ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Somatostatin neurons in the rostral nucleus of the solitary tract are functionally heterogeneous.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rostral nucleus of the solitary tract (rNST) is the initial central site for taste processing. This nucleus has a complex circuitry and multiple cell types with different response properties, connectivity, and morphology (Travers and Travers 2018). However, unlike its visceral counterpart, the caudal NST, neurochemical phenotypes in rNST are poorly defined. Recent studies have begun to probe this gap. Based on fiber photometry, optogenetics, and cell-type specific deletion. For example, one group proposed that somatostatin (SST) rNST neurons, neither calbindin or dynorphin cells, responded specifically to bitter stimuli and that these neurons were necessary for suppression of quinine-induced licking (Jin, Fishman et al. 2021) (Zhang, Jin et al. 2019). The present study employed in situ hybridization, optotagging, and chemogenetic suppression in male and female mice to demonstrate that SST neuron function is more complex. Although most SST neurons responded optimally to bitter stimuli, many others were activated by different qualities and some non-SST neurons responded to bitter tastants. Moreover, roughly equal proportions of SST neurons expressed excitatory (VGLUT2) or inhibitory (VGAT) markers. Suppressing SST neural activity with DREADDS enhanced licking to both quinine and sucrose suggesting that neural activity elicited by the aversive bitter stimulus was suppressed whereas licking elicited by the sweet, preferred stimulus was increased. We hypothesize that these effects arise from suppressing excitatory quinine-responsive SST neurons but that a separate population of inhibitory SST neurons synapse on sucrose-responsive cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.