Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32797072›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Dynamics of odor sampling strategies in mice.

Johannes Reisert, Glen J Golden, Michele Dibattista, Alan Gelperin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Active smelling in the American cockroach.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 2 countries.

Johannes ReisertMonell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9393-9257
Glen J GoldenMonell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Michele DibattistaDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sensory Organs, University of Bari "A. Moro", Bari, Italy.
Alan GelperinDepartment of Neuroscience, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States of America.
Monell Chemical Senses Center · USPrinceton University · USUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · IT

Funding

Molecular BiologyP30DC011735 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI BACHMANOV, ALEXANDER A · 2011 to 2015
$2.5M
The roles and functions of olfactory transduction channels in the odorant responseR01DC016647 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI REISERT, JOHANNES, WANG, HONG · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
Dynamic Aspects of Olfactory Signal TransductionR01DC009613 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI REISERT, JOHANNES · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
Improvement to the Animal Facility HVAC System at the Monell Chemical Senses CenterG20OD020296 · OD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI REED, DANIELLE RENEE · 2015 to 2015
$498k
NIDCD NIH HHS P30 DC011735NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009613NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016647
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammalian olfactory receptor neurons in the nasal cavity are stimulated by odorants carried by the inhaled air and their activation is therefore tied to and driven by the breathing or sniffing frequency. Sniffing frequency can be deliberately modulated to alter how odorants stimulate olfactory receptor neurons, giving the animal control over the frequency of odorant exposure to potentially aid odorant detection and discrimination. We monitored sniffing behaviors and odorant discrimination ability of freely-moving mice while they sampled either decreasing concentrations of target odorants or sampled a fixed target odorant concentration in the presence of a background of increasing odorant concentrations, using a Go-NoGo behavioral paradigm. This allowed us to ask how mice alter their odorant sampling duration and sampling (sniffing) frequency depending on the demands of the task and its difficulty. Mice showed an anticipatory increase in sniffing rate prior to odorant exposure and chose to sample for longer durations when exposed to odorants as compared to the solvent control odorant. Similarly, mice also took more odorant sampling sniffs when exposed to target odorants compared to the solvent control odorant. In general, odorant sampling strategies became more similar the more difficult the task was, e.g. the lower the target odorant concentration or the lower the target odorant contrast relative to the background odorant, suggesting that sniffing patterns are not preset, but are dynamically modulated by the particular task and its difficulty.

Indexed as

OdorantsOlfactory PerceptionSmellAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMaleMiceOlfactory BulbOlfactory Receptor NeuronsRespiration

Identifiers

PMID32797072
PMCPMC7428156
OpenAlexW3049379905

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.