Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39071269›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

Structural comparisons of human and mouse fungiform taste buds.

Brigit High, Thomas E Finger

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brigit HighDept. Cell & Devel. Biology, Rocky Mountain Taste & Smell Center, Univ. Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045.
Thomas E FingerDept. Cell & Devel. Biology, Rocky Mountain Taste & Smell Center, Univ. Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045.ORCID 0000-0001-5923-5099

Funding

Scanning Blockface EM of Murine and Human Taste BudsR01DC014728 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI FINGER, THOMAS E · 2015 to 2020
$1.9M
A Potential Role for NaV1.1 in Taste Signal TransmissionF30DC019043 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HIGH, BRIGIT-ALEXANDRA · 2020 to 2023
$137k
NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC019043NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014728
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taste buds are commonly studied in rodent models, but some differences exist between mice and humans in terms of gustatory mechanisms and sensitivities. Whether these functional differences are reflected in structural differences between species is unclear. Using immunofluorescent image stacks, we compared morphological and molecular characteristics of mouse and human fungiform taste buds. The results suggest that while the general features of fungiform taste buds are similar between mice and humans, several characteristics differ significantly. Human taste buds are larger and taller than those of mice, yet they contain similar numbers of taste cells. Taste buds in humans are more heavily innervated by gustatory nerve fibers expressing the purinergic receptor P2X3 showing a 40% higher innervation density than in mice. Like Type II cells of mice, a subset (about 30%) of cells in human taste buds is immunoreactive for PLCβ2. These PLCβ2-immunoreactive cells display CALHM1-immunoreactive puncta closely apposed to gustatory nerve fibers suggestive of channel-type synapses described in mice. These puncta, used as a measure of synaptic contact, are however significantly larger in humans compared to mice. Altogether these findings suggest that while many similarities exist in the structural organization of murine and human fungiform taste buds, significant differences do exist in taste bud size, innervation density, and size of synaptic contacts that may impact gustatory signal transmission.

Identifiers

PMID39071269
PMCPMC11275760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.