Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32152061›Full record

ArticleeNeuro

Neural Isolation of the Olfactory Bulbs Severely Impairs Taste-Guided Behavior to Normally Preferred, But Not Avoided, Stimuli.

Chizuko Inui-Yamamoto, Ginger D Blonde, Fabienne Schmid, Lauren Mariotti, Matias Campora, Tadashi Inui, Lindsey A Schier, Alan C Spector

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Gustatory and olfactory-guided responsiveness to maltodextrin solutions in mice.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Mechanisms and Functions of Sweet Reception in Oral and Extraoral Organs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Chizuko Inui-YamamotoDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Ginger D BlondeDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Fabienne SchmidDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Lauren MariottiDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Matias CamporaDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Tadashi InuiDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Lindsey A SchierDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
Alan C SpectorDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 spector@psy.fsu.edu.

Funding

PSYCHOPHYSICAL EVALUATION OF TASTE FUNCTIONR01DC004574 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI SPECTOR, ALAN C · 2001 to 2019
$4.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004574
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we systematically tested the hypothesis that motivated behavioral responsiveness to preferred and avoided taste compounds is relatively independent of the olfactory system in mice whose olfactory bulbs (main and accessory) were surgically disconnected from the rest of the brain [bulbotomy (BULBx)]. BULBx was confirmed histologically as well as functionally with the buried food test. In brief access taste tests, animals received 10-s trials of various concentrations of a taste compound delivered quasirandomly. BULBx C57BL/6 (B6) mice displayed severely blunted concentration-dependent licking for the disaccharide sucrose, the maltodextrin Maltrin, and the fat emulsion Intralipid relative to their sham-operated controls (SHAM B6). Licking for the noncaloric sweetener saccharin was also blunted by bulbotomy, but less so. As expected, mice lacking a functional "sweet" receptor [T1R2+T1R3 knockout (KO)] displayed concentration-dependent responsiveness to Maltrin and severely attenuated licking to sucrose. Like in B6 mice, responsiveness to both stimuli was exceptionally curtailed by bulbotomy. In contrast to these deficits in taste-guided behavior for unconditionally preferred stimuli, BULBx in B6 and KO mice did not alter concentration-dependent decreases for the representative avoided stimuli quinine and citric acid. Nor did it temper the intake of and preference for high concentrations of affectively positive stimuli when presented in long-term (23-h) two-bottle tests, demonstrating that the surgery does not lead to a generalized motivational deficit. Collectively, these behavioral results demonstrate that specific aspects of taste-guided ingestive motivation are profoundly disturbed by eliminating the anatomic connections between the main/accessory olfactory bulbs and the rest of the brain.

Indexed as

Olfactory BulbTasteAnimalsFood PreferencesMiceMice, Inbred C57BLReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledSweetening AgentsReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledSweetening Agentsaffectgustatory systemolfactory systemrewardsmelltaste

Identifiers

PMID32152061
PMCPMC7142272

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.