Literature DB >> 15269121

The relative affective potency of glycine, L-serine and sucrose as assessed by a brief-access taste test in inbred strains of mice.

Cedrick D Dotson1, Alan C Spector.   

Abstract

In general, rodents prefer both sucrose and L-serine relative to water and treat both compounds as possessing a similar taste quality (e.g. 'sweetness') despite that they are believed to bind with different T1R heterodimeric receptors in taste bud cells. We assessed the affective potency of these compounds along with glycine, which is thought to bind with both T1R receptor complexes, using a brief-access taste test in a gustometer. Unconditioned licking responses of two 'taster' strains (C57BL/6J and SWR/J), which display high preference for low concentrations of sucrose, and two 'non-taster' (129P3/J and DBA/2J) strains, which display blunted preference for low concentrations of sucrose, were measured during 5 s trials of varying concentrations of a single compound when mice (n=10/strain/stimulus) were non-deprived and when access to home-cage water was restricted. In non-deprived mice, sucrose generated monotonically increasing concentration-response curves regardless of strain, whereas glycine was only marginally effective at stimulating licking and L-serine produced relatively flat functions. The profile of responsiveness across strains was more complex than expected. For example, when tested with sucrose in the non-deprived condition, the 129P3/J non-taster strain surpassed the responsiveness of taster mice at mid-range to high concentrations. Under water-restricted conditions, these mice also were significantly more responsive to high concentrations of both sucrose and glycine compared with the other strains when stimulus licking was standardized relative to water. Thus, the affective potency of the stimuli tested here seems to be related to the ability of the compounds to bind with the T1R2+3 receptor complex. However, the profile of strain responsiveness to these tastants in the brief-access test does not appear to be simply explained by the sweetener 'taster' status of the strain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15269121     DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjh051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Senses        ISSN: 0379-864X            Impact factor:   3.160


  33 in total

Review 1.  Do Food Preferences Change After Bariatric Surgery?

Authors:  Daniel Gero; Robert E Steinert; Carel W le Roux; Marco Bueter
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 5.113

2.  Nutrient selection in the absence of taste receptor signaling.

Authors:  Xueying Ren; Jozélia G Ferreira; Ligang Zhou; Sara J Shammah-Lagnado; Catherine W Yeckel; Ivan E de Araujo
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Preference for sucralose predicts behavioral responses to sweet and bittersweet tastants.

Authors:  Gregory C Loney; Ann-Marie Torregrossa; Chris Carballo; Lisa A Eckel
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 3.160

4.  Taste-evoked responses to sweeteners in the nucleus of the solitary tract differ between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice.

Authors:  Stuart A McCaughey
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects taste responses to sweeteners: evidence from 129.B6-Tas1r3 congenic mice.

Authors:  Masashi Inoue; John I Glendinning; Maria L Theodorides; Sarah Harkness; Xia Li; Natalia Bosak; Gary K Beauchamp; Alexander A Bachmanov
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 3.107

Review 6.  The functional role of the T1R family of receptors in sweet taste and feeding.

Authors:  Yada Treesukosol; Kimberly R Smith; Alan C Spector
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2011-03-02

7.  T1R2+T1R3-independent chemosensory inputs contributing to behavioral discrimination of sugars in mice.

Authors:  Lindsey A Schier; Chizuko Inui-Yamamoto; Ginger D Blonde; Alan C Spector
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.619

8.  Modulation of taste responsiveness by the satiation hormone peptide YY.

Authors:  Michael S La Sala; Maria D Hurtado; Alicia R Brown; Diego V Bohórquez; Rodger A Liddle; Herbert Herzog; Sergei Zolotukhin; Cedrick D Dotson
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Vasoactive intestinal peptide-null mice demonstrate enhanced sweet taste preference, dysglycemia, and reduced taste bud leptin receptor expression.

Authors:  Bronwen Martin; Yu-Kyong Shin; Caitlin M White; Sunggoan Ji; Wook Kim; Olga D Carlson; Joshua K Napora; Wayne Chadwick; Megan Chapter; James A Waschek; Mark P Mattson; Stuart Maudsley; Josephine M Egan
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 9.461

10.  Contribution of the T1r3 taste receptor to the response properties of central gustatory neurons.

Authors:  Christian H Lemon; Robert F Margolskee
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.