Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Immunohistochemistry identifies neuron response to quinine and sucrose in B6 mice, suggesting distinct taste pathways.
Fos immunohistochemistry was used to identify neurons in taste-related brain areas throughout the B6 mouse brain activated by intra-oral (IO) infusion of 3.0 mM quinine hydrochloride (Q), 1.0 M sucrose (S) or filtered water (W). IO infusion of Q and S elicited more Fos-immunoreactive (Fos-IR) neurons than W in the central medial (CM) and dorsomedial (DM) subareas of the parabrachial nucleus (PBN) and the central medial (CeM) amygdala (ps < 0.05). Infusion of Q led to more Fos expression than W in the central lateral (CL) PBN and the parvocellular reticular formation (PCRT; ps < 0.05). The only area where IO infusion of Q and S elicited a different number of Fos-IR neurons was the PCRT which responded more to Q (p < 0.05). Cluster analysis of the number of Fos-IR neurons in all 29 taste-related nuclei and subareas examined revealed that populations of neurons distributed among these brain regions respond best to Q, S or both Q and S. Specifically, the Q-best cluster included more posterior structures like the nucleus of the solitary tract, RT and part of the PBN. The S-best cluster included more anterior structures like the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, nucleus accumbens and orbitofrontal cortex. And, the cluster of areas that responded better to Q and S than W included the amygdala, gustatory and piriform cortices and a few PBN subareas. Therefore, the data suggest that collections of neurons among taste-responsive brain areas are important for distinguishing Q and S from water as well as identifying the specific tastant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
King et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: