2003
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjg056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monosodium Glutamate and Sweet Taste: Generalization of Conditioned Taste Aversion between Glutamate and Sweet Stimuli in Rats

Abstract: Even though monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a prototypical umami substance, previous studies reported that a conditioned taste aversion (CTA) to MSG, mixed with amiloride to block the taste of sodium, generalizes to sucrose. These findings suggest that the taste of glutamate mimics the taste of sucrose and raise the question of whether glutamate has a broadly tuned sweet taste component. To test this hypothesis, CTA experiments were conducted to test for generalization between MSG and several sweet stimuli: sucr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
46
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
2
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings together with our observation that OLETF rats responded more to MSG, sucrose as well as alanine, but not salts (sodium or nonsodium moieties, a taste category for mineral intake), indicate that the augmented ingestive response to MSG is likely to be the result rather of the generalization to sweet (a taste category for energy intake). This notion is further supported by a recent study in rat showing that conditioned aversions to MSG cross generalize to sucrose and other sweeteners (33). This cross generalization may also explain our observation and reinforce our conclusion that taste preference in OLETF was indeed altered in ways specific to mechanisms that code for sweet.…”
Section: Summary Of Results With Relevance To Modelsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…These findings together with our observation that OLETF rats responded more to MSG, sucrose as well as alanine, but not salts (sodium or nonsodium moieties, a taste category for mineral intake), indicate that the augmented ingestive response to MSG is likely to be the result rather of the generalization to sweet (a taste category for energy intake). This notion is further supported by a recent study in rat showing that conditioned aversions to MSG cross generalize to sucrose and other sweeteners (33). This cross generalization may also explain our observation and reinforce our conclusion that taste preference in OLETF was indeed altered in ways specific to mechanisms that code for sweet.…”
Section: Summary Of Results With Relevance To Modelsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Our finding that all four primate species tested clearly preferred sucrose over equimolar concentrations of MSG and thus were clearly able to discriminate between these tastants is not trivial considering that rats have been shown to crossgeneralize between the tastes of monosodium glutamate and sucrose in conditioned taste aversion tests (Heyer et al, 2003) suggesting that MSG, in addition to activating glutamate receptors, may also activate sweet receptors in the apical membrane of taste cells. This supposition is supported by electrophysiological studies in nonhuman primates that reported umami compounds to stimulate sweet-best (and also salt-best) fibers in addition to specialized fibers exclusively responsive to MSG and ribonucleotides (Hellekant and Ninomiya,'91).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Additionally, we assessed relative preferences for MSG when tested against equimolar concentrations of sucrose and sodium chloride, respectively, in order to try the discriminability of these tastants, particularly as rats have been shown to cross-generalize betwen the tastes of MSG and sucrose in conditioned taste aversion tests (Heyer et al, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…#CS suppression ratio for each LiCl-injected group that was significantly lower than its corresponding control group. dium glutamate as similar but discriminable (Chaudhari et al, 1996;Stapleton et al, 1999;Heyer et al, 2003Heyer et al, , 2004.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%