Chemical Senses Vol. 29 No. 6 © Oxford University Press
2004; all rights reserved
The Relative Affective Potency of Glycine, L-Serine and Sucrose as Assessed by a Brief-access Taste Test in Inbred Strains of Mice
Department of Psychology and Center for Smell and Taste, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: Alan C. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, USA. e-mail spector{at}ufl.edu
In general, rodents prefer both sucrose and L-serine relative to water and treat both compounds as possessing a similar taste quality (e.g. ‘sweetness’) despite that they are believed to bind with different T1R heterodimeric receptors in taste bud cells. We assessed the affective potency of these compounds along with glycine, which is thought to bind with both T1R receptor complexes, using a brief-access taste test in a gustometer. Unconditioned licking responses of two ‘taster’ strains (C57BL/6J and SWR/J), which display high preference for low concentrations of sucrose, and two ‘non-taster’ (129P3/J and DBA/2J) strains, which display blunted preference for low concentrations of sucrose, were measured during 5 s trials of varying concentrations of a single compound when mice (n = 10/strain/stimulus) were non-deprived and when access to home-cage water was restricted. In non-deprived mice, sucrose generated monotonically increasing concentration–response curves regardless of strain, whereas glycine was only marginally effective at stimulating licking and L-serine produced relatively flat functions. The profile of responsiveness across strains was more complex than expected. For example, when tested with sucrose in the non-deprived condition, the 129P3/J non-taster strain surpassed the responsiveness of taster mice at mid-range to high concentrations. Under water-restricted conditions, these mice also were significantly more responsive to high concentrations of both sucrose and glycine compared with the other strains when stimulus licking was standardized relative to water. Thus, the affective potency of the stimuli tested here seems to be related to the ability of the compounds to bind with the T1R2+3 receptor complex. However, the profile of strain responsiveness to these tastants in the brief-access test does not appear to be simply explained by the sweetener ‘taster’ status of the strain.
Key words: C57BL/6, DBA/2, licking, 129P3/J, SWR, taste hedonics, T1R receptors
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. H. Lemon and R. F. Margolskee Contribution of the T1r3 Taste Receptor to the Response Properties of Central Gustatory Neurons J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2009; 101(5): 2459 - 2471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Zukerman, J. I. Glendinning, R. F. Margolskee, and A. Sclafani T1R3 taste receptor is critical for sucrose but not Polycose taste Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, April 1, 2009; 296(4): R866 - R876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Jiang, G. Blonde, M. Garcea, and A. C. Spector Greater Superficial Petrosal Nerve Transection in Rats does not Change Unconditioned Licking Responses to Putatively Sweet Taste Stimuli Chem Senses, October 1, 2008; 33(8): 709 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Inoue, J. I. Glendinning, M. L. Theodorides, S. Harkness, X. Li, N. Bosak, G. K. Beauchamp, and A. A. Bachmanov Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects taste responses to sweeteners: evidence from 129.B6-Tas1r3 congenic mice Physiol Genomics, December 19, 2007; 32(1): 82 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Ji and A. A. Bachmanov Differences in postingestive metabolism of glutamate and glycine between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice Physiol Genomics, November 14, 2007; 31(3): 475 - 482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. D. Dotson and A. C. Spector Behavioral Discrimination between Sucrose and Other Natural Sweeteners in Mice: Implications for the Neural Coding of T1R Ligands J. Neurosci., October 17, 2007; 27(42): 11242 - 11253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. McCaughey Taste-Evoked Responses to Sweeteners in the Nucleus of the Solitary Tract Differ between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J Mice J. Neurosci., January 3, 2007; 27(1): 35 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Manita, A. A. Bachmanov, X. Li, G. K. Beauchamp, and M. Inoue Is Glycine "Sweet" to Mice? Mouse Strain Differences in Perception of Glycine Taste Chem Senses, November 1, 2006; 31(9): 785 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. I. Glendinning, S. Chyou, I. Lin, M. Onishi, P. Patel, and K. H. Zheng Initial Licking Responses of Mice to Sweeteners: Effects of Tas1r3 Polymorphisms Chem Senses, September 1, 2005; 30(7): 601 - 614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. I. Glendinning, L. D. Bloom, M. Onishi, K. H. Zheng, S. Damak, R. F. Margolskee, and A. C. Spector Contribution of {alpha}-Gustducin to Taste-guided Licking Responses of Mice Chem Senses, May 1, 2005; 30(4): 299 - 316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Eylam and A. C. Spector Stimulus Processing of Glycine is Dissociable from that of Sucrose and Glucose Based on Behaviorally Measured Taste Signal Detection in Sac 'Taster' and 'Non-taster' Mice Chem Senses, September 1, 2004; 29(7): 639 - 649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|