4.4 Article

Quantitative study of taste bud distribution within the oral cavity of the postnatal mouse

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 583-589

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.01.005

关键词

taste buds; development; oral cavity; mouse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the age-related developmental changes of taste bud distribution within the subpopulations at different postnatal ages in the mouse oral cavity. Developmental changes of taste bud distribution on the soft palate, fungiform, foliate and circumvallate papillae in the mouse oral cavity were examined histologically at different postnatal ages. After paraffin embedding, complete serial sections at 10 mu m thickness were made and stained by routine hematoxylin-eosin staining methods. Digitised images for each section were examined carefully. The existence of a taste pore was used to identify mature taste buds. A two-way analysis of variance (group versus age) was used to analyse differences in taste bud number and characteristics for each of the developmental changes. An independent measures t-test was used to compare two means. No taste buds with pores were observed at birth within circumvallate and foliate papillae. However, 61% of the circumvallate and 58% of the foliate taste buds contained taste pores at 2 weeks after birth. In contrast, at birth, 55% of the taste buds on the soft palate and only 22% of the taste buds within fungiform papillae contained taste pores. Then, the number of mature taste buds (taste buds with pores) increased rapidly 1 week after birth, resulting in 90% of soft palate taste buds and 32% of fungiform taste buds containing taste pores. These results suggests that the earlier maturation of soft palate taste buds compared with the other populations in the oral cavity raises evidence of their significant role in the taste mechanism, especially in the early life of the mouse. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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