ArticlePhysiology & behavior2008
Licking for taste solutions by potassium-deprived rats: specificity and mechanisms.
Article in Physiology & behavior, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and evaluation of an oral fast disintegrating anti-allergic film using hot-melt extrusion technology.European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics : official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V · 2017Article
- New generalized poisson mixture model for bimodal count data with drug effect: An application to rodent brief-access taste aversion experiments.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2016Article
- Anion size modulates salt taste in rats.Journal of neurophysiology · 2012Article
- Taste solution consumption by FHH-Chr nBN consomic rats.Chemical senses · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There has been little work on the specificity and mechanisms underlying the appetite of potassium (K(+)) deprived rats, and there are conflicting results. To investigate the contribution of oral factors to changes in intake induced by K(+) deficiency, we conducted two experiments using 20-s "brief access" tests. In Experiment 1, K(+)-deprived rats licked less for water than did replete rats. After adjusting for this difference, K(+)-deprived rats exhibited increased licking for 100 mM CaCl(2), 100 mM MgCl(2), and 100 mM FeCl(2) compared with K(+)-replete rats. In Experiment 2, which used larger rats, the K(+)-deprived and replete groups licked equally for water, 500 mM Na.Gluconate, 350 mM KCl, 500 mM KHCO(3), and 1 mM quinine.HCl, but the K(+)-deprived rats licked more for 500 mM KCl, 500 mM CsCl, and 500 mM NaCl than did the replete rats. Licking was unaffected by addition to NaCl of 200 muM amiloride, an epithelial Na(+) channel (ENaC) blocker, or 100 muM ruthenium red, a vanilloid receptor 1 (VR-1) antagonist, or by addition to KCl of 50 muM 4-aminopyridine, a K(+) channel blocker. These findings suggest that K(+)-deprivation produces a non-specific appetite that is guided by oral factors. We found no evidence that this response was mediated by ENaC, VR-1, or K(+) channels in taste receptor cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.