4.4 Review

TASTE AND SMELL: A UNIFYING CHEMOSENSORY THEORY

期刊

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 69-94

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/720097

关键词

chemical senses; receptors; ligands; chemosensory systems; evolution of chemosensation; chemical ecology

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smell is traditionally considered a distance sense while taste is perceived as based on direct contact, but evidence has emerged that challenges this dichotomy, especially in non-human species. Conflicting data has been interpreted to conform to the traditional separation. Therefore, we propose unifying all chemosensory modalities into a single sense, developing a comprehensive perspective on chemical communication.
Since antiquity, the sense of smell (olfaction) is considered as a distance sense, just like sight and hearing. Conversely, the sense of taste (gustation) is thought to operate by direct contact, similarly to touch. With the progress of natural sciences, information at molecular, anatomical, and neurobiological levels has also contributed to the taste-smell dichotomy, but much evidence inconsistent with a sharp differentiation of these two senses has emerged, especially when considering species other than humans. In spite of this, conflicting information has been interpreted so that it could conform to the traditional differentiation. As a result, a confirmation bias is currently affecting scientific research on chemosensory systems and is also hindering the development of a satisfactory narrative of the evolution of chemical communication across taxa. From this perspective, the chemosensory dichotomy loses its validity and usefulness. We thus propose the unification of all chemosensory modalities into a single sense, moving toward a synthetic, complex, and interconnected perspective on the gradual processes by which a vast variety of chemicals have become signals that are crucially important to communication among and within cells, organs, and organisms in a wide variety of environmental conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据