2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temporal and genetic influences on protection against noise-induced hearing loss by hypoxic preconditioning in mice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The phenomenon of conditioning originally referred to protection induced by preexposure to moderate-level (nontraumatic) sound (Canlon et al, 1988; Campo et al, 1991; Ryan et al, 1994; Niu and Canlon, 2002), but a variety of stimuli have been found to induce conditioning, including restraint stress (Wang and Liberman, 2002; Tahera et al, 2006b), heat stress (Yoshida et al, 1999), sham surgery (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997), corticosteroids (Takemura et al, 2004; Tabuchi et al, 2006; Tahera et al, 2006b), kanamycin (Fernandez et al, 2010), and hypoxia (Gagnon et al, 2007). Indeed, Wang and Liberman (2002) suggested that it is the stress that results from exposure to the acoustic conditioning procedure, rather than the acoustic signal itself, that may underlie the protection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The phenomenon of conditioning originally referred to protection induced by preexposure to moderate-level (nontraumatic) sound (Canlon et al, 1988; Campo et al, 1991; Ryan et al, 1994; Niu and Canlon, 2002), but a variety of stimuli have been found to induce conditioning, including restraint stress (Wang and Liberman, 2002; Tahera et al, 2006b), heat stress (Yoshida et al, 1999), sham surgery (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997), corticosteroids (Takemura et al, 2004; Tabuchi et al, 2006; Tahera et al, 2006b), kanamycin (Fernandez et al, 2010), and hypoxia (Gagnon et al, 2007). Indeed, Wang and Liberman (2002) suggested that it is the stress that results from exposure to the acoustic conditioning procedure, rather than the acoustic signal itself, that may underlie the protection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genetic analysis of Hif function in multiple species and the developmental defects in Hif-deficient embryos have revealed the importance of oxygen availability and Hif as a key regulator of ontogeny (Simon and Keith, 2008). In another report, the protective benefits of hypoxic preconditioning against permanent noiseinduced hearing loss (NIHL) shown in CBA mice were associated with significant upregulation of Hif-1a within the organ of Corti (Gagnon et al, 2007). Accordingly, these evidences implicate a great survival promotion benefit of Hif-1a in response to hypoxia stimulation, although the mechanisms regulating cochlear SPC behavior via Hif have yet to be elucidated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Preconditioning refers to a mildly injurious event that confers protection against a later, more injurious, event (Gidday 2006;Dirnagl et al 2003;Eisen et al 2004;Ran et al 2005). Demonstrated preconditioning inducers against NIPTS in mice include mild noise, heat stress, restraint, and hypoxia (Yoshida et al 1999;Wang and Liberman 2002;Yoshida and Liberman 2000;Niu and Canlon 2002;Gagnon et al 2007). Two studies have reported partial protection in guinea pigs by amikacin or gentamicin against later, high-dose, application of the same ototoxins (De Oliveira et al 2004;Maudonnet et al 2008).…”
Section: Sub-chronic Kanamycin As a Form Of Preconditioningmentioning
confidence: 99%