Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32427281›Full record

ArticleChemical senses2020

Mixture and concentration effects on odorant receptor response patterns in vivo.

Timothy S McClintock, Qiang Wang, Tomoko Sengoku, William B Titlow, Patrick Breheny

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical senses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. A physicochemical model of odor sampling.PLoS computational biology · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Encoding the Odor of Cigarette Smoke.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Timothy S McClintockDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Qiang WangDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Tomoko SengokuDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
William B TitlowDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Patrick BrehenyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
University of Kentucky · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

In vivo patterns of receptor activation by odorantsR01DC014468 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI MCCLINTOCK, TIMOTHY S · 2016 to 2020
$2.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural odors are mixtures of volatile chemicals (odorants). Odors are encoded as responses of distinct subsets of the hundreds of odorant receptors and trace amine-associated receptors expressed monogenically by olfactory sensory neurons. This is an elegantly simple mechanism for differentially encoding odors but it is susceptible to complex dose-response relationships and interactions between odorants at receptors, which may help explain olfactory phenomena such as mixture suppression, synthetic versus elemental odor processing, and poorly predictable perceptual outcomes of new odor mixtures. In this study in vivo tests in freely behaving mice confirm evidence of a characteristic receptor response pattern consisting of a few receptors with strong responses and a greater number of weakly responding receptors. Odorant receptors responsive to an odor are often unrelated and widely divergent in sequence, even when the odor consists of a single species of odorant. Odorant receptor response patterns to a citrus odor broaden with concentration. Some highly sensitive receptors respond only to a low concentration but others respond in proportion to concentration, a feature that may be critical for concentration-invariant perception. Other tests find evidence of interactions between odorants in vivo. All of the odorant receptor responses to a moderate concentration of the fecal malodor indole are suppressed by a high concentration of the floral odorant, α-ionone. Such suppressive effects are consistent with prior evidence that odorant interactions at individual odorant receptors are common.

Indexed as

citrusG-protein coupled receptormalodorsensory neuroscienceSmell

Identifiers

PMID32427281
PMCPMC13251632
OpenAlexW3027239586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.