#41 Functional evolution of chemosensory receptorsRapid evolution of two odorant-binding protein genes,Obp57d and Obp57e, in DrosophilaTakashi MatsuoTokyo Metropolitan University Tokyo, JapanOdorant-binding proteins (OBPs) are secreted molecules found ininsect chemosensory organ, where they function together withodorant and taste receptors. Two OBP genes, Obp57d andObp57e, are involved in the evolution of unique host-plantpreference in Drosophila sechellia. D. sechellia exclusivelyreproduces on the ripe fruit of Morinda citrifolia (Tahitian Noni),which contains octanoic acid that is toxic to other Drosophilaspecies. Behavioral analysis of D. melanogaster knockout strainssuggested that Obp57d and Obp57e participate in the tasteperception of octanoic acid. Comparisons of genomic sequencesat the Obp57d/e locus from 27 Drosophila species revealed thatthe OBP gene number at this locus is different between species.Phylogenetic analysis suggested that Obp57d and Obp57e aroseby gene duplication at the early stage of the melanogaster speciesgroup evolution, followed by differentiation of the ORFsequences from each other. While most species in themelanogaster species group maintain both Obp57d and Obp57e,some species have lost either gene. Expression pattern of Obp57dand Obp57e is also different between species. The two OBPs areexpressed only in the gustatory sensilla on the legs in the speciesthat have both Obp57d and Obp57e, whereas the additionalexpression in the gustatory sensilla on the mouthparts wasobserved in the other species. Behavioral analysis of variousspecies revealed that the feeding preference <strong>for</strong> octanoic acidnegatively correlates with the OBP transcripts level in themouthparts. Gene duplication and the subsequent ORFdifferentiation, as well as changes in the expression pattern, couldbe important evolutionary mechanisms by which OBP genesdevelop their functional diversity, promoting the behavioralevolution among species.#42 Functional evolution of chemosensory receptorsBimodal Function of Drosophila Odorant ReceptorsDieter Wicher, Ronny Schäfer, Marcus C. Stensmyr,Bill S. HanssonMax Planck Institute <strong>for</strong> Chemical Ecology Jena, GermanyOdorant signals are detected by binding of odor molecules toodorant receptors (ORs) that belong to the G-protein-coupledreceptor (GPCR) family. The receptors couple to G-proteins,most of which stimulate cAMP production. This opens cyclicnucleotide-gated ion channels and depolarises the olfactorysensory neuron. Insect OR proteins lack any sequence similarityto other GPCRs and show an inverted orientation in the plasmamembrane. The ORs are dimers composed of an odor-specificOR protein (e.g., Drosophila Or22a) and a ubiquitously expressedchaperone protein (as Drosophila Or83b). As G-proteins areexpressed in insect OR neurons, and olfactory perception ismodified by mutations affecting the cAMP transduction pathwaythis study was aimed at finding out the function of insect ORs.For this sake we expressed Or22a and Or83b in HEK293 cells andper<strong>for</strong>med calcium imaging and patch clamp experiments.Application of odorants produced nonselective cation currentsactivated via both an ionotropic and a metabotropic pathway,and a subsequent increase in the intracellular Ca 2+ concentration.Expression of Or83b alone provided functional ion channelsinsensitive to odorants, but directly activated by intracellularcAMP or cGMP. Furthermore, application of only 1 nM cAMPto excised inside-out patches caused a half-maximal currentresponse. However, as current production developed slowly theactivation mechanism is different from the gating known fromionotropic receptors. Insect ORs thus <strong>for</strong>m ligand-gated channelsas well as complexes of odorant sensing units and cyclicnucleotide-activated nonselective cation channels.#43 Making sense of fat tasteMaking Sense of Fat TasteTimothy A. GilbertsonUtah State University Logan, UT, USAThe importance of understanding the sensory cues <strong>for</strong> dietary fathas been underscored by the recent surge in dietary-inducedobesity. This epidemic of obesity has been attributed to theincreased intake of high fat, high carbohydrate, and caloricallydensediets. While the textural properties of fats have long beenaccepted to be its most salient sensory cue, emerging data from anumber of laboratories has begun to point to their being a “tasteof fat” as well. This symposium will provide a multidisciplinaryoverview of the evidence that supports the idea that the gustatorysystem is capable of responding to the chemical cues contained indietary fat and will look at the ability of free fatty acids to actboth as a taste primer and taste modulator. The implications of thepresence of a fat detection system will be discussed. Discussants:J.-P. Montmayeur; R. Contreras.#44 Making sense of fat tasteLigand specificities to putative fat receptor candidatesCD36 and GPR120 and licking behavior correspondingto the ligands in miceShigenobu Matsumura, Takeshi Yoneda, Ai Eguchi, YasukoManabe, Satoshi Tsuzuki, Kazuo Inoue, Tohru FushikiGraduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University Kyoto, JapanFatty foods are palatable to animals including humans.Several studies have indicated that animals recognize thepresence of fat in foods not only by the texture of the food butalso chemically in the mouth: this suggests that the chemicalperception of fat is involved in the acquisition of a strong avidity<strong>for</strong> fat. CD36 is known as a fatty acid transporter in the muscle oradipose tissue. Previously we have reported that CD36 isexpressed in the taste bud cells of the posterior tongue. CD36-deficient mice showed lower avidity <strong>for</strong> long-chain fatty acidenrichedsolutions. In addition to CD36, we have found thatGPR120, a G-protein coupled receptor that functions as a specificunsaturated long-chain fatty acid receptor in the gastrointestinaltract, is expressed in the taste bud cells of anterior and posteriortongue. A wide variety of molecules are known to be a ligand <strong>for</strong>CD36, including saturated or unsaturated fatty acid, somelipoproteins, cholesterol, thrombospondin and so on. However,HEK293 cells overexpressing GPR120 revealed that only longchainunsaturated fatty acids are potent ligand <strong>for</strong> GPR120. Inaddition, the palatability of fatty acids <strong>for</strong> mice assessed by theshort term licking behavior is very similar to the ligand specificity<strong>for</strong> GPR120. These results raise the possibility that GPR120<strong>Abstracts</strong> | 17
expressed in the taste cells may also be involved in the chemicalreception and palatability of dietary fat. CD36 and GPR120,however, are different in the location of expression, ligandspecificity and possibly, intracellular signaling pathway.These facts indicate that these two fatty acid receptorsexpressed in the tongue may construct independent pathways<strong>for</strong> the sensing of fat.#45 Making sense of fat tasteFatty Acid Transduction in Chemosensory CellsTian Yu, Bhavik P. Shah, Pin Liu, Timothy A. GilbertsonUtah State University Logan, UT, USAGiven the dramatic rise in obesity that appears to be correlatedwith an increase in dietary fat intake, there has been increasinginterest in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanismsthe body uses to recognize dietary fatty acids (FA). We havefocused on three fat responsive cell types in our attempt tounderstand these mechanisms. Preingestively, we have attemptedto elucidate mechanisms underlying the taste and texture of fat byusing molecular and cell-based assays on taste receptor cells(TRCs) and trigeminal neurons (TGNs), respectively. In the gut,we have explored these pathways in the enteroendocrine cells(EECs) of the small intestine. Molecular data have shown that allthree cell types express a variety of putative FA receptors,including CD36, FA-activated GPCRs and FA-sensitive DRKchannels. Cell-based assays (patch clamp recording; calciumimaging) combined with pharmacological and molecular(RNA interference) approaches have been used by our laboratoryto unravel the FA transduction pathway(s) within thesechemosensory cells. While differences exist in the transductionpathways in these cell types, commonalities include a dependenceupon G protein activation, a role <strong>for</strong> the phospholipase C,activation of TRP-like channels, and a role <strong>for</strong> voltage-activatedcalcium channels in the FA signaling pathway. We will discuss ourcurrent data and present a model <strong>for</strong> the transduction of fattyacids in chemosensory cells.#46 Making sense of fat tasteOral Detection of Fatty Acids by RatsDavid W. PittmanDepartment of Psychology, Wof<strong>for</strong>d College Spartanburg,SC, USAEvidence is accumulating to support a role <strong>for</strong> the gustatorysystem in providing an immediate sensory signal allowingdetection of the fatty acid components of dietary fat duringconsumption by rats. Early research showed innate preferences<strong>for</strong> dietary fat in humans and rats. Putative fatty acid receptorshave been identified in rat taste receptor cells. Consistent with theaction of fatty acids on taste receptor cells, we have shown thatfatty acids increase licking to appetitive tastants during briefaccessbehavioral assays, while licking to aversive stimulidecreased in a manner reflective of an increase in the perceivedintensity of the tastants. Conditioned taste aversion studies in ourlaboratory have demonstrated fatty acid detection thresholds atphysiologically-relevant concentrations (2.5-66 M) which aremuch lower than fatty acid concentrations likely produced bylingual lipase during dietary fat consumption. Additionally, wehave demonstrated genetic influences on the sensitivity of fattyacid detection between male / female rats and obesity-prone / –resistant strains of rat as well as an environmental influence ofa high-fat diet on the sensitivity of fatty acid detection. New datasuggests that olfactory cues are most likely not sufficient to allowdetection and avoidance of fatty acids following a conditionedtaste aversion and that orosensory signals generated by fatty acidsare likely unique from sensations associated with the prototypicaltastes of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter chemicals. Finally, the mostcompelling evidence of the gustatory detection of fatty acids byrats arises from studies in which gustatory nerve transectionsand genetic knockouts of specific fatty acid receptors in thegustatory system produce impairments in the behavioraldetection of fatty acids.#47 Making sense of fat tasteOral Detection of Free Fatty Acids in HumansRichard D MattesPurdue University W. Lafayette, IN, USAThere is increasing recognition that free fatty acids (FFA) areimportant signaling molecules. Increasing evidence suggests theymay play such a role in the oral cavity of humans. Psychophysicalstudies that attempt to control non-gustatory cues (e.g., visual,odor, irritancy, tactile) indicate humans can detect FFA varyingin chain length (C:6 – C:18) and saturation (saturated, monounsaturated,poly-unsaturated). Spatial testing reveals that FFA(C:6 to C:18) can be detected on the dorsal, anterior; lateralposterior, and posterior tongue. All stimuli could be assignedgraded intensity ratings from each site. Given the ligandspecificity of currently identified putative FFA receptors,the data indicate that humans either have multiple transductionmechanisms in the different tongue regions and/or that there is anon-specific mechanism (e.g., diffusion) responsible. Non-normalthreshold distributions are suggestive of a genetic basis <strong>for</strong> fatdetection. Oral exposure to FFA also elicits a biphasic rise inplasma triacylglycerol (TG). Recent findings indicate there is anon-specific component to this response, but that it is mostrobust to oral exposure to dietary fat. It occurs after a single 10second exposure, but the second phase shows greater qualityspecificity with longer stimulus exposures (e.g., 20minutes). About half of the TG in the acute peak is derived fromlipid consumed at the prior eating event indicating there issubstantial lipid storage in the GI tract, presumably in jejunalenterocytes. While TG is likely tasteless, the other sensoryproperties it contributes to foods are generally viewed aspositive. In contrast, FFA are aversive, so may serve as a warningto avoid foods with high levels. The full range of implications offat detection remains to be characterized.18 | 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: conclusions limited, however, by th
- 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 124 and 125:
al 2008. Increases in glucose sensi
- 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