Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31649069›Full record

ArticleBiology open2019

Tests of the chromatographic theory of olfaction with highly soluble odors: a combined electro-olfactogram and computational fluid dynamics study in the mouse.

David M Coppola, Emily Fitzwater, Alex D Rygg, Brent A Craven

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David M CoppolaDepartment of Biology, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005, USA dcoppola@rmc.edu brent.craven@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4402-1607
Emily FitzwaterDepartment of Biology, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005, USA.
Alex D RyggDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Brent A CravenDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA dcoppola@rmc.edu brent.craven@fda.hhs.gov.
Randolph–Macon College · USPennsylvania State University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea that the vertebrate nasal cavity operates like a gas chromatograph to separate and discriminate odors, referred to herein as the 'chromatographic theory' (CT), has a long and interesting history. Though the last decade has seen renewed interest in the notion, its validity remains in question. Here we examine a necessary condition of the theory: a correlation between nasal odor deposition patterns based on mucus solubility and the distribution of olfactory sensory neuron odotypes. Our recent work in the mouse failed to find such a relationship even across large sorption gradients within the olfactory epithelium (OE). However, these studies did not test extremely soluble odorants or low odor concentrations, factors that could explain our inability to find supporting evidence for the CT. The current study combined computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of odor sorption patterns and electro-olfactogram (EOG) measurements of olfactory sensory neuron responses. The odorants tested were at the extremes of mucus solubility and at a range of concentrations. Results showed no relationship between local odor sorption patterns and EOG response maps. Together, results again failed to support a necessary condition of the CT casting further doubt on the viability of this classical odor coding mechanism.

Indexed as

MapsOdor discriminationOlfactory receptorsSorption

Identifiers

PMID31649069
PMCPMC6826284
OpenAlexW2982276118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.