08.06.2015 Views

Abstracts - Association for Chemoreception Sciences

Abstracts - Association for Chemoreception Sciences

Abstracts - Association for Chemoreception Sciences

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

P O S T E R S<br />

short-term licking responses to the following solutions: 167, 250<br />

and 333 mM glucose (G), 167, 250 and 333 mM fructose (F), 38<br />

mM saccharin (S), and binary mixtures of G+S and F+S. There<br />

was a high correlation between the two measures of taste<br />

responsiveness. Both indicated that the mice show higher taste<br />

responsiveness to (i) G+S and F+S than any single sweetener, (ii)<br />

S than any concentration of F or G, and (iii) F than isomolar<br />

concentrations of G. In Experiment 2, asked whether daily intake<br />

of these solutions increased with taste responsiveness. No such<br />

relationship was observed, however. For instance, the G solutions<br />

elicited the weakest taste responses, but the greatest intake. In<br />

contrast, the F+S, F and S solutions elicited the strongest taste<br />

responses, but the weakest intake. These findings indicate that<br />

taste does not determine daily intake of dilute sugar solutions.<br />

We propose, instead, that daily intake is controlled primarily by<br />

the extent to which a sugar solution stimulates intestinal nutrient<br />

detectors. This proposition is based on studies showing that<br />

G provides substantially more positive post-oral rein<strong>for</strong>cement of<br />

feeding than F. Acknowledgements: Supported in part by a grant<br />

from the HHMI to Barnard College<br />

#P270 POSTER SESSION VI:<br />

PERIPHERAL AND CENTRAL TASTE;<br />

PERIPHERAL OLFACTION<br />

Glucose utilization supports preferences <strong>for</strong> sugars in mice<br />

Xueying Ren 1,2 , Jozelia G Ferreira 1,2 , Sara J Shammah-Lagnado 3 ,<br />

Catherine W Yeckel 1,4 , Ivan E de Araujo 1,2<br />

1<br />

The John B. Pierce Laboratory New Haven, CT, USA,<br />

2<br />

Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine New Haven, CT, USA,<br />

3<br />

Physiology, Institute of Biological <strong>Sciences</strong> Sao Paulo, Brazil,<br />

4<br />

Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine New<br />

Haven, CT, USA<br />

We are investigating the role of glucose utilization as a rewarding<br />

postingestive factor influencing carbohydrate intake<br />

independently of sweetness perception. C57BL6 mice fitted with<br />

gastric catheters were given access to a water-containing recipient<br />

such that an infusion pump connected to the gastric catheter was<br />

activated whenever licks to water were detected. We first show<br />

that in this paradigm mice will consume significantly higher levels<br />

of water when gastrically infused with glucose compared to when<br />

infused with L-serine, an amino acid known to be a weak<br />

promoter of glucose utilization. This finding did not depend on<br />

nutrient-specific gastrointestinal absorption since jugular rather<br />

than intragastric infusions produced essentially the same effect.<br />

We then verified whether these sweet-independent responses to<br />

glucose infusion were altered by disrupting glucose utilization<br />

with intravenous infusions of 2-deoxyglucose (2-DG, a glucose<br />

analogue that does not undergo complete glycolysis). Finally,<br />

microdialysis measurements were per<strong>for</strong>med to test whether<br />

intravenous 2-DG infusions can alter dopaminergic response<br />

patterns in reward circuits that under normal conditions are<br />

observed upon nutrient intake. These preliminary findings suggest<br />

that preferences <strong>for</strong> carbohydrates over other nutrients might<br />

develop independently of taste quality, and that metabolic signals<br />

generated during the catabolism of glucose molecules might<br />

rein<strong>for</strong>ce preferences <strong>for</strong> sugars over other nutrients.<br />

Acknowledgements: The J. B. Pierce Laboratory<br />

#P271 POSTER SESSION VI:<br />

PERIPHERAL AND CENTRAL TASTE;<br />

PERIPHERAL OLFACTION<br />

Oxytocin Enhances Brief-Access Taste Preference <strong>for</strong> Sweet<br />

and Umami Stimuli<br />

Michael S. Sinclair 1 , Steven J. St. John 2 , Nirupa Chaudhari 1,3<br />

1<br />

Program in Neurosciences, University of Miami Miller School of<br />

Medicine Miami, FL, USA, 2 Department of Psychology, Rollins<br />

College Winter Park, FL, USA, 3 Department of Physiology and<br />

Biophysics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami,<br />

FL, USA<br />

The neurohormone oxytocin (OXT), known <strong>for</strong> facilitating<br />

lactation, parturition, and social behaviors, also inhibits ingestion.<br />

Mice lacking OXT previously were shown to overconsume sweet<br />

and carbohydrate solutions compared to wild-types. The apparent<br />

preference <strong>for</strong> sweet stimuli was attributed to a diminished postingestive<br />

satiety <strong>for</strong> carbohydrates (Sclafani et al, 2007). We<br />

recently showed that OXT receptor is expressed and functional in<br />

some cells in mouse taste buds. We there<strong>for</strong>e asked if circulating<br />

OXT alters the taste preferences of wild-type mice. We injected<br />

12 water-deprived C57BL/6 mice (6 males, 6 females)<br />

intraperitoneally with 10 mg/kg body weight OXT or an equal<br />

volume saline. Thirty min later, we tested them in a Davis briefaccess<br />

lickometer, using concentrations of tastants that give midrange<br />

behavioral responses: 0.3M NaCl (salty), 0.02M citric acid<br />

(sour), 0.3mM quinine HCl (bitter), 10mM Na-saccharin (sweet),<br />

0.1M MSG with 500µM inosine monophosphate (IMP) (umami),<br />

and water. Animals were tested once daily <strong>for</strong> 6 days, and given<br />

OXT or saline on alternating days. For each tastant, we calculated<br />

lick ratios as lick rate <strong>for</strong> tastant / lick rate <strong>for</strong> water. OXT<br />

significantly increased the lick ratio <strong>for</strong> saccharin (1.62±0.15 vs.<br />

1.08±0.04) and <strong>for</strong> MSG+IMP (1.44±0.17 vs. 1.05±0.03) but not<br />

<strong>for</strong> other tastants. OXT decreased lick rates to all solutions and to<br />

water as expected from its effect on ingestion. However, the lick<br />

rates to saccharin and to MSG+IMP were decreased less than <strong>for</strong><br />

water, resulting in higher lick ratios. There were no differences<br />

between males and females. Thus, systemic OXT decreases fluid<br />

intake overall while enhancing preference <strong>for</strong> palatable (sweet and<br />

umami) tastes. To what extent this is due to action on peripheral<br />

vs. central sites remains to be investigated. Acknowledgements:<br />

Supported by NIH/NIDCD grants R01DC6021, R21DC10078<br />

and American Heart <strong>Association</strong> Predoctoral Fellowship<br />

0815215E.<br />

#P272 POSTER SESSION VI:<br />

PERIPHERAL AND CENTRAL TASTE;<br />

PERIPHERAL OLFACTION<br />

Generalization of conditioned taste aversion (CTA) to<br />

guanosine 5’-monophosphate (GMP) in C57BL/6 mice<br />

Yuko Murata 1 , Alexander A. Bachmanov 2<br />

1<br />

National Research Institute of Fisheries Science Yokohama, Japan,<br />

2<br />

Monell Chemical Senses Center Philadelphia, PA, USA<br />

Guanosine, inosine and adenosine 5’-monophosphates (GMP,<br />

IMP and AMP) have synergistic effects on umami taste of MSG in<br />

humans (Yamaguchi, 1967), and on taste responses of the rat<br />

chorda tympani nerve to various amino acids (Yoshii, 1987).<br />

These purine 5’-ribonucleotides however differ in whether they<br />

evoke an umami taste without MSG: IMP and GMP alone have a<br />

distinct umami taste, but AMP is almost tasteless to humans<br />

(Yamaguchi, 1967). Only a few studies have examined taste<br />

116 | AChemS <strong>Abstracts</strong> 2010 <strong>Abstracts</strong> are printed as submitted by the author(s)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!