al 2008. Increases in glucose sensitivity were induced by treatmentwith glucose, Na-cyclamate and MSG, but not by water oracesulfame-K. Treatment with MSG, glucose or fructose increasedsensitivity to MSG, while water and acesulfame-K did not, andNa-cyclamate decreased MSG sensitivity. Treatment with IMPincreased MSG sensitivity, and that increase was reversed byadding Na-cyclamate to the IMP treatment solution. IMPtreatment had no effect on glucose sensitivity, and adding IMP toa Na-cyclamate treatment solution did not reverse the increasedglucose sensitivity produced by Na-cyclamate. The overall datasupport a peripheral mechanism and a role <strong>for</strong> T1R3 in theinduction. KMG is supported by NSF Graduate Fellowship.We thank Bio 040 students <strong>for</strong> assistance.#P308 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IIThe Effect of Amiloride on the Taste Quality of Salty SolutionsKathryn Luley, Anilet Tharp, James Bernhardt, Paul A. S. BreslinMonell Chemical Senses Center Philadelphia, PA, USASalt perception in humans may be partially mediated by theactivation of the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), a selectiveion channel present in taste buds. Amiloride, an ENaC channelblocker, has been shown to affect salt taste perception in rodents;however its effect on human taste is not fully understood.While amiloride does not block salt taste in humans, it mayaffect the quality. In this study we investigated individualdifferences in amiloride sensitivity in humans, in particular theeffect of amiloride on the taste quality of salt. Subjects were askedto rate the intensity and quality of salt solutions tasted with andwithout amiloride. Our results suggest an effect of amiloride onsome humans and may help to futher elucidate the role of ENaCin human salt taste.#P309 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IISynchronicity Judgement of Gustation and OlfactionTatsu Kobayakawa, Hideki Toda, Naomi GotowAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)Tsukuba, JapanSynchronicity of gustation and olfaction in food intake seriouslywill affect recognition of food perception. The synchronicity,however, is rarely investigated <strong>for</strong> integration process of gustationand olfaction. In this study, there<strong>for</strong>e, we focused on thesynchronicity perception between gustation and olfaction. Weused taste stimulator which was able to present pure gustationwithout tactile stimuli, and the timing of taste stimuli to tip ofparticipants’ tongues was measured in real time by three opticalsensors. We also used olfactometer equivalent Burghart’s OM4,with original developed real time stimulus monitoring usingultrasonic sensor. We used vision stimuli using LED in controlcondition. The distribution of synchronicity <strong>for</strong> “olfaction andvision”, and “gustation and vision” was almost equivalent as“vision and audition”. These results mean the perceptionprocesses <strong>for</strong> olfaction and gustation have equivalent temporalresolution compared to visual perception. The distribution ofsynchronicity <strong>for</strong> “olfaction and gustation” was quite differentfrom others. In other words, the synchronicity distribution ofolfaction and gustation was found to be much broader thanothers. This result might imply that the relation between olfactionand gustation is much closer than that between other sensations.#P310 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IIThe Effect of pH on Arginine Enhancement of Salty TasteNelsa Estrella, Paul A. S. BreslinMonell Chemical Senses Center Philadelphia, PA, USAWe have previously shown that L-arginine enhances saltytaste. The mechanism <strong>for</strong> this remains unclear. In this study, inorder to help elucidate the phenomenon further, we s determinedthe effects of pH on L-arginine’s enhancement of salty taste inhumans. Subjects were presented with mixtures of L-arginine andNaCl solutions of different pHs and asked to rate perceivedsaltiness using a general labeled magnitude scale. We replicatedour previous findings and showed that L-arginine does enhancesalty taste of salts. We further show that manipulations of pHaffect L-arginine’s ability to do so.#P311 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IISynergistic responses to L-glutamine and IMP in brief accesspreference testing in C57BL miceBenjamin K. Eschle, Meghan C. Eddy, J. Tyler Van Backer,Eugene R. DelayDepartment of Biology & Vermont Chemical Senses Group,University of Vermont Burlington, VT, USASynergy between 5’-inosine monophosphate (IMP) andL-glutamate is a defining characteristic of umami taste. Molecularexpression studies have shown that IMP may also interactsynergistically with other L-amino acids and, in some cases,IMP was necessary <strong>for</strong> cellular activation by the amino acid.These data suggest that IMP-induced synergy may extend to thetastes of other L-amino acids. Synergy is revealed when theresponse to a binary mixture is greater than the sum of theresponses to the components of the mixture. We examinedbehavioral synergy between glutamine and IMP in C57BL mice.Mice were studied in a non-deprived state in a brief accesspreference test paradigm. Lick rates were used to measurepreferences <strong>for</strong> a range of concentrations of both glutamine(10, 30, 100, and 200 mM) and IMP (0.3, 1, 3, and 10 mM) alone,as well as 16 binary combinations of the two. A predicted value<strong>for</strong> each of the binary mixtures was generated by summingthe lick rates <strong>for</strong> each the components presented along. Thesepredicted values are what would be expected in the absence of anysynergistic interaction. Actual lick rates to the mixtures werecompared to the predicted values to determine whether or notsynergy was present. Synergy was observed in mixtures withconcentrations of glutamine 30 mM and higher, and IMP 3 mMand higher. Testing will be continued with T1R3 KO mice toexamine what, if any, effect the absence of this receptor has onsynergistic interactions between L-glutamine and IMP.P O S T E R S<strong>Abstracts</strong> | 123
#P312 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IITaste Recognition Thresholds <strong>for</strong> Human SweetTaste FunctionSahbina A. Ebba 1 , Brad<strong>for</strong>d Speck 1 , Lloyd Hastings 2 ,Gregory Smutzer 1,31Biology Department, Temple University Philadelphia, PA, USA,2Osmic Enterprises, Inc. Cincinnati, OH, USA, 3 Smell & TasteCenter, University of Pennsylvania School of MedicinePhiladelphia, PA, USAEdible taste strips composed of pullulan-hydroxypropylmethylcellulose polymers allow the delivery of precise amounts oftastants to the oral cavity. Edible taste strips are being used toidentify norms <strong>for</strong> human sweet taste perception as a function ofage in decades and sex. Taste recognition thresholds <strong>for</strong> sucrosewere examined by the ascending limits method and by the methodof reversals. Both approaches yielded nearly identical tasterecognition thresholds <strong>for</strong> sucrose. With edible strips, tasterecognition thresholds <strong>for</strong> sucrose ranged from 0.8 to 7.8micromoles (n = 60). The variability in thresholds wasconsiderably smaller with edible taste strips than with the use ofsolutions to deliver tastants. Overall, taste recognition thresholds<strong>for</strong> sucrose increased with subject age, and recognition thresholdswere similar <strong>for</strong> both males and females. Taste recognitionthresholds were also identified <strong>for</strong> the artificial sweetenersucralose. When sucralose was incorporated into edible strips,taste recognition thresholds averaged 4.9 nanomoles (n = 30),which was approximately 700 times lower than the average tasterecognition threshold <strong>for</strong> sucrose. Lactisole (sodium 2-(4-methoxyphenoxy) propanoate) is a compound that inhibits sweettaste perception in humans. An oral rise with a 0.23 millimolarsolution of lactisole failed to block the sweet taste of sucralosewhen this tastant was incorporated into taste strips, and presentedto subjects. Our threshold values <strong>for</strong> sucrose and sucralose arenearly two orders of magnitude lower when compared to resultsobtained from traditional aqueous taste tests. These resultsindicate that edible taste strips are a highly sensitive method <strong>for</strong>examining sweet taste function in humans.#P313 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IISweetness Resists Suppression in Complex MixturesJuyun Lim 1 , Floor Oosterhoff 2 , Barry Green 2, 31Oregon State University Corvallis, OR, USA, 2 The John B. PierceLaboratory New Haven, CT, USA, 3 Yale School of MedicineNew Haven, CT, USALittle is known about the suppression of individual taste qualitiesin complex mixtures. The present study investigated tastesuppression in all possible binary, ternary and quaternarymixtures of sucrose (0.56M), NaCl (0.32M), citric acid (10mM)and QSO 4 (0.18mM). In exp 1, aqueous solutions were warmed ina 37°C water bath and presented in 5-ml samples in a sip-and-spitprocedure. On each trial Ss sequentially rated sweetness, sourness,saltiness, bitterness and ‘other’ using the gLMS. The resultsshowed that although all taste qualities exhibited suppression,sweetness was more resistant to suppression than the other tastequalities. Sweetness was not significantly suppressed in any binarymixture, and in quaternary mixture it was reduced by just 58%compared to 87%, 82% and 78% <strong>for</strong> the tastes of QSO 4, NaCland citric acid, respectively. In addition, it was found thatsuppression in ternary and quaternary mixtures was drivenprimarily by specific taste-quality interactions, e.g., sucrosealone suppressed NaCl saltiness by 83%. The unexpected findingthat sweetness was less vulnerable to suppression than other tastesled to a second experiment to rule out the possibility that thisfinding was an artifact of rating sweetness first on every trial, orfrom the use of 37°C solutions rather than typical roomtemperature solutions. The results confirmed the findings of exp.1 and found no significant effect of solution temperature or theorder of taste quality ratings. From a functional standpoint, theresistance of sucrose sweetness to suppression may be important<strong>for</strong> motivating the consumption of foods that are rich incarbohydrates. From a practical standpoint, the pronouncedsuppression of saltiness by sucrose may explain why the highsalt content of some processed foods goes undetected.#P314 Poster session VII: Chemosensory Psychophysics IISucroseoctaacetate aversion: preliminary evaluation of MSMconsomic mouse strains <strong>for</strong> gene-mappingDavid A Blizard 1 , Tsuyoshi Koide 2 , Toshihiko Shiroishi 2 ,Thomas P Hettinger 3 , Marion E Frank 3 , Ayako Ishii 21Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA, USA,2National Instituteof Genetics Mishima, Japan, 3 University ofConnecticut Health Center Farmington, CT, USAFor several decades, it had been assumed that aversion <strong>for</strong> thebitter tastant sucroseoctacetate (SOA) was under the control of asingle gene on mouse chromosome (Chr) 6. However, a recentQTL study reported that additional variants on mouse Chr 2, 11and 19 also influenced aversion <strong>for</strong> either 0.1 mM or 1 mMconcentrations of SOA in a cross of C57BL/6By and NZB/BINJstrains (Le Roy, Pager and Roubertoux, 1999). The creation of anew set of consomic strains by transferring M. m. molossinusgenetic material from the MSM wild-derived strain onto aC57BL/6 background presented the opportunity to screen <strong>for</strong>variants that affect SOA aversion. A preliminary screen of malemice (N =5-10 per group) of C57BL/6 (B6: the host strain) andMSM (the donor strain) and 6 consomic strains was carried outusing 48 h 2-bottle tests in which water was paired with either 0.1mM or 1 mM SOA and preference/aversion ratios calculated.MSM strongly (aversion ratio ~10%) and B6 weakly (~30%)avoided both concentrations of SOA. No consomic strain avoided0.1 mM SOA but two (B6-6CMSM and B6-2CMSM) containing,respectively, chromosomal inserts from Chr 6 and Chr 2 avoided1 mM SOA (aversion ~10%). These findings confirm thatSOA aversion is determined by more than one gene in themouse. Completion of a screen of all of the MSM consomicstrains may unearth more variants that influence SOAaversion. The tools available <strong>for</strong> leveraging MSM/B6 comparisons(e.g. congenic strains, availability of genomic sequence) make theMSM/B6 model system an attractive resource <strong>for</strong> gene/gustationinvestigations. Reference Le Roy I, Pager J, Roubertoux PL.(1999) Genetic dissection of gustatory sensitivity to bitterness(sucrose octaacetate) in mice. C R Acad Sci III. 322(10):831-6.124 | AChemS <strong>Abstracts</strong> <strong>2009</strong>
- Page 3 and 4:
AChemSAssociation for Chemoreceptio
- Page 5 and 6:
AChemSAssociation for Chemoreceptio
- Page 7 and 8:
AChemSAssociation for Chemoreceptio
- Page 9 and 10:
#4 GustationGPR40 knockout mice hav
- Page 11 and 12:
small population of cells respondin
- Page 13:
higher order areas. The beta oscill
- Page 17 and 18:
conclusions limited, however, by th
- Page 19 and 20:
expressed in the taste cells may al
- Page 21:
glomerulus varies across individual
- Page 24 and 25:
TH/GFP expression levels in depolar
- Page 26 and 27:
not activation and sensitivity. Fur
- Page 28 and 29:
POSTER PRESENTATIONS#P1 Poster sess
- Page 30 and 31:
and gender (all male). Our results
- Page 32 and 33:
activation in psychiatric disorders
- Page 34 and 35:
the e4 allele. The ApoE e4 allele i
- Page 36 and 37:
including the olfactory epithelium,
- Page 38 and 39:
and posterior (MeP), which are diff
- Page 40 and 41:
75 and 39 of 80 PbN cells were acti
- Page 42 and 43:
on the left side and from 60.9 ± 1
- Page 44 and 45:
#P52 Poster session II: Chemosensor
- Page 46 and 47:
#P58 Poster session II: Chemosensor
- Page 48 and 49:
#P64 Poster session II: Chemosensor
- Page 50 and 51:
#P70 Poster session II: Chemosensor
- Page 52 and 53:
esponses (net spikes) evoked by app
- Page 54 and 55:
These findings demonstrate the capa
- Page 56 and 57:
ecorded units tracked stimuli up to
- Page 58 and 59:
elationship in the characteristic r
- Page 60 and 61:
#P103 Poster session II: Chemosenso
- Page 62 and 63:
#P108 Poster session III: Cortical
- Page 64 and 65:
#P115 Poster session III: Cortical
- Page 66 and 67:
luciferase-based reporter gene assa
- Page 68 and 69:
#P128 Poster session III: Cortical
- Page 70 and 71:
#P134 Poster session III: Cortical
- Page 72 and 73:
1987). MP’s olfactory discriminat
- Page 74 and 75: #P147 Poster session III: Cortical
- Page 76 and 77: discriminate between the H 2 S/IAA
- Page 78 and 79: #P160 Poster session IV: Chemosenso
- Page 80 and 81: subject to native regulatory mechan
- Page 82 and 83: #P173 Poster session IV: Chemosenso
- Page 84 and 85: G protein-coupled receptors for bit
- Page 86 and 87: #P186 Poster session IV: Chemosenso
- Page 88 and 89: #P192 Poster session IV: Chemosenso
- Page 90 and 91: #P198 Poster session IV: Chemosenso
- Page 92 and 93: eta, ENAC gamma), b-actin, PLC-b 2
- Page 94 and 95: presented in a recognition memory p
- Page 96 and 97: #P217 Poster session V: Chemosensor
- Page 98 and 99: educed granule cell spiking. These
- Page 100 and 101: #P230 Poster session V: Chemosensor
- Page 102 and 103: data here from mouse studies using
- Page 104 and 105: in taste bud induction and developm
- Page 106 and 107: trends in expression of GAP-43, OMP
- Page 108 and 109: elationship between concentration a
- Page 110 and 111: four (4 AFC) that they believe is m
- Page 112 and 113: #P268 Poster session VI: Chemosenso
- Page 114 and 115: pleasantness (r=.275 p=.006), where
- Page 116 and 117: utyl, hexyl, and octyl benzene). We
- Page 118 and 119: taller compared to wild-type mice.
- Page 120 and 121: animals over the age of P24 were gi
- Page 122 and 123: classify subjects as PROP non-taste
- Page 126 and 127: #P315 Poster session VII: Chemosens
- Page 128 and 129: differences in taste receptors is n
- Page 130 and 131: IndexAbaffy, T - 48Abakah, R - P299
- Page 132 and 133: Illig, K - 19, P109Imoto, T - P136I
- Page 134 and 135: Rucker, J - P305Rudenga, K - P315Ru
- Page 136 and 137: AChemS Abstracts 2009 | 135
- Page 138 and 139: Registration7:30 am to 1:00 pm, 6:3
- Page 140 and 141: Notes______________________________
- Page 142 and 143: See you next yearat ournew venue!Tr