Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tordoff, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bachmanov, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tordoff, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bachmanov, A. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Chem. Senses 27: 759-768, 2002
© Oxford University Press 2002

Influence of Test Duration on the Sensitivity of the Two-bottle Choice Test

Michael G. Tordoff and Alexander A. Bachmanov

Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Correspondence to be sent to: Michael G. Tordoff, Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19103-3308, USA. e-mail: tordoff{at}monell.org.

The long-term two-bottle choice test is commonly used as a simple screen to examine the acceptance of taste solutions by rodents. As part of an investigation of factors influencing the sensitivity of the two-bottle choice test, we determined the extent to which test duration influenced test sensitivity. C57BL6/J and 129X1/SvJ mice received four series of eight two-bottle tests, with each test lasting 1, 2, 4 or 6 days. Each series involved sequential tests with water, 2 mM saccharin, 5 and 50 mM citric acid, 30 and 300 µM quinine hydrochloride, 75 mM NaCl and 10% ethanol. There were significant differences between the strains in intake of saccharin, 5 and 50 mM citric acid, NaCl and ethanol in 4 and 6 day tests, but only saccharin and ethanol in 2 day tests, and 5 mM citric acid and ethanol in 1 day tests. To compare the sensitivity of the tests, we developed an analytical approach based on the comparison of deviations of individual 129X1/SvJ mice from the C57BL6/J strain mean. Our results suggest that to discriminate between strains or treatments when using `standard' laboratory conditions and methods, 1 day tests are generally inadequate and 2 day tests are useful only if large effects are anticipated. Tests lasting 4 or 6 days are more sensitive, but conducting 6 day tests provides little additional benefit and sometimes is detrimental relative to conducting 4 day tests.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Chem SensesHome page
M. G. Tordoff
Taste Solution Preferences of C57BL/6J and 129X1/SvJ Mice: Influence of Age, Sex, and Diet
Chem Senses, September 1, 2007; 32(7): 655 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
M. Inoue, D. R. Reed, X. Li, M. G. Tordoff, G. K. Beauchamp, and A. A. Bachmanov
Allelic Variation of the Tas1r3 Taste Receptor Gene Selectively Affects Behavioral and Neural Taste Responses to Sweeteners in the F2 Hybrids between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J Mice
J. Neurosci., March 3, 2004; 24(9): 2296 - 2303.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
B. K. Smith Richards, B. N. Belton, B. York, and J. Volaufova
Mice bearing Acads mutation display altered postingestive but not 5-s orosensory response to dietary fat
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, February 1, 2004; 286(2): R311 - R319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Chem SensesHome page
M. G. Tordoff and A. A. Bachmanov
Mouse Taste Preference Tests: Why Only Two Bottles?
Chem Senses, May 1, 2003; 28(4): 315 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.