Literature DB >> 26464499

Maltodextrin Acceptance and Preference in Eight Mouse Strains.

Rachel L Poole1, Tiffany R Aleman2, Hillary T Ellis2, Michael G Tordoff2.   

Abstract

Rodents are strongly attracted to the taste(s) of maltodextrins. A first step toward discovery of the underlying genes involves identifying phenotypic differences among inbred strains of mice. To do this, we used 5-s brief-access tests and 48-h 2-bottle choice tests to survey the avidity for the maltodextrin, Maltrin M040, of mice from 8 inbred strains (129S1/SvImJ, A/J, CAST/EiJ, C57BL/6J, NOD/ShiLTJ, NZO/HlLtJ, PWK/PhJ, and WSB/EiJ). In brief-access tests, the CAST and PWK strains licked significantly less maltodextrin than equivalent concentrations of sucrose, whereas the other strains generally licked the 2 carbohydrates equally. Similarly, in 2-bottle choice tests, the CAST and PWK strains drank less 4% maltodextrin than 4% sucrose, whereas the other strains had similar intakes of these 2 solutions; the CAST and PWK strains did not differ from the C57, NOD, or NZO strains in 4% sucrose intake. In sum, we have identified strain variation in maltodextrin perception that is distinct from variation in sucrose perception. The phenotypic variation characterized here will aid in identifying genes responsible for maltodextrin acceptance. Our results identify C57 × PWK mice or NZO × CAST mice as informative crosses to produce segregating hybrids that will expose quantitative trait loci underlying maltodextrin acceptance and preference.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2-bottle choice test; Collaborative Cross; brief-access tests; gustometer; maltodextrin

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26464499      PMCID: PMC4850929          DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjv056

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


  45 in total

1.  Ten years of the Collaborative Cross.

Authors:  David W Threadgill; Gary A Churchill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  [The Collaborative Cross, a groundbreaking tool to tackle complex traits].

Authors:  Jean-Jacques Panthier; Xavier Montagutelli
Journal:  Med Sci (Paris)       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 0.818

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

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

4.  Behavioral evidence for a glucose polymer taste receptor that is independent of the T1R2+3 heterodimer in a mouse model.

Authors:  Yada Treesukosol; Kimberly R Smith; Alan C Spector
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Taste dysfunction in BTBR mice due to a mutation of Itpr3, the inositol triphosphate receptor 3 gene.

Authors:  Michael G Tordoff; Hillary T Ellis
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 3.107

6.  An analysis of licking microstructure in three strains of mice.

Authors:  A W Johnson; A Sherwood; D R Smith; M Wosiski-Kuhn; M Gallagher; P C Holland
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.868

7.  Forty mouse strain survey of water and sodium intake.

Authors:  Michael G Tordoff; Alexander A Bachmanov; Danielle R Reed
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2007-04-01

8.  T1R3 taste receptor is critical for sucrose but not Polycose taste.

Authors:  Steven Zukerman; John I Glendinning; Robert F Margolskee; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 3.619

9.  The genome architecture of the Collaborative Cross mouse genetic reference population.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  CALHM1 ion channel mediates purinergic neurotransmission of sweet, bitter and umami tastes.

Authors:  Akiyuki Taruno; Valérie Vingtdeux; Makoto Ohmoto; Zhongming Ma; Gennady Dvoryanchikov; Ang Li; Leslie Adrien; Haitian Zhao; Sze Leung; Maria Abernethy; Jeremy Koppel; Peter Davies; Mortimer M Civan; Nirupa Chaudhari; Ichiro Matsumoto; Göran Hellekant; Michael G Tordoff; Philippe Marambaud; J Kevin Foskett
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  7 in total

1.  CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J Mice Differ in Their Oral and Postoral Attraction to Glucose and Fructose.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Austin S Vural; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  Measurement of Behavioral Taste Responses in Mice: Two-Bottle Preference, Lickometer, and Conditioned Taste-Aversion Tests.

Authors:  Dany Gaillard; Jennifer M Stratford
Journal:  Curr Protoc Mouse Biol       Date:  2016-12-01

3.  Maltodextrin and sucrose preferences in sweet-sensitive (C57BL/6J) and subsensitive (129P3/J) mice revisited.

Authors:  Karen Ackroff; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2016-08-12

4.  Profound differences in fat versus carbohydrate preferences in CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J mice: Role of fat taste.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Austin S Vural; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2018-06-19

5.  Evidence supporting oral sensitivity to complex carbohydrates independent of sweet taste sensitivity in humans.

Authors:  Julia Y Q Low; Kathleen E Lacy; Robert L McBride; Russell S J Keast
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Novel approaches to the study of viscosity discrimination in rodents.

Authors:  Chihiro Nakatomi; Noritaka Sako; Yuichi Miyamura; Seiwa Horie; Takemi Shikayama; Aoi Morii; Mako Naniwa; Chia-Chien Hsu; Kentaro Ono
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Gli3 is a negative regulator of Tas1r3-expressing taste cells.

Authors:  Yumei Qin; Sunil K Sukumaran; Masafumi Jyotaki; Kevin Redding; Peihua Jiang; Robert F Margolskee
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 5.917

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.