A High Throughput In Vivo Assay for Taste Quality and Palatability

Taste quality and palatability are two of the most important properties measured in the evaluation of taste stimuli. Human panels can report both aspects, but are of limited experimental flexibility and throughput capacity. Relatively efficient animal models for taste evaluation have been developed, but each of them is designed to measure either taste quality or palatability as independent experimental endpoints. We present here a new apparatus and method for high throughput quantification of both taste quality and palatability using rats in an operant taste discrimination paradigm. Cohorts of four rats were trained in a modified operant chamber to sample taste stimuli by licking solutions from a 96-well plate that moved in a randomized pattern beneath the chamber floor. As a rat’s tongue entered the well it disrupted a laser beam projecting across the top of the 96-well plate, consequently producing two retractable levers that operated a pellet dispenser. The taste of sucrose was associated with food reinforcement by presses on a sucrose-designated lever, whereas the taste of water and other basic tastes were associated with the alternative lever. Each disruption of the laser was counted as a lick. Using this procedure, rats were trained to discriminate 100 mM sucrose from water, quinine, citric acid, and NaCl with 90-100% accuracy. Palatability was determined by the number of licks per trial and, due to intermediate rates of licking for water, was quantifiable along the entire spectrum of appetitiveness to aversiveness. All 96 samples were evaluated within 90 minute test sessions with no evidence of desensitization or fatigue. The technology is capable of generating multiple concentration–response functions within a single session, is suitable for in vivo primary screening of tastant libraries, and potentially can be used to evaluate stimuli for any taste system.

[1]  N. Ryba,et al.  The Receptors for Mammalian Sweet and Umami Taste , 2003, Cell.

[2]  E. Delay,et al.  Monosodium glutamate and sweet taste: generalization of conditioned taste aversion between glutamate and sweet stimuli in rats. , 2003, Chemical senses.

[3]  D. Dietz,et al.  Taste, salience, and increased NaCl ingestion after repeated sodium depletions. , 2006, Chemical senses.

[4]  E. Delay,et al.  Glutamate taste: Discrimination between the tastes of glutamate agonists and monosodium glutamate in rats. , 2004, Chemical senses.

[5]  C. Dotson,et al.  Behavioral Discrimination between Sucrose and Other Natural Sweeteners in Mice: Implications for the Neural Coding of T1R Ligands , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  Morrison Gr Relative discriminability of sugars for the rat. , 1969 .

[7]  R. Margolskee,et al.  T1R3 taste receptor is critical for sucrose but not Polycose taste. , 2009, American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology.

[8]  L. Geran,et al.  Amiloride increases sodium chloride taste detection threshold in rats. , 2000, Behavioral neuroscience.

[9]  J. Glendinning,et al.  Linking peripheral taste processes to behavior , 2009, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[10]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Molecular mechanism of the sweet taste enhancers , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  E. Delay,et al.  Discrimination between the tastes of sucrose and monosodium glutamate in rats. , 2002, Chemical senses.

[12]  J. C. Smith,et al.  The history of the “Davis Rig” , 2001, Appetite.

[13]  G. Morrison,et al.  Taste detection in the rat. , 1966, Canadian journal of psychology.

[14]  Justus V. Verhagen,et al.  Direct Behavioral Evidence for Retronasal Olfaction in Rats , 2012, PloS one.

[15]  G. Beauchamp,et al.  Sweetener preference of C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice. , 2001, Chemical senses.

[16]  E. Delay,et al.  Comparison of l-monosodium glutamate and l-amino acid taste in rats , 2007, Neuroscience.

[17]  David V. Smith,et al.  A brief-access test for bitter taste in mice. , 2002, Chemical senses.

[18]  G. C. Loney,et al.  Preference for sucralose predicts behavioral responses to sweet and bittersweet tastants. , 2012, Chemical senses.

[19]  J. Buccafusco Methods of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience , 2000 .

[20]  James C. Smith,et al.  Rats display a robust bimodal preference profile for sucralose. , 2011, Chemical senses.

[21]  Drug Discrimination in Neurobiology , 1999, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[22]  L. Takahashi,et al.  Foraging and food hoarding of wild Rattus norvegicus in an urban environment. , 1980, Behavioral and neural biology.

[23]  R. K. Palmer The pharmacology and signaling of bitter, sweet, and umami taste sensing. , 2007, Molecular interventions.

[24]  Y. Ninomiya,et al.  Gurmarin suppression of licking responses to sweetener-quinine mixtures in C57BL mice. , 2003, Chemical senses.

[25]  W. Zawalich Depression of gustatory sweet response by alloxan. , 1973, Comparative biochemistry and physiology. A, Comparative physiology.

[26]  John Prescott,et al.  Modern psychophysics and the assessment of human oral sensation. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[27]  John D. Davis,et al.  Analysis of the microstructure of the rhythmic tongue movements of rats ingesting maltose and sucrose solutions. , 1992, Behavioral neuroscience.

[28]  F. Salemme,et al.  Pharmacologic Antagonism of the Oral Aversive Taste-Directed Response to Capsaicin in a Mouse Brief Access Taste Aversion Assay , 2010, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[29]  A. Spector,et al.  Constructing quality profiles for taste compounds in rats: A novel paradigm , 2008, Physiology & Behavior.

[30]  E. Delay,et al.  A conditioned aversion study of sucrose and SC45647 taste in TRPM5 knockout mice. , 2012, Chemical senses.

[31]  C. L. le Roux,et al.  Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in rats increases sucrose taste-related motivated behavior independent of pharmacological GLP-1-receptor modulation. , 2012, American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology.

[32]  J. Kaplan,et al.  Analytical issues in the evaluation of food deprivation and sucrose concentration effects on the microstructure of licking behavior in the rat. , 1998, Behavioral neuroscience.

[33]  R. Margolskee,et al.  Contribution of alpha-gustducin to taste-guided licking responses of mice. , 2005, Chemical senses.

[34]  R. Margolskee,et al.  Umami taste in mice uses multiple receptors and transduction pathways , 2012, The Journal of physiology.

[35]  N. Guagliardo,et al.  Amiloride Disrupts NaCl versus KCl Discrimination Performance: Implications for Salt Taste Coding in Rats , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  F. Salemme,et al.  Quantitative assessment of TRPM5-dependent oral aversiveness of pharmaceuticals using a mouse brief-access taste aversion assay , 2008, Behavioural pharmacology.

[37]  S. Schiffman,et al.  Sweeteners: state of knowledge review. , 1993, Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews.

[38]  A. Sclafani,et al.  Rats show only a weak preference for the artificial sweetener aspartame , 1986, Physiology & Behavior.

[39]  R. Margolskee,et al.  Contribution of α-Gustducin to Taste-guided Licking Responses of Mice , 2005 .

[40]  Susan S. Schiffman,et al.  Qualitative differences among sweeteners , 1979, Physiology & Behavior.

[41]  J. Glendinning,et al.  A high-throughput screening procedure for identifying mice with aberrant taste and oromotor function. , 2002, Chemical senses.

[42]  J. D. Davis,et al.  Food deprivation- and palatability-induced microstructural changes in ingestive behavior. , 1993, The American journal of physiology.

[43]  A. C. Spector,et al.  Orosensory detection of sucrose, maltose, and glucose is severely impaired in mice lacking T1R2 or T1R3, but Polycose sensitivity remains relatively normal. , 2012, American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology.

[44]  Thomas M. Canty,et al.  Oral zinc sulfate solutions inhibit sweet taste perception. , 2004, Chemical senses.

[45]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Positive allosteric modulators of the human sweet taste receptor enhance sweet taste , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  K. Kurihara Glutamate: from discovery as a food flavor to role as a basic taste (umami). , 2009, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[47]  S. Manita,et al.  Is glycine "sweet" to mice? Mouse strain differences in perception of glycine taste. , 2006, Chemical senses.

[48]  P. Breslin,et al.  Mammalian taste perception , 2008, Current Biology.

[49]  Michelle R. Rebello,et al.  Taste Quality and Intensity of 100 Stimuli as Reported by Rats: The Taste–Location Association Task , 2012, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[50]  B. P. Halpern Functional Anatomy of the Tongue and Mouth of Mammals , 1977 .