4.7 Article

Development of a model for robust and exploratory analysis of the rodent brief-access taste aversion data

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.01.016

关键词

Brief-access taste aversion; Lickometer; Bitterness; E-max model; NONMEM; Quinine

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel
  2. UCL Impact Awards
  3. MRC [MR/M008665/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/M008665/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rodent brief-access taste aversion (BATA) model is an efficient in vivo screening tool for taste assessment. A new E-max. (maximum effect attributable to the drug) model was developed and further investigated in comparison with three previously published models for analysing the rodent BATA data; the robustness of all the models was discussed. The rodent BATA data were obtained from a series of experiments conducted with a bitter reference compound, quinine hydrochloride dihydrate (QHD). A new E-max model that could be applied to both lick numbers and lick ratios was built and three published models that used lick ratios were employed for analysing the BATA data. IC50, the concentration that inhibits 50% of the maximum lick numbers, quantified the oral aversiveness of QHD. One thousand bootstrap datasets were generated from the original data. All models were applied to estimate the confidence intervals of the IC50s without symmetric assumption. The IC50 value obtained from the new E-max model was 0.0496 mM (95% CI 0.0297-0.0857) using the lick numbers for analysis, while an IC50 of 0.0502 mM (95% CI 0.0267-0.0859) was acquired with the lick ratios. Except one published model, the IC50 values have a similar range for the 95% Cl. The new E-max model enabled the analysis of both lick numbers and lick ratios whereas other models could only handle data presented as lick ratios. IC50s obtained with these two types of datasets showed similarity among all models thereby justified the robustness of the new E-max. model. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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