4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Physiological studies on umami taste

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 130, 期 4, 页码 931S-934S

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/130.4.931S

关键词

dogs; synergism; taste nerve response; glutamate agonists; amino acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first electrophysiological studies on umami taste were conducted with rats and cats. Unlike humans, these animals did not show a large synergism between monosodium glutamate (MSG) and disodium guanylate (GMP) or disodium inosinate (IMP). The taste nerve responses of these animals to umami substances were not differentiated from the salt responses. The canine taste system was sensitive to umami substances and showed a large synergism between MSG and GMP or IMP. The umami substances showed no enhancing effects on other basic tastes. Amiloride, an inhibitor for the response to NaCl, did not inhibit the large response induced by the synergism between MSG and the nucleotides, indicating that the response to the umami substances is independent of the response to salt. Single-fiber analysis on the responses of mouse glossopharyngeal nerve and monkey primary taste cortex neurons also showed that the responses to umami substances are independent of other basic tastes. On the basis of these results, it was proposed that the umami taste is a fifth basic taste, and that there is a unique receptor for umami substances. Hence, we compared the taste of agonists for brain glutamate receptors. In humans, the order of intensity of umami taste induced by a mixture of 0.5 mmol/L GMP and 1.5 mmol/L of various agonists was glutamate > ibotenate > L(+)-2-amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid (L-APL) = (+/-)1-aminocyclopentane-trans-1,3-dicarboxylic acid (ACPD). Kainate, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) and (RS)-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazol acid (AMPA), which are agonists for ionotropic receptors, had no umami taste. It was concluded that the umami receptor is not identical to any known glutamate receptors; there seems, therefore, to be a unique receptor for umami.

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

4.6
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