4.4 Article

Dynamic taste responses of parabrachial pontine neurons in awake rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 1314-1323

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00311.2015

关键词

parabrachial nucleus; taste processing; temporal coding; gustatory cortex

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 DC-6666, R01 DC-7703]
  2. Charles A. King Trust Fellowship
  3. Swartz Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The parabrachial nuclei of the pons (PbN) receive almost direct input from taste buds on the tongue and control basic taste-driven behaviors. Thus it is reasonable to hypothesize that PbN neurons might respond to tastes in a manner similar to that of peripheral receptors, i.e., that these responses might be narrow and relatively dynamics free. On the other hand, the majority of the input to PbN descends from forebrain regions such as gustatory cortex (GC), which processes tastes with temporal codes in which firing reflects first the presence, then the identity, and finally the desirability of the stimulus. Therefore a reasonable alternative hypothesis is that PbN responses might be dominated by dynamics similar to those observed in GC. Here we examined simultaneously recorded single-neuron PbN (and GC) responses in awake rats receiving exposure to basic taste stimuli. We found that pontine taste responses were almost entirely confined to canonically identified taste-PbN (t-PbN). Taste-specificity was found, furthermore, to be time varying in a larger percentage of these t-PbN responses than in responses recorded from the tissue around PbN (including non-taste-PbN). Finally, these time-varying properties were a good match for those observed in simultaneously recorded GC neurons-taste-specificity appeared after an initial nonspecific burst of action potentials, and palatability emerged several hundred milliseconds later. These results suggest that the pontine taste relay is closely allied with the dynamic taste processing performed in forebrain.

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

4.4
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