4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Intake of umami-tasting solutions by mice: A genetic analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 130, Issue 4, Pages 935S-941S

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/130.4.935S

Keywords

monosodium glutamate; inosine-5 '-monophosphate; C57BL/6 and 129 mouse strains; taste; consumption

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC 00882, R01 DC000882] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In two-bottle preference tests with water and solutions of monosodium glutamate (MSG) and inosine-5'-monophosphate (IMP), mice from the C57BL/6ByJ inbred strain consumed more and had higher preferences for these solutions compared with mice from the 129/J strain. The C57BL/6ByJ mice consumed 300 mmol/L MSG in large amounts, which were comparable to intakes of highly preferred solutions of sweeteners. The strain differences in voluntary consumption of 300 mmol/L MSG depended at least in part on postingestive effects because prior experience with MSG influenced the expression of the strain difference in MSG acceptance. The strain difference in MSG acceptance was in the opposite direction to the strain difference in NaCl acceptance and was not affected by previous consumption of saccharin. Although the C57BL/6ByJ mice had higher avidity for both MSG and sweeteners than did the 129/J mice, there was no correlation between preferences for these solutions in the second hybrid generation (F-2) derived from these two strains. Thus, the strain differences in MSG acceptance are not related to the strain differences in salty or sweet taste responsiveness and most likely represent specific umami taste responsiveness. High acceptance of MSG solutions by the C57BL/6ByJ mice was inherited as a recessive trait in the F-2 generation. Further genetic linkage analyses using the F-2 hybrids are being conducted to map chromosomal locations of genes determining the strain difference in MSG acceptance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available