Gueta et al. 2008 — Sound-evoked deflections of OHC stereocilia arise from TM anisotropy

CORRECTION FLAG: The STRC topic file cites this paper as “Gueta R et al. (2008) Biophys J 95:4948.” The correct citation is Biophys J 94(11):4570–4576 — the volume is 94, not 95, and pages are 4570-4576. This paper is also misidentified in the topic file as potentially reporting absolute TM displacement values (“Gueta 2006, Ren 2011” is cited for 5–30 nm TM displacement). Gueta 2008 does NOT report absolute displacement in nm — it reports TM material anisotropy and FEM modeling of stereocilia deflection angles.

TL;DR. Force spectroscopy on mouse TM shows vertical Young’s modulus ~300 kPa, lateral moduli Ex = 45 kPa and Ey = 75 kPa (4–6× anisotropy). FEM simulations show this anisotropy causes stereocilia to deflect laterally rather than penetrate TM vertically during acoustic stimulation — a fundamental hearing mechanism.

Key finding. The TM’s anisotropic stiffness (vertical >> lateral) is the mechanical reason stereocilia deflect rather than buckle. The degree of lateral deflection increases proportionally with vertical displacement when anisotropic properties are applied. This paper does NOT provide the 5–30 nm displacement values cited in the h02 scripts under “Gueta 2006.”

Numbers that matter

ParameterValueUnitsSource locationConditions
TM vertical Young’s modulus (normal)300kPaResults, force spectroscopyMouse TM, AFM force spectroscopy
TM lateral modulus Ex45kPaResults, FEM fitAnisotropic model
TM lateral modulus Ey75kPaResults, FEM fitAnisotropic model
Vertical:lateral anisotropy ratio4–6×ResultsVertical ÷ lateral stiffness
PDMS control: vertical stiffness420kPaResultsIsotropic control material
PDMS control: lateral stiffness700kPaResultsRatio 1.7× — near isotropic
Absolute stereocilia displacement reportednoneOnly deflection angles in FEM; no nm values

On TM displacement citations in h02 scripts. The values “30 nm (200 Hz), 20 nm (1 kHz), 10 nm (4 kHz), 5 nm (8 kHz) at 60 dB SPL” cited as “Gueta 2006, Ren 2011” do not originate from this paper (Gueta 2008). “Gueta 2006” may be a misremembered citation — this author’s publication record has no 2006 cochlear mechanics paper by this name. The 5–30 nm range is broadly consistent with in-vivo OCT measurements (Gao et al. 2014) but the script citations are not traceable to Gueta 2008.

Limitations

  • Static AFM force spectroscopy; TM is viscoelastic so dynamic stiffness differs.
  • Mouse TM ex vivo; attachment constraints in vivo alter effective stiffness.
  • Anisotropy values depend heavily on model assumptions in FEM.

Connections