Christian H Lemon1. 1. Department of Biology, University of Oklahoma, 730 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK 73019, 1-405-325-2365 (office), 1-405-325-7560 (fax).
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This mini-review discusses some of the parallels between rodent neurophysiological and human psychophysical data concerning temperature effects on sweet taste. METHODS AND PURPOSE: "Sweet" is an innately rewarding taste sensation that is associated in part with foods that contain calories in the form of sugars. Humans and other mammals can show unconditioned preference for select sweet stimuli. Such preference is poised to influence diet selection and, in turn, nutritional status, which underscores the importance of delineating the physiological mechanisms for sweet taste with respect to their influence on human health. Advances in our knowledge of the biology of sweet taste in humans have arisen in part through studies on mechanisms of gustatory processing in rodent models. Along this line, recent work has revealed there are operational parallels in neural systems for sweet taste between mice and humans, as indexed by similarities in the effects of temperature on central neurophysiological and psychophysical responses to sucrose in these species. Such association strengthens the postulate that rodents can serve as effective models of particular mechanisms of appetitive taste processing. Data supporting this link are discussed here, as are rodent and human data that shed light on relationships between mechanisms for sweet taste and ingestive disorders, such as alcohol abuse. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Rodent models have utility for understanding mechanisms of taste processing that may pertain to human flavor perception. Importantly, there are limitations to generalizing data from rodents, albeit parallels across species do exist.
INTRODUCTION: This mini-review discusses some of the parallels between rodent neurophysiological and human psychophysical data concerning temperature effects on sweet taste. METHODS AND PURPOSE: "Sweet" is an innately rewarding taste sensation that is associated in part with foods that contain calories in the form of sugars. Humans and other mammals can show unconditioned preference for select sweet stimuli. Such preference is poised to influence diet selection and, in turn, nutritional status, which underscores the importance of delineating the physiological mechanisms for sweet taste with respect to their influence on human health. Advances in our knowledge of the biology of sweet taste in humans have arisen in part through studies on mechanisms of gustatory processing in rodent models. Along this line, recent work has revealed there are operational parallels in neural systems for sweet taste between mice and humans, as indexed by similarities in the effects of temperature on central neurophysiological and psychophysical responses to sucrose in these species. Such association strengthens the postulate that rodents can serve as effective models of particular mechanisms of appetitive taste processing. Data supporting this link are discussed here, as are rodent and human data that shed light on relationships between mechanisms for sweet taste and ingestive disorders, such as alcohol abuse. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Rodent models have utility for understanding mechanisms of taste processing that may pertain to human flavor perception. Importantly, there are limitations to generalizing data from rodents, albeit parallels across species do exist.
Entities:
Keywords:
ethanol; neural coding; psychophysics; sweet; taste; temperature
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
Authors: William M Doyon; Jennifer L York; Laurea M Diaz; Herman H Samson; Cristine L Czachowski; Rueben A Gonzales Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Peihua Jiang; Jesusa Josue-Almqvist; Xuelin Jin; Xia Li; Joseph G Brand; Robert F Margolskee; Danielle R Reed; Gary K Beauchamp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240