Innate and acquired tolerance to bitter stimuli in mice

Emi Mura; Akiyuki Taruno; Minako Yagi; Kohei Yokota; Yukako Hayashi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210032

Abstract

Tolerance to bitter foods and its potentiation by repetitive exposure are commonly experienced and potentially underlie the consumption of bitter foods, but it remains unknown whether permissive and adaptive responses are general phenomena for bitter-tasting substances or specific to certain substances, and they have not been rigorously studied in mice. Here, we investigated the effects of prolonged exposure to a bitter compound on both recognition and rejection behaviors to the same compound in mice. Paired measurements of rejection (R_jT) and apparent recognition (aR_cT) thresholds were conducted using brief-access two-bottle choice tests before and after taste aversion conditioning, respectively. First, R_jT was much higher than aR_cT for the bitter amino acids _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine, which mice taste daily in their food, indicating strong acceptance of those familiar stimuli within the concentration range between R_jT and aR_cT. Next, we tested five other structurally dissimilar bitter compounds, to which mice were naive at the beginning of experiments: denatonium benzoate, quinine-HCl, caffeine, salicin, and epigallocatechin gallate. R_jT was moderately higher than aR_cT for all the compounds tested, indicating the presence of innate acceptance to these various, unfamiliar bitter stimuli in mice. Lastly, a 3-week forced exposure increased R_jT for all the bitter compounds except salicin, demonstrating that mice acquire tolerance to a broad array of bitter compounds after long-term exposure to them. Although the underlying mechanisms remain to be determined, our studies provide behavioral evidence of innate and acquired tolerance to various bitter stimuli in mice, suggesting its generality among bitterants.

Citation: Mura E, Taruno A, Yagi M, Yokota K, Hayashi Y (2018) Innate and acquired tolerance to bitter stimuli in mice. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0210032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032

Editor: Maik Behrens, Leibniz-Institute for Food Systems Biology at the TU Munich, GERMANY

Received: September 7, 2018; Accepted: December 14, 2018; Published: December 31, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Mura et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Bitter taste is generally considered a signal to avoid the ingestion of potentially toxic compounds; thus, the rejection of bitter-tasting foods is crucial for survival because many toxic compounds actually taste bitter. Bitter rejection is an innate response commonly seen in mammals, demonstrated by the fact that human infants and other mammals show hedonically negative facial expressions in response to bitter taste stimuli [1–4]. However, bitter sensation does not always evoke aversive responses. Acceptance of bitterness is commonly noted for certain foods such as vegetables, and it may be modulated by experience [5]. In the current study, we defined bitter tolerance as a reduction in the behavioral response to a bitter stimulus irrespective of whether bitterness is perceived, whereas bitter acceptance was defined as the consumption of a bitter solution despite the recognition of its bitterness.

It is clear that humans accept the bitterness of some foods and beverages. Also, the suggested self-medication of chimpanzees whereby they eat bitter plants may be a form of bitter acceptance. However, behavioral evidence of bitter acceptance in non-human experimental animals is still limited. Among a number of examples [6, 7], the work of Scott and Giza suggested acceptance of QHCl in rats. They quantified the preference for QHCl by brief-access gustometer tests with or without conditioned taste aversion (CTA) to the same compound. The preference curves for QHCl were significantly shifted to lower concentrations by CTA, revealing the QHCl acceptance range at low micromolar (10⁻⁶~10⁻⁴ M) concentrations. The detection of QHCl by rats at this concentration range is solely mediated by both the chorda tympani and glossopharyngeal nerves and the involvement of olfactory and trigeminal components is, if any, negligible [8]. Thus, rats accept the taste of QHCl at low concentrations even though they recognize its taste quality. However, it remains unknown whether acceptance is specific to QHCl or a general phenomenon to bitter-tasting substances, warranting further testing with various bitterants to elucidate the nature of bitter acceptance.

Aversive behavioral responses to bitterness are adaptive so that animals can minimize the number of false alarms derived from harmless but bitter foods. In the periphery, bitter sensation is mediated by G protein-coupled bitter taste receptors, TAS2Rs, expressed in the apical membrane of bitter-sensing taste bud cells. There are approximately 25 human TAS2Rs and 35 murine Tas2rs [9–11]. Diverse ligand specificity and selectivity among TAS2Rs facilitate the detection of chemically diverse bitter compounds. Ligand-bound TAS2Rs become activated and cause cell excitation, leading to neurotransmitter release through CALHM1/CALHM3 channels towards the afferent taste nerves [12–15]. The gustatory neurons, including the chorda tympani, glossopharyngeal, and greater superficial petrosal nerves, synapse in the nucleus tractus solitarius of the brainstem. In the central nervous system, second-order neurons project to the ventroposterior medial nucleus of the thalamus and third-order neurons to the primary gustatory cortex for the recognition of taste quality, which further connects with higher brain regions including the amygdala [16] for decision-making on whether to accept or reject the food. Tolerance to bitter stimuli can be established by the modulation of any components in this bitter pathway. However, there are currently limited rodent behavioral data demonstrating the experience-dependent development of tolerance to bitter stimuli.

Using mice, the present study was conducted to assess whether acceptance is a general response to bitter compounds, and whether tolerance to them is evoked or potentiated by prolonged exposure. To address these questions, we estimated both rejection (R_jT) and apparent recognition (aR_cT) thresholds to various compounds before and after prolonged exposure to the same compound. We tested seven compounds that taste bitter to humans, including two bitter amino acids (_L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine) that are contained in the laboratory mouse diet and are nutrients, and five examples of various classes of bitter chemical compounds (denatonium benzoate (DB), quinine hydrochloride (QHCl), caffeine (CAF), salicin (SAL), and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)) which are not contained in the daily diet and are not of any known nutritional value to mice.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All procedures for the care and treatment of animals were carried out according to the Japanese Act on the Welfare and Management of Animals and the Guidelines for the Proper Conduct of Animal Experiments issued by the Science Council of Japan. Studies were performed in accordance with protocol (26-4/27-4/28-4/29-4/30-4) approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Kyoto University. All efforts were made to minimize suffering and the number of animals used in this study. Mice were euthanized at the end of the study with CO₂ followed by cervical dislocation.

Animals

Female C57BL/6J SLc mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Japan SLC (Hamamatsu, Japan). The mice were housed in standard plastic cages (3–4 per cage, 320 (W) × 220 (D) × 135 (H) mm, KN-600-T, NATSUME SEISAKUSHO, Tokyo, Japan) in the Kyoto University Animal Care Facility where the temperature and humidity were maintained at 23°C and 45–50%, respectively. The mice were maintained under a 12-h light/dark cycle with lights off at 10:00 and had ad libitum access to standard mouse chow and deionized water. After acclimation to the environment, the mice ranged in age from 6–7 weeks at the beginning of testing and were randomly divided into 12 groups, as described below. We limited this study to female mice to avoid errors that may be introduced by possible sex differences in preferences for tested compounds [17].

Taste stimuli

_L-Tryptophan, _L-isoleucine, denatonium benzoate, quinine hydrochloride, caffeine, salicin, and sucrose were purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA). Epigallocatechin gallate was provided by Taiyo Chemicals (Mie, Japan). All compounds were dissolved in deionized water to obtain the indicated concentrations.

The concentrations of bitter solutions used in this study are listed in Table 1. Pilot studies were conducted to determine the concentrations of each compound used in the two-bottle choice tests so that they spanned the range from indifference to marked avoidance [18, 19]. The concentrations used for conditioned taste aversion (CTA) were set near the aversion threshold in naive animals (NE group). The concentrations used during prolonged exposure periods were the same as those for CTA except for CAF. Lower concentrations of CAF were used during taste aversion conditioning and prolonged exposures because mice exposed to high concentrations of CAF for a long time exhibited abnormal behaviors such as disruption of the day-night cycle and agitated and highly active states in a pilot study.

Download:

Table 1. List of bitter compounds and concentrations (mM) used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.t001

Experimental schedules

Except for _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine, paired measurements of R_jT and aR_cT to each of the other five bitter compounds were performed in two groups of mice: naive (no exposure, NE) and long-exposure (exposure, E) animals. Thus, there were 12 groups of mice with each mouse tested with only one compound in either the NE or E group: _L-tryptophan (NE), _L-isoleucine (NE), DB (NE and E), QHCl (NE and E), CAF (NE and E), SAL (NE and E), and EGCG (NE and E). Typical experimental schedules for NE and E groups are shown in Fig 1, although there were deviations of 2–3 days from the typical schedules depending on how quickly each mouse became trained to respond to two water bottles in a 10-minute period.

Download:

Fig 1. Typical experimental schedules for the measurement of rejection (R_jT) and apparent recognition (aR_cT) thresholds for bitter compounds.

R_jT^NE and aR_cT^NE are defined as values measured without 3 weeks of a bitter exposure period (NE group), whereas R_jT^E and aR_cT^E as values measured after the continuous bitter exposure period (E group).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g001

For the NE group, the mice were caged individually in standard plastic cages (125 (W) × 199 (D) × 113 (H) mm, CL-0113-1, CLEA JAPAN, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and familiarized with having access to two drinking spouts. To achieve this, each mouse was water-deprived for 7 h from the onset of the dark period and then given access to two deionized water-filled drinking bottles for 10 min. We used custom-made plastic water bottles fabricated from Falcon 15-mL centrifuge tubes (#352096, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) and stainless steel sipper tubes with a stainless steel ball inside (TD-100, CLEA Japan, Inc.), with which we could avoid spillage during the tests. Each mouse was then returned to its home cage and given free access to food and water. This procedure was repeated every day until the mouse learned to drink water during the 10-min period. Once trained, the mouse was presented with two bottles: one bottle containing 100 mM sucrose and the other containing deionized water. At 1, 3, and 5 min, the positions of the bottles were switched to control for any side preferences. After 10 min, solution intakes were measured. This two-bottle choice test for 100 mM sucrose was repeated several times. Mice that reliably showed a preference for sucrose were subjected to the following experiments. During the next 8 days, preference ratios for the indicated concentrations of each bitter compound were measured by the two-bottle choice tests and R_jT was estimated, as described below (Fig 1, R_jT^NE). Subsequently, the conditioned taste aversion tests consisting of aversion conditioning and the two-bottle choice tests for the same compound were performed to determine aR_cT, as described below (Fig 1, aR_cT^NE).

The experimental schedule for the E group was similar to that for the NE group except that, immediately after the training period, there was a period of 3 weeks during which each mouse had ad libitum access to food and a solution of a test bitter compound instead of water. Mice in the same group were caged together in their home cage during the exposure period, and the total intake of the bitter solution was measured every 24 h. After this long-term exposure to the bitter stimulus, R_jT and aR_cT of the same compound were estimated in the same way as in the NE group (Fig 1, R_jT^E and aR_cT^E). The mice in the NE and E groups were 7–12 weeks old (early adulthood) at the time of taste preference tests. During this period, taste preference and water intake of C57BL/6J mice are unaffected by age variations [19] (see also intake data in this study). Thus, changes in responses to bitter stimuli can be attributed to the 3-week exposure to a bitter stimulus.

Brief-access two-bottle choice tests: Bitter rejection threshold (R_jT)

This experiment was conducted to measure the threshold for behavioral rejection of the taste of a bitter compound (R_jT). We used the protocol described in a previous study [20]. Mice were placed in standard plastic cages (125 (W) × 199 (D) × 113 (H) mm, CL-0113-1, CLEA JAPAN, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and tested individually. We used the custom-made plastic water bottles described above to avoid spillage during the tests. One concentration of each test solution was tested per day and ascending concentrations were presented. Each mouse was water-deprived for 7 h from the onset of the dark period and then presented with two drinking bottles: one bottle contained a test solution with a known concentration of a bitter compound, and the other contained deionized water. At 1, 3, and 5 min, the positions of the bottles were switched to control for any side preferences, although the exact timing slightly varied (< 10 s) because we waited for the mice to stop drinking before switching the bottles in order to avoid interrupting their drinking (the positions of the bottles were switched when the mice were not drinking and frequently not even observing the bottles). Hereby, each bottle gets approximately equal number of drinking rather than equal time in each position. After 10 min, the mice were returned to their home cages and given ad libitum access to food and water until the next concentration was tested on the following day. There was no rest day during the concentration series. Solution intakes were measured based on weight differences of the drinking bottles before and after each test, and preference ratios were calculated as the ratio of the test solution intake to the total solution intake. R_jT was defined as the lowest solution concentration at which the preference ratio was significantly lower than indifference (0.5).

Conditioned taste aversion (CTA) tests: Apparent bitter recognition threshold (aR_cT)

This experiment was designed to estimate the threshold for recognition of the taste of a bitter compound (R_cT) by employing CTA. CTA is a form of learning whereby mice learn to associate a novel taste (conditioned stimulus, CS) with gastrointestinal malaise caused by LiCl injection (unconditioned stimulus, US) and consequently avoid drinking a solution with this specific taste not only at the concentration used as the CS but also at other concentrations within a certain range, known as the intensity generalization range. We defined the lower limit of the intensity generalization range as R_cT. Unlike typical CTA experiments, we tested bitter compounds provoking innate aversiveness. If the CTA procedure decreases the threshold for behavioral rejection of a bitter compound (R_jT > R_cT), then the stimulus would be accepted in the concentration between R_jT and R_cT, suggesting that the mouse exhibits acceptance of the bitterness of this compound. It should be noted that mice experienced the CS before CTA in the preceding two-bottle choice tests and 3-week bitter-exposure period and, thus, were not totally naive to these bitter stimuli. Although such previous experiences of the CS may somewhat affect CTA development (through latent inhibition), they could not be avoided because, in some experiments, we aimed to estimate R_cT of a stimulus after long-term exposure to the same stimulus. Thus, R_cT estimated in this study is considered an "apparent" R_cT (aR_cT).

The mice were housed individually in standard plastic cages (125 (W) × 199 (D) × 113 (H) mm, CL-0113-1, CLEA JAPAN). Following 6 h of water deprivation from the onset of the dark period and brief licking of distilled water through a single drinking bottle for no more than 2 s, the mice were presented with a bitter solution as the CS. Immediately after having vigorously consumed the CS solution (the mice were very thirsty), the mice were given an intraperitoneal injection of 0.6 M LiCl (0.6 mL/kg B.W.) as the US. The CS-US interval was typically less than 30 s. Clear behavioral signs of visceral malaise (e.g., crouching and often vomiting) were used as criteria for the successful induction of illness. The mice were returned to their home cages and given free access to food and water, and this CS-US pairing was repeated the next day. One day later, we initiated brief-access two-bottle choice tests for an ascending series of concentrations of the same bitter compound and measured preference ratios as described above. Here, aR_cT was defined as the lowest solution concentration for which the preference ratio was significantly lower than indifference (0.5). Although CTA lasts for more than a week under conditions whereby the avoidance of the CS is not life-threatening [21], water deprivation and post-conditioning CS experiences are known to facilitate the extinction of CTA [22–25]. Therefore, we employed a short period of water deprivation (7 instead of 23 h) and presented an ascending concentration series during the post-conditioning taste preference tests. We did not use complete avoidance of a CS as the criterion for a successful CTA because CTA does not necessarily cause a decrease in preference for the taste of a bitter compound if it already evokes maximal aversion in mice (avoidance for such compounds is unaffected by CTA). Therefore, we employed the CTA procedure that we know from experience is always maximally effective for other taste qualities (i.e., repeating the CS-US pairing twice, as described above), and assumed maximal aversive learning when estimating aR_cT, although we cannot decisively rule out possible variations in the level of aversive learning.

Data analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS statistics 21 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). Data were analyzed by mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors of Group (with and without prolonged exposure) and Concentrations, or two-way repeated measures ANOVA with factors of Treatment (before and after CTA) and Concentrations. All statistical values are shown in Tables. To determine R_jT and aR_cT, differences in preference ratios from indifference (0.5) were assessed by the one-sample t-test. All data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. The preference ratios for all tested concentrations within each group were fitted to a regression curve using the function: f(x) = 0.5/(1 + exp(α(log(x) − log(β)))), where x is the stimulus concentration, α is the slope, and β is the stimulus concentration at a preference ratio of 0.25.

Results

Preference to bitter amino acids

First, we investigated how mice respond to the tastes of two bitter amino acids, _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine. We performed the paired estimation of R_jT and aR_cT as described above following the NE group schedule in Fig 1. We chose these compounds because they are contained in the laboratory mouse diet and mice are conceivably familiar with their tastes. They are well-known bitter compounds for humans and TAS2R4 is a target of _L-tryptophan, whereas the receptor for _L-isoleucine is unknown. Fig 2 shows preference ratios for the indicated concentrations of the two compounds before and after CTA induced by intraperitoneal LiCl injection. There were significant differences in preference ratios between before and after CTA for _L-tryptophan (Treatment × Concentration interaction, F(6,42) = 4.85, p = 0.001) but not for _L-isoleucine (Treatment × Concentration interaction, F(6,42) = 1.462, p = 0.215) (Table 2). The thresholds for avoidance of both compounds markedly shifted to lower concentrations after CTA: the R_jT and aR_cT estimates for _L-tryptophan were 60 and 3 mM and those for _L-isoleucine were 200 and 3 mM, respectively (Fig 2 and Table 3).

Download:

Fig 2. Two-bottle preference ratios for concentration series of _L-tryptophan (n = 8) and _L-isoleucine (n = 8) measured before (closed circles) and after (open circles) poisoning with LiCl.

# and * indicate the lowest concentrations at which preference ratios fell significantly (p < 0.05) below indifference (0.5) before and after CTA, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent curves fit to the average ratios before and after CTA, respectively. Gray lines represent the indifference level (0.5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g002

Download:

Table 2. Summary of ANOVA results for preference scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.t002

Download:

Table 3. Rejection and recognition thresholds for various bitter compounds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.t003

Preference to other bitter compounds

We then performed the paired estimation of R_jT and aR_cT for various classes of bitter compounds: DB, QHCl, CAF, SAL, and EGCG (NE group in Fig 1). Of note, they are not included in the laboratory mouse diet so mice may not have been familiar with their tastes before these experiments. Preference ratios for the indicated concentrations of the five compounds before and after CTA are plotted in Fig 3. There were no significant differences between before and after CTA in response to the five bitter stimuli (Treatment × Concentration interaction, p > 0.05, Table 2). R_jT and aR_cT are estimated and listed in Table 3. R_jT was larger than aR_cT for all unfamiliar bitter stimuli tested.

Download:

Fig 3. Two-bottle preference ratios for concentration series of denatonium benzoate (DB, n = 8), quinine hydrochloride (QHCl, n = 7), caffeine (CAF, n = 8), salicin (SAL, n = 8), and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG, n = 8) measured before (closed circles) and after (open circles) poisoning with LiCl.

# and * indicate the lowest concentrations at which preference ratios fell significantly (p < 0.05) below indifference (0.5) before and after CTA, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent curves fit to the average ratios before and after CTA, respectively. Gray lines represent the indifference level (0.5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g003

Experience promotes bitter tolerance

We hypothesized that prolonged exposure to a bitter stimulus would attenuate aversive responses to that stimulus in mice. To test this hypothesis, we maintained mice for 3 weeks with the standard diet and a bitter solution instead of water, followed by the two-bottle choice tests to estimate R_jT for the bitter stimulus used during the prolonged exposure period (E group in Fig 1). We tested the 5 unfamiliar bitter compounds presented in Fig 3. The average volume of daily solution intake per mouse during the exposure period is shown in Fig 4. Following a very small decrease in the intake volume at the start of the exposure, solution intake was stable over the period except for a high value observed in the SAL-exposed group, which may have been caused by spillage, with no increasing or decreasing tendencies for any of the compounds. Furthermore, the average intake volume over the period was comparable among compounds: DB, 3.67; QHCl, 3.65; CAF, 3.48; SAL, 3.71; EGCG, 3.64 (mL/day/mouse). There were no significant differences in weight gain during the 3-week exposure period between compounds: DB, 1.33 ± 0.57; QHCl, 1.28 ± 0.81; CAF, 0.62 ± 0.46; SAL, 1.21 ± 0.11; EGCG, 1.01 ± 0.64 (g) (p > 0.93, Tukey test). Also, compared with mice having free access to water (1.34 ± 0.44 g), the rate of weight gain was not significantly affected by the bitter exposure period (p > 0.88, Dunnet test). These data indicate that, during the prolonged exposure period, the levels of stable sensory experience of each compound were comparable among mice (note that a relatively lower stimulus level was used for CAF; See Methods) while maintaining water intake. Preference ratios for the indicated concentrations of each of the five compounds with and without prolonged bitter exposure are compared in Fig 5. There were significant differences between with and without prolonged exposure in response to DB, QHCl, and EGCG (Treatment × Concentration interaction, F(6,72) = 3.462, p = 0.005, F(6,72) = 2.46, p = 0.032, F(6,72) = 2.425, p = 0.034, respectively) but not to CAF and SAL (Treatment × Concentration interaction, F(7,91) = 0.534, p = 0.807, F(6,84) = 0.855, p = 0.532, respectively) (Table 4). We defined estimates for R_jT with and without prolonged stimulus exposure as R_jT^NE and R_jT^E, respectively. As seen in Fig 5 and Table 3, the prolonged exposure increased R_jT for all compounds except SAL: that is, R_jT^E was larger than R_jT^NE. The R_jT^E/R_jT^NE ratios were: 10 (DB), 10 (QHCl), 5 (CAF), 1 (SAL), and 3 (EGCG).

Download:

Fig 4. The average volume of daily solution intake per mouse during the prolonged bitter exposure period.

The shadow indicates the period when water was replaced with a bitter solution.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g004

Download:

Fig 5. Two-bottle preference ratios for concentration series of DB (n = 8), QHCl (n = 7), CAF (n = 8), SAL (n = 8), and EGCG (n = 8) measured after a 3-week period of exposure to the same bitter compound (open circles) superimposed on those measured without the exposure period (closed circles).

# and * indicate the lowest concentrations at which preference ratios fell significantly (p < 0.05) below indifference (0.5) before and after the long bitter exposure, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent curves fit to the average ratios for the NE and E groups, respectively. Gray lines represent the indifference level (0.5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g005

Download:

Table 4. Summary of ANOVA results for preference scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.t004

Effect of prolonged bitter exposure on aR_cT

Finally, we estimated aR_cT for each bitter compound used in Figs 3 and 5 after the 3-week exposure to the same stimulus using the two-bottle choice tests following CTA (E group in Fig 1). Preference ratios for each of the five compounds measured after CTA with and without prolonged bitter exposure are compared in Fig 6. There were no differences in preference ratios between with and without prolonged exposure (Treatment × Concentration interaction, p > 0.05, Table 5). We defined aR_cT estimates with and without long-term exposure as aR_cT^NE and aR_cT^E, respectively. As indicated in Fig 6 and Table 3, modest increases in aR_cT were noted after 3-week continuous exposure to the bitter stimuli: The aR_cT^E/aR_cT^NE ratios were: 3.3 (DB), 10 (QHCl), 1 (CAF), 1.7 (SAL), and 3.3 (EGCG).

Download:

Fig 6. LiCl-conditioned avoidance of DB (n = 6), QHCl (n = 7), CAF (n = 7), SAL (n = 8), and EGCG (n = 6) in two-bottle choice tests after a 3-week period of exposure to the same bitter compound (open circles) superimposed on those measured without the exposure period (closed circles).

# and * indicate the lowest concentrations at which preference ratios fell significantly (p < 0.05) below indifference (0.5) before and after the long bitter exposure, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent curves fit to the average ratios for the NE and E groups, respectively. Gray lines represent the indifference level (0.5).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.g006

Download:

Table 5. Summary of ANOVA results for preference scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210032.t005

Discussion

Two questions were addressed in mice: (1) whether there is an acceptable range of the bitter stimulus intensity for various bitter compounds, and (2) whether prolonged experience of a bitter stimulus leads to the attenuation of aversive responses to that stimulus. We measured R_jT and aR_cT of a bitter compound before or after a 3-week forced exposure to a solution containing the same compound instead of water, and we tested seven compounds tasting bitter to humans, five of which except _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine have been demonstrated to elicit aversion in mice. The 10-min brief-access two-bottle tests were performed to minimize post-ingestive effects. The concentrations for CTA and exposure periods (Table 1) were appropriate based on observations of significant shifts of R_jT and aR_cT estimates (Figs 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Table 3).

Acceptance of QHCl in rats was suggested in a previous study [7]. Whereas the authors of the study tested all concentrations in a single test session and measured the numbers of licks, we tested one concentration in a session and measured the intake volume. Using a mouse model, we expanded the number of bitter stimuli with which bitter acceptance was tested, and tested seven substances including QHCl. Larger R_jT than aR_cT values were observed for all compounds tested (Figs 2 and 3 and Table 3). R_jT represents the lowest concentration for which an unconditioned mouse rejects a bitter compound, and aR_cT represents the lowest concentration for which the same mouse rejects it after aversion conditioning to a known concentration of the same compound (the intensity generalization threshold). Although we did not intensively examine how accurately aR_cT obtained for each of the seven bitterants reflects the actual R_cT that corresponds to the sensitivity of peripheral taste mechanisms to the stimulus [26, 27], a gap between R_jT and aR_cT revealed by CTA clearly indicates the acceptance of the bitterant within this concentration range. Thus, the seven structurally and chemically diverse bitter substances are all accepted at low concentrations by mice, supporting the previous observations in rats and further indicating that bitter acceptance is a general response to broad bitter stimuli. Of note, the apparent acceptance ranges roughly estimated by the R_jT/aR_cT ratios for _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine (20 and 66.7, respectively) are appreciably higher than those for the other unfamiliar bitter compounds (10, 3.3, 3.3, 16.7, and 3.3 for DB, QHCl, CAF, SAL, and EGCG, respectively). These observations suggest that the degree of acceptance may be modified by previous experience.

Experience-dependent attenuation of gustatory responses has been studied more rigorously in herbivorous insects [28, 29] than in mammalian models. However, it was reported that in guinea pigs, a 3-week exposure to sucrose octaacetate, a bitter substance, in the newborn period caused a reversible loss of aversive response to this substance via unknown mechanisms, providing an example in rodents [30]. Torregrossa and her team provided another example whereby rats administered a tannin-containing diet found the tannin solution less aversive than control rats [31]. We investigated whether other bitter compounds also induce similar tolerance in mice after prolonged exposure. Our analyses of DB, QHCl, CAF, SAL, and EGCG revealed that, after a 3-week forced exposure to a solution of any one of the five bitter compounds except for SAL, mice responded to the same solution as if it was of a lower concentration, as demonstrated by an increase in R_jT (R_jT^E/R_jT^NE > 1). Regarding SAL, it remains to be determined whether the sensation evoked by the concentration used during the exposure period was insufficient to induce tolerance to SAL or that mice were already maximally tolerant of the bitterness of SAL, as suggested by the broadest acceptance range (R_jT^NE/aR_cT^NE ratio = 16), so that experience could not further potentiate tolerance to SAL. Nevertheless, our results clearly demonstrate that tolerance can be acquired by experience for many, if not all, bitter stimuli.

Mechanisms underlying acquired bitter tolerance remain largely unexplored. In Manduca sexta caterpillars, 24-h exposure to CAF reduced their aversive behavioral response to it, which is mediated by the desensitization of taste cells [28]. However, experience-dependent desensitization of the responsiveness of taste cells has not been reported in mammals. Instead, there is accumulating evidence of the interaction of saliva proteins and taste experience. The saliva of healthy adults contains hundreds of different proteins [32], and the saliva proteome pattern has been shown to be an indicator of bitter sensitivity and acceptance [33, 34] and be altered by bitter stimuli [35]. In rats, there is an indisputable role of saliva proteins in the development of tolerance to tannins, bitter and astringent substances contained in tea and red wine. Rats innately avoid tannins, but dietary exposure to them upregulates salivary protein expression, which makes tannins less aversive [31]. It has been suggested that elevated salivary proteins bind to tannic acid and lower its free concentration [36]. A recent report demonstrated the ability of QHCl to upregulate salivary proteins in rats, suggesting that the adaptive salivary response to a bitter stimulus is not specific to tannins, but may be a more general phenomenon [37]. Importantly, the same study revealed that saliva proteins suppress the gustatory nerve responses to QHCl but not NaCl [37]. Thus, the experience-dependent alteration of the salivary proteome pattern may be a mechanism underlying sensory adaptation to bitter stimuli. Our observations may provide some clues regarding peripheral perception. The prolonged exposure period caused modest increases in aR_cT (Fig 6). As mentioned above, however, aR_cT may not be an accurate measure of R_cT, which reflects peripheral taste sensitivity. Especially, given the much longer pre-exposure to the CS before CTA, one would expect a larger overestimation of aR_cT^E compared with aR_cT^NE, so our analyses of aR_cT may have weaknesses regarding elucidating the effects of sensory adaptation on acquired bitter tolerance. However, it should also be noted that a steeper slope at intermediate concentrations in the concentration-response function was proposed to be indicative of sensory inhibition by salivary proteins, as seen in rats for QHCl and tannins [31, 37]. In Fig 5, the concentration-response functions were noticeably steepened by chronic exposure to DB, QHCl, and EGCG. The changes in the two independent measures related to peripheral perception, aR_cT and the slope of the concentration-response curve, suggest the contribution of sensory adaptation to the acquired tolerance to these compounds, warranting further studies exploring the effects of chronic exposure to bitter stimuli on the responsiveness of taste cells or gustatory nerves and the possible involvement of the saliva proteome.

Another possible mechanism of acquired bitter tolerance is habituation, a central mechanism [38]. Habituation is a form of non-associative learning, in which animals learn to ignore a familiar, biologically irrelevant, stimulus after repeated presentations with no consequences. Although our results do not directly evaluate habituation, an expansion of the apparent acceptance range calculated as the R_jT/aR_cT ratio, may, if weakly, correlate with the degree of habituation. In other words, a mouse can tolerate a stronger perceived bitter sensation through habituation. The ratio of R_jT^E/aR_cT^E to R_jT^NE/aR_cT^NE varied among the bitter compounds tested in this study: 3 (DB), 1 (QHCl), 5 (CAF), 0.6 (SAL), 0.9 (EGCG). The ratio was greater than unity for DB and CAF, implying the contribution of habituation to the acquired tolerance. Taken together, both cognitive and sensory evaluations should be considered in future work to fully understand the mechanisms behind the acquisition of bitter tolerance.

Physiological systems to discriminate between different bitter stimuli would be invaluable for animals to discriminate harmless and even beneficial bitter foods from harmful ones. Our data indicate that acquired tolerance is a phenomenon common to a broad array of bitter compounds, but they also suggest the presence of subtle differences in expression as described above, which may possibly help animals to select which bitter compounds to ingest. What quality induced these differences? Because agonist profiles are distinct among TAS2Rs [18], the set of bitter receptors activated by a bitterant and their distribution within taste buds may contribute. However, it remains controversial whether bitter-tasting compounds are qualitatively discriminable. In this regard, there is conflicting genetic [9, 39, 40] and cell physiological [41, 42] evidence. Human psychophysical studies have proposed multiple separate, yet perhaps overlapping, bitter transduction pathways [43, 44], although these human studies did not address issues of bitterness quality. Despite all of the above, rats cannot perceptually distinguish two structurally dissimilar bitter compounds, QHCl and DB [45]; thus, at least some bitter compounds share indiscriminative bitterness qualities. Our preliminary experiments also indicate that CTA manipulation of the response to QHCl decreases the avoidance thresholds of CAF, SAL, and EGCG, supporting the presence of a shared bitter taste quality among various classes of bitter substances. In addition, side tastes, associated odors, somatosensory sensations, and post-ingestive physiological effects might also be involved in the discrimination of bitter foods in the real world. For example, EGCG evokes an astringent sensation mediated by the trigeminal nerve [46]. The interpretation of our CAF data requires extra caution. CAF is well known as a psychomotor stimulant, and because of its diverse positive post-ingestive effects, it is widely consumed in drinks such as coffee and tea and used as medications [47, 48]. Indeed, in rats, lower doses of intraperitoneal CAF injection are rewarding, but higher doses can induce conditioned taste aversion due to their harmful effects [49], demonstrating dose-dependent biphasic non-gustatory effects. Acquired tolerance to non-gustatory CAF effects must also be kept in mind during chronic treatments [48]. Furthermore, we had to use lower stimulus intensities in the CTA and 3-week exposure period for CAF to minimize the symptoms of caffeinism, which may have affected conditioned learning and tolerance acquisition compared with the other compounds. Thus, the CAF and other data cannot be directly compared. Overall, our study does not allow us to assess the involvement of these non-taste qualities. It is now necessary to elucidate the factors that can influence tolerance to bitter stimuli. Those factors, however, might affect bitter tolerance differently in humans and mice just as human and mouse orthologous TAS2Rs have distinct agonist profiles [18]. Finally, as this study tested only a small number of chemically and structurally diverse compounds, more compounds need to be tested to gain insight into what characteristics of bitterants make observed differences.

Our results reveal that bitter acceptance is a general response to low concentrations of bitter substances, and tolerance to bitter stimuli can be induced by long-term presentation, although the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Our study also provides preference data for two amino acids, _L-tryptophan and _L-isoleucine, that have not been tested in mice, suggesting that mice find them as bitter as humans do because they evoked aversive behavioral responses (Fig 2) and, similarly to many other known bitter stimuli, stronger nerve responses in the glossopharyngeal nerve than in the chorda tympani nerve have been reported in mice [50]. Because this study was limited to female mice, further studies are necessary to extend these findings to male mice. This work is an initial step toward understanding how bitter tolerance develops in mice, and possibly mammals in general.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Gary Beauchamp for critical reading of an earlier version of the manuscript and invaluable advice, and Rihoko Shimizu for technical assistance.

References

1. Berridge KC. Measuring hedonic impact in animals and infants: microstructure of affective taste reactivity patterns. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000;24:173–198. pmid:10714382
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Rosenstein D, Oster H. Differential facial responses to four basic tastes in newborns. Child Dev. 1988;59:1555–1568. pmid:3208567
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Steiner JE. Discussion paper: innate, discriminative human facial expressions to taste and smell stimulation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1974;237:229–233. pmid:4529591
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Steiner JE. Human facial expressions in response to taste and smell stimulation. Adv Child Dev Behav. 1979;13:257–295. pmid:484324
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:1424–1435. pmid:11101467
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Glendinning JI. Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive? Physiol Behav. 1994;56:1217–1227. pmid:7878094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Scott TR, Giza BK. A measure of taste intensity discrimination in the rat through conditioned taste aversions. Physiol Behav. 1987;41:315–320. pmid:3432384
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. St John SJ, Spector AC. Combined glossopharyngeal and chorda tympani nerve transection elevates quinine detection thresholds in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Behav Neurosci. 1996;110:1456–1468. pmid:8986346
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Adler E, Hoon MA, Mueller KL, Chandrashekar J, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS. A novel family of mammalian taste receptors. Cell. 2000;100:693–702. pmid:10761934
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Conte C, Ebeling M, Marcuz A, Nef P, Andres-Barquin PJ. Evolutionary relationships of the Tas2r receptor gene families in mouse and human. Physiol Genomics. 2003;14:73–82. pmid:12734386
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Shi P, Zhang J, Yang H, Zhang YP. Adaptive diversification of bitter taste receptor genes in Mammalian evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2003;20:805–814. pmid:12679530
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Taruno A, Vingtdeux V, Ohmoto M, Ma Z, Dvoryanchikov G, Li A, et al. CALHM1 ion channel mediates purinergic neurotransmission of sweet, bitter and umami tastes. Nature. 2013;495:223–226. pmid:23467090
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Taruno A, Sun H, Nakajo K, Murakami T, Ohsaki Y, Kido MA, et al. Post-translational palmitoylation controls the voltage gating and lipid raft association of the CALHM1 channel. J Physiol. 2017;595:6121–6145. pmid:28734079
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Ma Z, Taruno A, Ohmoto M, Jyotaki M, Lim JC, Miyazaki H, et al. CALHM3 Is Essential for Rapid Ion Channel-Mediated Purinergic Neurotransmission of GPCR-Mediated Tastes. Neuron. 2018;98:547–561 e510. pmid:29681531
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Finger TE, Danilova V, Barrows J, Bartel DL, Vigers AJ, Stone L, et al. ATP signaling is crucial for communication from taste buds to gustatory nerves. Science. 2005;310:1495–1499. pmid:16322458
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Wang L, Gillis-Smith S, Peng Y, Zhang J, Chen X, Salzman CD, et al. The coding of valence and identity in the mammalian taste system. Nature. 2018;558:127–131. pmid:29849148
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Tordoff MG. Taste solution preferences of C57BL/6J and 129X1/SvJ mice: influence of age, sex, and diet. Chem Senses. 2007;32:655–671. pmid:17566070
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Lossow K, Hubner S, Roudnitzky N, Slack JP, Pollastro F, Behrens M, et al. Comprehensive Analysis of Mouse Bitter Taste Receptors Reveals Different Molecular Receptive Ranges for Orthologous Receptors in Mice and Humans. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:15358–15377. pmid:27226572
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Whitney G, Harder DB. Genetics of bitter perception in mice. Physiol Behav. 1994;56:1141–1147. pmid:7878083
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Narukawa M, Tsujitani T, Ueno Y, Nakano-Ooka K, Miyamoto-Kokubo N, Sawano S, et al. Evaluation of the suppressive effect on bitter taste of gluconate. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2012;76:2282–2288. pmid:23221707
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Nolan LJ, McCaughey SA, Giza BK, Rhinehart-Doty JA, Smith JC, Scott TR. Extinction of a conditioned taste aversion in rats: I. Behavioral effects. Physiol Behav. 1997;61:319–323. pmid:9035264
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Grote FW, Brown RT. Deprivation level affects extinction of a conditioned taste aversion. Learn Motiv. 1973;4:314–319.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Sengstake CB, Chambers KC, Thrower JH. Interactive effects of fluid deprivation and testosterone on the expression of a sexually dimorphic conditioned taste aversion. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1978;92:1150–1155. pmid:755061
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Spector AC, Smith JC, Hollander GR. Radiation-induced taste aversion: effects of radiation exposure level and the exposure-taste interval. Radiat Res. 1986;106:271–277. pmid:3704116
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Wellman PJ, Boissard CG. Influence of fluid deprivation level on the extinction of conditioned taste aversion induced by amphetamine in female rats. Physiol Psychol. 1981;9:281–284.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Golden GJ, Ishiwatari Y, Theodorides ML, Bachmanov AA. Effect of chorda tympani nerve transection on salt taste perception in mice. Chem Senses. 2011;36:811–819. pmid:21743094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Ishiwatari Y, Bachmanov AA. NaCl taste thresholds in 13 inbred mouse strains. Chem Senses. 2012;37:497–508. pmid:22293936
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Glendinning JI, Brown H, Capoor M, Davis A, Gbedemah A, Long E. A peripheral mechanism for behavioral adaptation to specific "bitter" taste stimuli in an insect. J Neurosci. 2001;21:3688–3696. pmid:11331398
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Scheiner R, Sokolowski MB, Erber J. Activity of cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) affects sucrose responsiveness and habituation in Drosophila melanogaster. Learn Mem. 2004;11:303–311. pmid:15169860
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Warren RP, Pfaffmann C. Early experience and taste aversion. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959;52:263–271. pmid:13673106
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Torregrossa AM, Nikonova L, Bales MB, Villalobos Leal M, Smith JC, Contreras RJ, et al. Induction of salivary proteins modifies measures of both orosensory and postingestive feedback during exposure to a tannic acid diet. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105232. pmid:25162297
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Denny P, Hagen FK, Hardt M, Liao L, Yan W, Arellanno M, et al. The proteomes of human parotid and submandibular/sublingual gland salivas collected as the ductal secretions. J Proteome Res. 2008;7:1994–2006. pmid:18361515
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Dsamou M, Palicki O, Septier C, Chabanet C, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, et al. Salivary protein profiles and sensitivity to the bitter taste of caffeine. Chem Senses. 2012;37:87–95. pmid:21873273
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Morzel M, Chabanet C, Schwartz C, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, Nicklaus S. Salivary protein profiles are linked to bitter taste acceptance in infants. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173:575–582. pmid:24248522
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Quintana M, Palicki O, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, Chambon C, Salles C, et al. Inter-individual variability of protein patterns in saliva of healthy adults. J Proteomics. 2009;72:822–830. pmid:19470415
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Glendinning JI. Effect of salivary proline-rich proteins on ingestive responses to tannic acid in mice. Chem Senses. 1992;17:1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Martin LE, Nikonova LV, Kay K, Paedae AB, Contreras RJ, Torregrossa AM. Salivary proteins alter taste-guided behaviors and taste nerve signaling in rat. Physiol Behav. 2018;184:150–161. pmid:29162505
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Kalat JW, Rozin P. "Learned safety" as a mechanism in long-delay taste-aversion learning in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1973;83:198–207. pmid:4706590
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Mueller KL, Hoon MA, Erlenbach I, Chandrashekar J, Zuker CS, Ryba NJ. The receptors and coding logic for bitter taste. Nature. 2005;434:225–229. pmid:15759003
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Behrens M, Meyerhof W. Bitter taste receptors and human bitter taste perception. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006;63:1501–1509. pmid:16732425
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Yoshida R, Miyauchi A, Yasuo T, Jyotaki M, Murata Y, Yasumatsu K, et al. Discrimination of taste qualities among mouse fungiform taste bud cells. J Physiol. 2009;587:4425–4439. pmid:19622604
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Caicedo A, Roper SD. Taste receptor cells that discriminate between bitter stimuli. Science. 2001;291:1557–1560. pmid:11222863
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Keast RS, Breslin PA. Cross-adaptation and bitterness inhibition of L-tryptophan, L-phenylalanine and urea: further support for shared peripheral physiology. Chem Senses. 2002;27:123–131. pmid:11839610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Delwiche JF, Buletic Z, Breslin PA. Covariation in individuals' sensitivities to bitter compounds: evidence supporting multiple receptor/transduction mechanisms. Percept Psychophys. 2001;63:761–776. pmid:11521845
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Spector AC, Kopka SL. Rats fail to discriminate quinine from denatonium: implications for the neural coding of bitter-tasting compounds. J Neurosci. 2002;22:1937–1941. pmid:11880524
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Schobel N, Radtke D, Kyereme J, Wollmann N, Cichy A, Obst K, et al. Astringency is a trigeminal sensation that involves the activation of G protein-coupled signaling by phenolic compounds. Chem Senses. 2014;39:471–487. pmid:24718416
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Temple JL, Bernard C, Lipshultz SE, Czachor JD, Westphal JA, Mestre MA. The Safety of Ingested Caffeine: A Comprehensive Review. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:80. pmid:28603504
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Nehlig A, Daval JL, Debry G. Caffeine and the central nervous system: mechanisms of action, biochemical, metabolic and psychostimulant effects. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1992;17:139–170. pmid:1356551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. White BC, Mason FD. Caffeine-induced taste aversion and mimetic responses. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1985;23:515–518. pmid:4070328
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Ninomiya Y, Kajiura H, Mochizuki K. Differential taste responses of mouse chorda tympani and glossopharyngeal nerves to sugars and amino acids. Neurosci Lett. 1993;163:197–200. pmid:8309632
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Berridge KC. Measuring hedonic impact in animals and infants: microstructure of affective taste reactivity patterns. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000;24:173–198. pmid:10714382
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Rosenstein D, Oster H. Differential facial responses to four basic tastes in newborns. Child Dev. 1988;59:1555–1568. pmid:3208567
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Steiner JE. Discussion paper: innate, discriminative human facial expressions to taste and smell stimulation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1974;237:229–233. pmid:4529591
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Steiner JE. Human facial expressions in response to taste and smell stimulation. Adv Child Dev Behav. 1979;13:257–295. pmid:484324
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:1424–1435. pmid:11101467
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Glendinning JI. Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive? Physiol Behav. 1994;56:1217–1227. pmid:7878094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Scott TR, Giza BK. A measure of taste intensity discrimination in the rat through conditioned taste aversions. Physiol Behav. 1987;41:315–320. pmid:3432384
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. St John SJ, Spector AC. Combined glossopharyngeal and chorda tympani nerve transection elevates quinine detection thresholds in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Behav Neurosci. 1996;110:1456–1468. pmid:8986346
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Adler E, Hoon MA, Mueller KL, Chandrashekar J, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS. A novel family of mammalian taste receptors. Cell. 2000;100:693–702. pmid:10761934
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Conte C, Ebeling M, Marcuz A, Nef P, Andres-Barquin PJ. Evolutionary relationships of the Tas2r receptor gene families in mouse and human. Physiol Genomics. 2003;14:73–82. pmid:12734386
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Shi P, Zhang J, Yang H, Zhang YP. Adaptive diversification of bitter taste receptor genes in Mammalian evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2003;20:805–814. pmid:12679530
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Taruno A, Vingtdeux V, Ohmoto M, Ma Z, Dvoryanchikov G, Li A, et al. CALHM1 ion channel mediates purinergic neurotransmission of sweet, bitter and umami tastes. Nature. 2013;495:223–226. pmid:23467090
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Taruno A, Sun H, Nakajo K, Murakami T, Ohsaki Y, Kido MA, et al. Post-translational palmitoylation controls the voltage gating and lipid raft association of the CALHM1 channel. J Physiol. 2017;595:6121–6145. pmid:28734079
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Ma Z, Taruno A, Ohmoto M, Jyotaki M, Lim JC, Miyazaki H, et al. CALHM3 Is Essential for Rapid Ion Channel-Mediated Purinergic Neurotransmission of GPCR-Mediated Tastes. Neuron. 2018;98:547–561 e510. pmid:29681531
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Finger TE, Danilova V, Barrows J, Bartel DL, Vigers AJ, Stone L, et al. ATP signaling is crucial for communication from taste buds to gustatory nerves. Science. 2005;310:1495–1499. pmid:16322458
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Wang L, Gillis-Smith S, Peng Y, Zhang J, Chen X, Salzman CD, et al. The coding of valence and identity in the mammalian taste system. Nature. 2018;558:127–131. pmid:29849148
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Tordoff MG. Taste solution preferences of C57BL/6J and 129X1/SvJ mice: influence of age, sex, and diet. Chem Senses. 2007;32:655–671. pmid:17566070
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Lossow K, Hubner S, Roudnitzky N, Slack JP, Pollastro F, Behrens M, et al. Comprehensive Analysis of Mouse Bitter Taste Receptors Reveals Different Molecular Receptive Ranges for Orthologous Receptors in Mice and Humans. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:15358–15377. pmid:27226572
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Whitney G, Harder DB. Genetics of bitter perception in mice. Physiol Behav. 1994;56:1141–1147. pmid:7878083
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Narukawa M, Tsujitani T, Ueno Y, Nakano-Ooka K, Miyamoto-Kokubo N, Sawano S, et al. Evaluation of the suppressive effect on bitter taste of gluconate. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2012;76:2282–2288. pmid:23221707
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Nolan LJ, McCaughey SA, Giza BK, Rhinehart-Doty JA, Smith JC, Scott TR. Extinction of a conditioned taste aversion in rats: I. Behavioral effects. Physiol Behav. 1997;61:319–323. pmid:9035264
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Grote FW, Brown RT. Deprivation level affects extinction of a conditioned taste aversion. Learn Motiv. 1973;4:314–319.
View Article
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Sengstake CB, Chambers KC, Thrower JH. Interactive effects of fluid deprivation and testosterone on the expression of a sexually dimorphic conditioned taste aversion. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1978;92:1150–1155. pmid:755061
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Spector AC, Smith JC, Hollander GR. Radiation-induced taste aversion: effects of radiation exposure level and the exposure-taste interval. Radiat Res. 1986;106:271–277. pmid:3704116
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Wellman PJ, Boissard CG. Influence of fluid deprivation level on the extinction of conditioned taste aversion induced by amphetamine in female rats. Physiol Psychol. 1981;9:281–284.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Golden GJ, Ishiwatari Y, Theodorides ML, Bachmanov AA. Effect of chorda tympani nerve transection on salt taste perception in mice. Chem Senses. 2011;36:811–819. pmid:21743094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Ishiwatari Y, Bachmanov AA. NaCl taste thresholds in 13 inbred mouse strains. Chem Senses. 2012;37:497–508. pmid:22293936
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Glendinning JI, Brown H, Capoor M, Davis A, Gbedemah A, Long E. A peripheral mechanism for behavioral adaptation to specific "bitter" taste stimuli in an insect. J Neurosci. 2001;21:3688–3696. pmid:11331398
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Scheiner R, Sokolowski MB, Erber J. Activity of cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) affects sucrose responsiveness and habituation in Drosophila melanogaster. Learn Mem. 2004;11:303–311. pmid:15169860
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] PubMed/NCBI

[114] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Warren RP, Pfaffmann C. Early experience and taste aversion. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959;52:263–271. pmid:13673106
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Torregrossa AM, Nikonova L, Bales MB, Villalobos Leal M, Smith JC, Contreras RJ, et al. Induction of salivary proteins modifies measures of both orosensory and postingestive feedback during exposure to a tannic acid diet. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105232. pmid:25162297
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Denny P, Hagen FK, Hardt M, Liao L, Yan W, Arellanno M, et al. The proteomes of human parotid and submandibular/sublingual gland salivas collected as the ductal secretions. J Proteome Res. 2008;7:1994–2006. pmid:18361515
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Dsamou M, Palicki O, Septier C, Chabanet C, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, et al. Salivary protein profiles and sensitivity to the bitter taste of caffeine. Chem Senses. 2012;37:87–95. pmid:21873273
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Morzel M, Chabanet C, Schwartz C, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, Nicklaus S. Salivary protein profiles are linked to bitter taste acceptance in infants. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173:575–582. pmid:24248522
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Quintana M, Palicki O, Lucchi G, Ducoroy P, Chambon C, Salles C, et al. Inter-individual variability of protein patterns in saliva of healthy adults. J Proteomics. 2009;72:822–830. pmid:19470415
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Glendinning JI. Effect of salivary proline-rich proteins on ingestive responses to tannic acid in mice. Chem Senses. 1992;17:1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Martin LE, Nikonova LV, Kay K, Paedae AB, Contreras RJ, Torregrossa AM. Salivary proteins alter taste-guided behaviors and taste nerve signaling in rat. Physiol Behav. 2018;184:150–161. pmid:29162505
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Kalat JW, Rozin P. "Learned safety" as a mechanism in long-delay taste-aversion learning in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1973;83:198–207. pmid:4706590
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Mueller KL, Hoon MA, Erlenbach I, Chandrashekar J, Zuker CS, Ryba NJ. The receptors and coding logic for bitter taste. Nature. 2005;434:225–229. pmid:15759003
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Behrens M, Meyerhof W. Bitter taste receptors and human bitter taste perception. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006;63:1501–1509. pmid:16732425
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Yoshida R, Miyauchi A, Yasuo T, Jyotaki M, Murata Y, Yasumatsu K, et al. Discrimination of taste qualities among mouse fungiform taste bud cells. J Physiol. 2009;587:4425–4439. pmid:19622604
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Caicedo A, Roper SD. Taste receptor cells that discriminate between bitter stimuli. Science. 2001;291:1557–1560. pmid:11222863
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] PubMed/NCBI

[165] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Keast RS, Breslin PA. Cross-adaptation and bitterness inhibition of L-tryptophan, L-phenylalanine and urea: further support for shared peripheral physiology. Chem Senses. 2002;27:123–131. pmid:11839610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Delwiche JF, Buletic Z, Breslin PA. Covariation in individuals' sensitivities to bitter compounds: evidence supporting multiple receptor/transduction mechanisms. Percept Psychophys. 2001;63:761–776. pmid:11521845
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] PubMed/NCBI

[173] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Spector AC, Kopka SL. Rats fail to discriminate quinine from denatonium: implications for the neural coding of bitter-tasting compounds. J Neurosci. 2002;22:1937–1941. pmid:11880524
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] PubMed/NCBI

[177] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Schobel N, Radtke D, Kyereme J, Wollmann N, Cichy A, Obst K, et al. Astringency is a trigeminal sensation that involves the activation of G protein-coupled signaling by phenolic compounds. Chem Senses. 2014;39:471–487. pmid:24718416
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Temple JL, Bernard C, Lipshultz SE, Czachor JD, Westphal JA, Mestre MA. The Safety of Ingested Caffeine: A Comprehensive Review. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:80. pmid:28603504
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] PubMed/NCBI

[185] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Nehlig A, Daval JL, Debry G. Caffeine and the central nervous system: mechanisms of action, biochemical, metabolic and psychostimulant effects. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1992;17:139–170. pmid:1356551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. White BC, Mason FD. Caffeine-induced taste aversion and mimetic responses. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1985;23:515–518. pmid:4070328
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] PubMed/NCBI

[193] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Ninomiya Y, Kajiura H, Mochizuki K. Differential taste responses of mouse chorda tympani and glossopharyngeal nerves to sugars and amino acids. Neurosci Lett. 1993;163:197–200. pmid:8309632
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Animals

Taste stimuli

Experimental schedules

Brief-access two-bottle choice tests: Bitter rejection threshold (RjT)

Conditioned taste aversion (CTA) tests: Apparent bitter recognition threshold (aRcT)

Data analysis

Results

Preference to bitter amino acids

Preference to other bitter compounds

Experience promotes bitter tolerance

Effect of prolonged bitter exposure on aRcT

Discussion

Acknowledgments

References

Brief-access two-bottle choice tests: Bitter rejection threshold (R_jT)

Conditioned taste aversion (CTA) tests: Apparent bitter recognition threshold (aR_cT)

Effect of prolonged bitter exposure on aR_cT