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 (11)
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 28: 315-324, 2003
© Oxford University Press 2003

Mouse Taste Preference Tests: Why Only Two Bottles?

Michael G. Tordoff and Alexander A. Bachmanov

Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308, USA

Correspondence to be sent to: Michael G. Tordoff, Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308, USA. e-mail: tordoff{at}monell.org

Two-bottle tests have been used extensively to measure the preference for taste and nutrient solutions but there has been little work with tests involving more than two bottles. Here, we compare the results obtained in two-bottle tests with those obtained in three- and six-bottle tests. In Experiment 1, we measured the preferences for 2 mM saccharin, 50 mM citric acid, 0.3 mM quinine hydrochloride and 75 mM NaCl displayed by 129X1/SvJ (129) and C57BL/6J (B6) mice. Mice drank more taste solution when they received two bottles providing taste solution and one providing water than when they received either a standard two-bottle test or two bottles providing water and one providing taste solution. The three-bottle tests also revealed the left spout side preferences of the 129 strain and were generally better at distinguishing between the 129 and B6 strains (i.e. were more sensitive) than were the two-bottle tests. In Experiment 2, we measured intakes and preferences in tests with six bottles, with one, two, three, four or five containing 75 mM NaCl and the rest containing water. NaCl preferences were monotonically related to the number of NaCl spouts available. A follow-up experiment found similar results whether the index of ingestion was volume intakes or licks. This argues that spillage cannot account for the effect of spout number on taste solution intake. Together, the results suggest that (i) the number of bottles of taste solution and water has a profound influence on taste solution intake and preference, and (ii) three-bottle tests may be more sensitive than two-bottle tests in many circumstances.

Key words: 129X1/SvJ, C57BL/6J, citric acid, NaCl, quinine hydrochloride, saccharin, side preferences, spillage, taste 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
Chem SensesHome page
C. Ruiz, S. Gutknecht, E. Delay, and S. Kinnamon
Detection of NaCl and KCl in TRPV1 Knockout Mice
Chem Senses, November 1, 2006; 31(9): 813 - 820.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
A. Sclafani and J. I. Glendinning
Sugar and fat conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J and 129 mice: oral and postoral interactions
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, September 1, 2005; 289(3): R712 - R720.
[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.