Literature DB >> 7878094

Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive?

J I Glendinning1.   

Abstract

The bitter rejection response consists of a suite of withdrawal reflexes and negative affective responses. It is generally assumed to have evolved as a way to facilitate avoidance of foods that are poisonous because they usually taste bitter to humans. Using previously published studies, the present paper examines the relationship between bitterness and toxicity in mammals, and then assesses the ecological costs and benefits of the bitter rejection response in carnivorous, omnivorous, and herbivorous (grazing and browsing) mammals. If the bitter rejection response accurately predicts the potential toxicity of foods, then one would expect the threshold for the response to be lower for highly toxic compounds than for nontoxic compounds. The data revealed no such relationship. Bitter taste thresholds varied independently of toxicity thresholds, indicating that the bitter rejection response is just as likely to be elicited by a harmless bitter food as it is by a harmful one. Thus, it is not necessarily in an animal's best interest to have an extremely high or low bitter threshold. Based on this observation, it was hypothesized that the adaptiveness of the bitter rejection response depends upon the relative occurrence of bitter and potentially toxic compounds in an animal's diet. Animals with a relatively high occurrence of bitter and potentially toxic compounds in their diet (e.g., browsing herbivores) were predicted to have evolved a high bitter taste threshold and tolerance to dietary poisons. Such an adaptation would be necessary because a browser cannot "afford" to reject all foods that are bitter and potentially toxic without unduly restricting its dietary options. At the other extreme, animals that rarely encounter bitter and potentially toxic compounds in their diet (e.g., carnivores) were predicted to have evolved a low bitter threshold. Carnivores could "afford" to utilize such a stringent rejection mechanism because foods containing bitter and potentially toxic compounds constitute a small portion of their diet. Since the low bitter threshold would reduce substantially the risk of ingesting anything poisonous, carnivores were also expected to have a relatively low tolerance to dietary poisons. This hypothesis was supported by a comparison involving 30 mammal species, in which a suggestive relationship was found between quinine hydrochloride sensitivity and trophic group, with carnivores > omnivores > grazers > browsers. Further support for the hypothesis was provided by a comparison across browsers and grazers in terms of the production of tannin-binding salivary proteins, which probably represent an adaptation for reducing the bitterness and astringency of tannins.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7878094     DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90369-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Behav        ISSN: 0031-9384


  124 in total

1.  Taste receptor cells that discriminate between bitter stimuli.

Authors:  A Caicedo; S D Roper
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-02-23       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  More than just a pretty face. The relationship between infant's temperament, food acceptance, and mothers' perceptions of their enjoyment of food.

Authors:  Catherine A Forestell; Julie A Mennella
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 3.868

Review 3.  Chemesthesis and the chemical senses as components of a "chemofensor complex".

Authors:  Barry G Green
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.160

Review 4.  Formulations for children: problems and solutions.

Authors:  Hannah K Batchelor; John F Marriott
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Altering salivary protein profile can decrease aversive oromotor responding to quinine in rats.

Authors:  Laura E Martin; Kristen E Kay; Kimberly F James; Ann-Marie Torregrossa
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2020-06-09

6.  Differences in the chemesthetic subqualities of capsaicin, ibuprofen, and olive oil.

Authors:  Samantha M Bennett; John E Hayes
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 3.160

Review 7.  Genetics of taste and smell: poisons and pleasures.

Authors:  Danielle Renee Reed; Antti Knaapila
Journal:  Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.622

8.  Temporal coding mediates discrimination of "bitter" taste stimuli by an insect.

Authors:  John I Glendinning; Adrienne Davis; Meelu Rai
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Contribution of different taste cells and signaling pathways to the discrimination of "bitter" taste stimuli by an insect.

Authors:  John I Glendinning; Adrienne Davis; Sudha Ramaswamy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 10.  The development of sweet taste: From biology to hedonics.

Authors:  Julie A Mennella; Nuala K Bobowski; Danielle R Reed
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 6.514

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.