ArticleJournal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983)2010
Bitter avoidance in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and mice (Mus musculus and Peromyscus leucopus).
Article in Journal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983), 2010. 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.
- The Functional and Neurobiological Properties of Bad Taste.Physiological reviews · 2019Review
- The Bitter Taste Receptor TAS2R16 Achieves High Specificity and Accommodates Diverse Glycoside Ligands by using a Two-faced Binding Pocket.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- The Taste of Caffeine.Journal of caffeine research · 2017Review
- Genetics of taste receptors.Current pharmaceutical design · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rejection of bitter substances is common in many species and may function to protect an animal from ingestion of bitter-tasting toxins. Since many plants are bitter, it has been proposed that high tolerance for bitterness would be adaptive for herbivores. Earlier studies conducted on herbivorous guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) have been used to support this proposal. We tested guinea pigs with bitter plant secondary metabolites (salicin, caffeine, quinine hydrochloride) and bitter protein hydrolysates (two types of hydrolyzed casein, hydrolyzed soy) in a series of two-choice preference tests. For comparison, we tested two nonherbivorous mouse species (Mus musculus and Peromyscus leucopus). Guinea pigs did show weaker avoidance of quinine hydrochloride than did the mice, confirming predictions generated from earlier work. However, guinea pigs had similar responses to caffeine as did Peromyscus. Both of these species showed weaker avoidance responses than Mus to 10 mM caffeine. For salicin, guinea pigs were the only species to avoid it at 10 mM and their preference scores at this concentration were significantly lower than for the two mice species. Guinea pigs avoided all of the protein hydrolysates more strongly than the other species. Responses to the protein hydrolysates did not reflect the patterns observed with the simple bitter compounds, suggesting that other properties of these complex stimuli may be responsible for guinea pig avoidance of them. Our results suggest caution in accepting, without further empirical support, the premise that guinea pigs (and herbivores in general) have a generalized reduced bitter sensitivity.
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.