Literature DB >> 16267162

Differential covariation in taste responsiveness to bitter stimuli in rats.

Susan M Brasser1, Khyobeni Mozhui, David V Smith.   

Abstract

Variation exists in the sensitivity of individual rodents and humans to different bitter tastants. An absence of uniform correlation in responsiveness to different bitter substances across individuals within a species suggests heterogeneity in the mechanisms underlying stimulus processing within this taste modality. Here, we examined taste responsiveness of individual rats to three bitter compounds (quinine hydrochloride, denatonium benzoate, and cycloheximide) in short-term lick tests to determine the magnitude of covariation among responses to these stimuli and infer commonalities in their receptor and neural mechanisms. Rats were tested with a given pair of bitter stimuli during three sessions comprising randomized trial blocks of six concentrations of each stimulus + deionized water. Psychophysical functions were generated for individual rats for respective stimulus pairs, and concentrations of each stimulus that produced equivalent lick suppression relative to water were correlated across animals. Behavioral taste responsiveness to quinine hydrochloride strongly covaried with responsiveness to denatonium benzoate (r = +0.82). Lick responsiveness to quinine was less robustly correlated with that to cycloheximide (r = +0.44), and denatonium and cycloheximide responses failed to correlate. These results imply substantial overlap in the bitter taste coding mechanisms for quinine and denatonium but some degree of independence in the mechanisms responsible for gustatory processing of cycloheximide. More generally, these data reinforce the notion that bitter taste processing is not a homogeneous event.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16267162     DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bji071

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


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Taste solution consumption by FHH-Chr nBN consomic rats.

Authors:  Michael G Tordoff
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2010-05-16       Impact factor: 3.160

3.  T1r3 taste receptor involvement in gustatory neural responses to ethanol and oral ethanol preference.

Authors:  Susan M Brasser; Meghan B Norman; Christian H Lemon
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2010-02-09       Impact factor: 3.107

4.  Glossopharyngeal nerve transection impairs unconditioned avoidance of diverse bitter stimuli in rats.

Authors:  Laura C Geran; Susan P Travers
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.912

5.  Chemosensory responsiveness to ethanol and its individual sensory components in alcohol-preferring, alcohol-nonpreferring and genetically heterogeneous rats.

Authors:  Susan M Brasser; Bryant C Silbaugh; Myles J Ketchum; Jeffrey J Olney; Christian H Lemon
Journal:  Addict Biol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.280

6.  Cycloheximide: no ordinary bitter stimulus.

Authors:  Thomas P Hettinger; Bradley K Formaker; Marion E Frank
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Rats are unable to discriminate quinine from diverse bitter stimuli.

Authors:  Laura E Martin; Kristen E Kay; Ann-Marie Torregrossa
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.619

8.  Gustatory responsiveness to six bitter tastants in three species of nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Matthias Laska; Rosa Mariela Rivas Bautista; Laura Teresa Hernandez Salazar
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  Reduced oral ethanol avoidance in mice lacking transient receptor potential channel vanilloid receptor 1.

Authors:  Jarrod M Ellingson; Bryant C Silbaugh; Susan M Brasser
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 2.805

10.  The relationship between PROP and ethanol preferences: an evaluation of 4 inbred mouse strains.

Authors:  Theresa L White; Laura V Dishaw; Paul R Sheehe; Steven L Youngentob
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2007-08-09       Impact factor: 3.160

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.