cytotoxicity noted following TUNEL labeling. Ritonavir may be generally cytotoxic, as determined by an increase in the number of TUNEL-positive non-hair cells following ritonavir exposure. Pharmacological inhibition of the mechanotransduction (MET) channel attenuated damage caused by lopinavir and ritonavir but did not alter imatinib or ivermectin toxicity. These results suggest that lopinavir and ritonavir may enter hair cells through the MET channel, similar to known ototoxins such as aminoglycoside antibiotics. Finally, we asked if ivermectin was ototoxic to rats in vivo. While ivermectin is not recommended by the FDA for treating COVID-19, many people have chosen to take ivermectin without a doctor's guidance, often with serious side-effects. Rats received daily subcutaneous injections for 10 days with a clinically relevant ivermectin dose (0.2 mg/kg). In contrast to our zebrafish assays, ivermectin did not cause ototoxicity in rats. Our research suggests that some drugs in clinical trials for COVID-19 may be ototoxic. This work can help identify drugs with the fewest side-effects and determine which therapies warrant audiometric monitoring.

Glucococorticoid receptor activation exacerbates aminoglycoside-induced damage to the zebrafish lateral line.

Aminoglycoside antibiotics have potent antibacterial properties but cause hearing loss in up to 25% of patients. These drugs are commonly administered in patients with high glucocorticoid stress hormone levels and can be combined with exogenous glucocorticoid treatment. However, the interaction of stress and aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss has not been fully explored. In this study, we investigated the effect of the glucocorticoid stress hormone cortisol on hair cells in the zebrafish lateral line as an important step toward understanding how physiological stressors modulate hair cell survival. We found that 24-hr cortisol incubation sensitized hair cells to neomycin damage. Pharmacological and genetic manipulation demonstrates that sensitization depended on the action of the glucocorticoid receptor but not the mineralocorticoid receptor. Blocking endogenous cortisol production reduced hair cell susceptibility to neomycin, further evidence that glucocorticoids modulate aminoglycoside ototoxicity. Glucocorticoid transcriptional activity was apparent in lateral line hair cells, suggesting a direct action of cortisol in these aminoglycoside-sensitive cells. Our work shows that the stress hormone cortisol can increase hair cell sensitivity to aminoglycoside damage, which highlights the importance of recognizing stress and the impacts of glucocorticoid signaling in both ototoxicity research and clinical practice.