437 <strong>Symposium</strong> Neural Dynamics and <strong>Chemosensory</strong>BehaviorNORADRENALINE MODULATION OF MAIN OLFACTORYBULB NETWORK ACTIVITY: BEHAVIORALCONSEQUENCESDoucette W. 1 , Restrepo D. 1 1 Neuroscience, University of ColoradoHealth Sciences Center, Aurora, COThe role of Noradrenaline (NE) in the main olfactory bulb (MOB)has been characterized for early preference learning (EPL), whereneonatal rats learn to prefer an odor associated with stroking. EPL isblocked by adrenergic antagonists. Adult rodents utilize a morecomplex neural system allowing for increased behavioral flexibility.Thus, NE modulation in the MOB would be expected to take on asubtler context-dependent role in the adult. Our goal is to linkbehavioral deficits caused by blockade of NE signaling withperturbations in mitral cell ensemble activity observed during thebehavioral task. We have studied the consequences of localizedblockade of NE signaling in the MOBs of adult mice performing go-nogo odor discrimination tasks. Mice received bilateral 2 µl injections ofsaline, phentolamine, alprenolol, or a combination of the two drugsimmediately preceding the task. The odor pairs were of varyingmolecular similarity. Animal groups receiving saline, alprenolol, orphentolamine did not differ in the number of trials to discrimination.The injection of both drugs resulted in an odor pair-dependent effect,ranging from complete blockade for similar odors to no disturbance. Weconclude that blockade of NE signaling in the MOB does not impairodor discrimination behavior per-se, but does impair the ability todiscriminate similar odors. We have begun to characterize normallearning-related plasticity of mitral cell ensemble activity in miceperforming the go-no go task. Once characterized, we will utilize NEsignaling blockade to understand the network underpinnings ofbehavioral deficits caused by blockade of NE signaling in the MOB.Supported by: DC00566, DC04657, MH068582 (DR) and DC008066(WD).438 <strong>Symposium</strong> Neural Dynamics and <strong>Chemosensory</strong>BehaviorTOWARDS REALISTIC MODELS OF CONCENTRATION-INVARIANT, BACKGROUND-RESISTANT ODORRECOGNITION IN THE MAMMALIAN OLFACTORY BULBBrody C. 1 1 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NYSpike synchronization across neurons can be selective for thesituation where neurons are driven at similar firing rates, a “many areequal” computation. This can be achieved in the absence of synapticinteractions between neurons, through phase locking to a commonunderlying oscillatory potential. Based on this principle, we instantiatean algorithm for robust odor recognition into a model network ofspiking neurons whose main features are taken from known propertiesof biological olfactory systems. Recognition of odors is signaled byspike synchronization of specific subsets of “mitral cells.” Thissynchronization is highly odor selective and invariant to a wide range ofodor concentrations. It is also robust to the presence of strong distractorodors, thus allowing odor segmentation within complex olfactoryscenes. Funded by NIH R01-DC06104439 <strong>Symposium</strong> Neural Dynamics and <strong>Chemosensory</strong>BehaviorSTATE-DEPENDENT CHANGES IN TASTE PROCESSINGFontanini A. 1 , Katz D.B. 1 1 Volen Center for Complex Systems andDepartment of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MASensory processing is a function of network states. In awake animalsbackground activity and the overall state of cortical networks varydepending on the behavioral state of the subject. We will discuss resultsshowing that rats engaged in a fluid self-administration task display asudden shift between two very different behavioral states characterizedby distinct patterns of oscillatory activity in the gustatory cortex. Wewill further show that gustatory processing differs in the two conditionsand provide evidence that changes in such states specifically modifypalatability-related information in neural taste responses, and that thismodification is temporally specific. While recording multiple singleunits in the gustatory cortex, we delivered stimuli to rats before andafter they went through the spontaneous state change (“disengagement”)that is associated with sudden reduction in interest in the experimentaltask and the simultaneous emergence of 7-12 Hz rhythms in cortex. Thepercentage of cortical neurons that responded to tastes remained stablewith disengagement, but the particulars of these responses changeddrastically. When analyzed at the population level the changes werepalatability-related—the similarity among aversive tastes increasedwhile the similarity between a highly aversive taste and the palatabletastes decreased. Furthermore, most of these changes were found nearthe time when palatability-specific information emerges in corticalresponses. These data demonstrate that an animal´s state determines themeaning attached to sensory input, and that disengagement broadenspalatability-related generalizations by modulating the time-course ofresponses. Supported by R01 DC006666 to DBK and Sloan-Swartz toAF440 <strong>Symposium</strong> Neural Dynamics and <strong>Chemosensory</strong>BehaviorTEMPORAL CODING OF TASTE IN THE BRAIN STEM:INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONDi Lorenzo P.M. 1 , Victor J.D. 2 1 Psychology, SUNY, Binghamton,Binghamton, NY; 2 Neurology and Neuroscience, Weill Medical Collegeof Cornell University, New York, NYMost theories of taste coding in the central nervous system havefocused on the spatial aspects of neural responses, utilizing the sum ofresponse-related spikes over time as the relevant response measure.However, recent data have shown that the temporal arrangement ofspikes may also convey information about taste. In a series of relatedexperiments, temporal coding in the mammalian gustatory system wasinvestigated in two ways. First, electrophysiological responses to tastestimuli were recorded in the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS) inanesthetized rats. Information-theoretic analyses (Victor and Purpura,1996) revealed that about half of the taste-responsive cells in the NTSconveyed a significant amount of information about taste qualitythrough spike timing, especially in the initial response interval. Second,the function of temporal coding in taste-guided behavior was studied inawake, behaving rats with electrodes implanted in the taste-responsivearea of the NTS. Lick-contingent electrical pulse trains, designed tomimic the temporal arrangement of spikes in a sucrose or quinineresponse of single NTS cells, were delivered to the NTS in waterdeprivedrats drinking only water. Rats avoided licking when thesepulse trains mimicked quinine responses but licked avidly whenrandomized control patterns were presented. In addition, rats thatlearned an aversion to the sucrose-simulation pattern of electrical pulsesgeneralized that aversion to natural sucrose, but not to NaCl, HCl orquinine. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that temporal codingis one of the methods used for communication about taste in the NTS.110
441 <strong>Symposium</strong> Neural Dynamics and <strong>Chemosensory</strong>BehaviorTEMPORAL AND SPATIAL CODES MEDIATE THEDISCRIMINATION OF `BITTER´ TASTE STIMULI BY ANINSECTGlendinning J.I. 1 1 Barnard College, Columbia University, New York,NYA primary function of sensory systems is to discriminate functionallydistinct stimuli. In the taste system, most theories about discriminativeprocessing have focused on two spatial coding frameworks (labeled-linevs. across-fiber pattern), and largely ignored the potential contributionof temporal codes. I will discuss recent work on an herbivorous insect(the caterpillar of Manduca sexta), which displays unusually finediscriminating abilities for `bitter´ taste stimuli. I will present evidencethat the caterpillar uses a variety of coding mechanisms to accomplishthis discrimination: a labeled-line mechanism to discriminate salicin andGrindelia extract, an across-fiber mechanism to discriminate salicin andCanna extract, and a temporal coding mechanism to discriminate salicinand aristolochic acid. The only `bitter´ taste stimuli that cannot bediscriminated are those that elicit the same spatial and temporal code(e.g., salicin and caffeine). These findings show that this herbivorousinsect has evolved a complex set of gustatory mechanisms fordistinguishing among a diverse range of potentially toxic `bitter´compounds, which abound in its solanaceous foodplants. This projectwas supported by NIH DC02416.442 Poster Developmental, Neurogenesis, and ConsumerResearchEMBRYONIC ORIGIN DICTATES MATURE GUSTATORYNEURON FATEHarlow D.E. 1 , Barlow L.A. 1 1 Cell & Developmental Biology, Univ ofColorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, COThe vertebrate tongue receives gustatory and somatosensoryinnervation from nerves whose cell bodies lie in cranial ganglia. Tasteand somatosensory neurons project centrally to specific hindbrainnuclei, and peripherally to taste buds and epithelium, respectively.These neurons arise from two distinct embryonic populations:epibranchial placodes and neural crest. We tested the hypothesis thattaste neurons arise from placodes, while somatosensory neurons derivefrom neural crest, via fate mapping in embryos of an aquaticsalamander, the axolotl. Embryos were globally labeled via injection ofGFP mRNA at the 2-cell stage. At mid-neurula stage, presumptiveplacodal ectoderm or premigratory neural crest/dorsal neural tube fromGFP-labeled donors was grafted isotopically into unlabeled hosts.Importantly, this method allowed visualization of both peripheral andcentral projections of neurons. Placodal neurons sent out peripheralfibers which contacted taste buds almost exclusively, while their centralprocesses projected to the nucleus of the solitary tract. Neural crestderived neurons, in contrast, did not innervate taste buds; rather theirperipheral fibers terminated as free nerve endings within oralepithelium. Central projections of crest derived neurons were obscuredby GFP label in the hindbrain, as the initial neural tube grafts comprisedboth premigratory neural crest and presumptive hindbrain. In sum, ourdata indicate that embryonic origin dictates a concise segregation ofmature neuron function; placodal neurons are gustatory, while neuralcrest neurons are somatosensory. Supported by NIDCD DC003947 toLAB443 Poster Developmental, Neurogenesis, and ConsumerResearchEMBRYONIC <strong>DEVELOPMENT</strong> OF NASAL SOLITARYCHEMORECEPTOR CELLS AND ASSOCIATED NERVEFIBERS IN MICEGulbransen B.D. 1 , Finger T. 2 1 Neuroscience, Univ of Colorado atDenver & Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO; 2 Cell & DevelopmentalBiology, Univ of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CONasal trigeminal chemosensitivity in mice and rats is mediated in partby solitary chemoreceptor cells (SCCs) in the nasal epithelium (Fingeret al. PNAS 2003). Mature SCCs express the G-protein gustducin aswell as other elements of the bitter taste signaling cascade such asPLCβ2 and T2R (bitter) taste receptors. Currently nothing is knownconcerning the development of nasal SCCs. The present experimentswere designed to answer two basic questions: (1) When do gustducinexpressing SCCs appear in the nasal epithelium during development?and (2) When do SCCs become innervated by the trigeminal nerve?Wild type C57/B6 embryos were taken at various stages from E14.5-E18.5, decapitated, and fixed in 4% PFA. Dual-labelimmunocytochemistry was used to identify SCCs (rabbit antigustducin)and nerve fibers (rabbit anti-PGP9.5). No gustducinimmunoreactive (ir) SCCs were present in E14.5 or E15 embryos.Although PGP9.5-ir growth cones were present in the mucosa at thesestages, no fibers penetrated into the nasal epithelium. Gustducin-irSCCs first appeared in the nasal epithelium at E15.5. At this stage,PGP9.5-ir nerve fibers innervated the nasal epithelium and occasionalSCCs. By E17.5, gustducin-ir SCCs were abundant and more frequentlycontacted by PGP9.5-ir nerve fibers. Further experiments are underwayto better delineate the timing and sequence of events leading up todevelopment and innervation of nasal SCCs. Supported by NIDCDGrants RO1 DC 006070 and P30 DC 04657444 Poster Developmental, Neurogenesis, and ConsumerResearchTASTE BUD <strong>DEVELOPMENT</strong> IN CHICKS AFTERTREATMENT WITH ß-BUNGAROTOXIN, OR OTOCYSTREMOVALGanchrow D. 1 , Witt M. 2 , Ganchrow J. 3 , Arki-Burstyn E. 3 1 Anatomy &Anthropology, Tel Aviv Univ, Tel Aviv, Israel; 2 Otorhinolaryngology,Univ of Technology Dresden, Med. Sch., Dresden, Germany; 3 Instituteof Dental Sciences, The Hebrew University-Hadassah School of DentalMedicine, Jerusalem, IsraelChick taste bud (gemmal) primordia normally appear on embryonicday (E)16 and incipient immature, spherical-shaped buds at E17. In ovoinjection of ß-bungarotoxin at E12 resulted in complete absence of tastebuds in lower beak and palatal epithelium at developmental ages E17and E21. However, putative gemmal primordia (solitary cells; small,cell groupings) remained, lying adjacent salivary gland duct openings asseen in normal chick gemmal development. Oral epithelium wasimmunonegative to neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) suggestinggemmal primordia are nerve-independent. Some NCAMimmunoreactivity was evident in autonomic ganglion-like cells andnerve fibers in connective tissue. After unilateral geniculateganglion/otocyst excision on E2.5, at developmental ages E18 andposthatching day 1, 10-15% of surviving ipsilateral geniculate ganglioncells sustained ~54% of the unoperated gemmal counts. After E18,proportional stages of differentiation in surviving developing budsprobably reflect their degree of innervation, as well as rate ofdifferentiation. Irrespective of degree of geniculate ganglion damage,the proportion of surviving buds can be sustained at the samedifferentiated bud stage as on the unoperated side, or differentiate to alater bud stage, consistent with the thesis that bud maintenance, survivaland maturation are nerve-dependent.111
- Page 1 and 2:
1 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors
- Page 3 and 4:
9 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors
- Page 5 and 6:
17 Givaudan LectureFISHING FOR NOVE
- Page 7 and 8:
25 Symposium Impact of Odorant Meta
- Page 10 and 11:
37 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 12 and 13:
45 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 14 and 15:
53 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 16 and 17:
61 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 18 and 19:
69 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 20 and 21:
77 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 22 and 23:
85 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
- Page 24 and 25:
93 Poster Chemosensory Coding and C
- Page 26 and 27:
101 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
- Page 28 and 29:
109 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
- Page 30 and 31:
117 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
- Page 32 and 33:
125 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
- Page 34 and 35:
133 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
- Page 36 and 37:
sniffing behavior. Furthermore, we
- Page 38 and 39:
149 Slide Chemosensory Coding and C
- Page 40 and 41:
157 Slide Taste ChemoreceptionHTAS2
- Page 42 and 43:
165 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 44 and 45:
173 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 46 and 47:
181 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 48 and 49:
189 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 50 and 51:
197 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 52 and 53:
205 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 54 and 55:
213 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 56 and 57:
221 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
- Page 58 and 59:
229 Slide Molecular Genetic Approac
- Page 60 and 61: 237 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 62 and 63: 245 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 64 and 65: 253 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 66 and 67: 261 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 68 and 69: 269 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 70 and 71: 277 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 72 and 73: 285 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 74 and 75: 293 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
- Page 76 and 77: 301 Slide Central OlfactionOLFACTOR
- Page 78 and 79: 309 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 80 and 81: 317 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 82 and 83: 325 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 84 and 85: 333 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 86 and 87: 341 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 88 and 89: 349 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 90 and 91: 357 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 92 and 93: 365 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
- Page 94 and 95: 373 Symposium Olfactory Bulb Comput
- Page 96 and 97: 381 Symposium Presidential: Why Hav
- Page 98 and 99: 389 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 100 and 101: 397 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 102 and 103: 405 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 104 and 105: 413 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 106 and 107: 421 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 108 and 109: 429 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
- Page 112 and 113: 445 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 114 and 115: 453 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 116 and 117: 461 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 118 and 119: 469 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 120 and 121: 477 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 122 and 123: 485 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 124 and 125: 493 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 126 and 127: 501 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
- Page 128 and 129: Brody, Carlos, 438Brown, R. Lane, 3
- Page 130 and 131: Gilbertson, Timothy Allan, 63, 64,
- Page 132 and 133: Klouckova, Iveta, 150Klyuchnikova,
- Page 134 and 135: Ni, Daofeng, 93Nichols, Zachary, 35
- Page 136 and 137: Sorensen, Peter W., 23, 288, 289Sou
- Page 138: Zeng, Musheng, 466Zeng, Shaoqun, 26