| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1Department of Cell Biology, Emory University School of Medicine; and 2Nutrition and Health Sciences Program, Division of Biological and Biomedical Science, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
Submitted 13 December 2006; accepted in final form 3 January 2007
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
; Murphy et al. 1977). Psychophysical investigations show that differences in detection accuracy by the two routes can be overcome by training (Pierce and Halpern 1996). However, odorant names trained retronasally were better identified orthonasally than vice versa (Sun and Halpern 2005).
Rozin (1982) considered olfaction a dual modality, sensing either external objects or objects in the mouth. He proposed three possible mechanisms for that dual function. 1) Taste or trigeminal information from the mouth might tell the brain to interpret the olfactory sensation as coming from the mouth. 2) The interpretation of an olfactory stimulus as coming from the mouth might simply result from the combination of olfactory, taste, and trigeminal information. 3) The olfactory stimulus itself might be different because of the way in which it enters the olfactory region.
Several authors (Heilmann and Hummel 2004; Pierce and Halpern 1996; Small et al. 2005; Sun and Halpern 2005) suggested that Rozin's third mechanism acts by differential sorption of odorants to the wall of the oral and nasal cavities as described for the frog olfactory epithelium (Mozell and Jagodowicz 1973; Mozell et al. 1987, 1991). Diaz (2004) reported a strong correlation of the odorant air–water partition coefficient with the relative efficacy of a series of odorants for orthonasal and retronasal olfaction. In an elegant study, Frasnelli et al. (2005) used mass spectrometry to report that intranasal profiles of concentration differ across flavor compounds during intraoral presentation, with a polar odorant (diacetyl) achieving lower concentrations in the olfactory cleft region than less polar odorants (ethyl butyrate and ethyl hexanoate). That study is limited because the sampling procedure required flow rates of 100 ml/min through tubes in the nose. This can disturb the local air flow and one cannot be sure that the tubes reached into the narrow headspace directly over the receptors in the olfactory cleft. Zhao et al. (2004, 2006) modeled air flow in the human and rat nose and suggested that, although they differ in the amount of turbulent flow, both systems should have differences in odorant access to the olfactory regions between inspiratory and expiratory phases. They further suggested that these differences could differentially affect polar odorants and partly account for differences between orthonasal and retronasal olfaction.
We used electroolfactogram (EOG) recordings in the rat to test the prediction that odorant polarity would be a major factor in orthonasal versus retronasal olfaction. In this preparation, we could directly compare the population response of the receptor sheet. There were responses to only very nonpolar, hydrophobic odorants during retronasal presentation. These results confirm the importance of odorant solubility in normal olfactory function. We also tested a similar set of odorants with recordings from the superficial layers of the olfactory bulb to provide a parallel measure to the EOG.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
All animal procedures were consistent with our protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Emory University. The surgery and orthonasal stimulation were similar to our previous reports (Scott et al. 2006; Scott-Johnson et al. 2000). Briefly, male Sprague–Dawley rats (180–300 g) were killed by overdose with sodium pentobarbital (200 mg/kg). A Teflon cannula was inserted through the trachea to rest in the retronasal area just over the soft palate. This cannula was tested with a flame ionization gas chromatograph after several uses to ensure that neither the material of the cannula nor substances from the animal that adhere to the cannula would adsorb any of the odorants used in this study. The bone overlying the dorsomedial nasal recess and the lateral recess at the base of ectoturbinate II was thinned until it could be removed with fine forceps. Recording pipettes filled with Ringer solution were inserted through the olfactory epithelium until a strong response could be recorded to isoamyl acetate. For the first five experiments, the dorsal electrode arrays were placed 7 mm rostral to the frontonasal suture and the lateral electrode arrays were placed just above the base of endoturbinate II. For the second set of five experiments, an additional dorsal electrode was placed more caudally, 3 mm rostral to the frontonasal suture, and an additional lateral electrode was placed just below the base of endoturbinate II (see Fig. 1, A and B). Recordings were referenced against a silver wire embedded in EEG electrode paste on the frontal bone. The amplifier frequency band was from 0.1 to 30 Hz. Data were digitized at 1 kHz and were analyzed off-line with routines written in MATLAB by one of the authors (JWS).
|
Odorants were introduced with an 8-mm glass manifold connected to bottles containing test stimuli. Odorants were diluted in mineral oil at ratios between 0.1 and 0.001 and kept in 100-ml glass bottles with gastight Teflon fittings and tubing leading to the stimulus tube. These dilutions were tested with a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector when they were made up, and these tests were reconfirmed after several days of use. The mineral oil/odorant mixture covered the bottom of the odor sample bottle for a depth of about 0.5 cm and had a surface area of about 6 cm2. Air flowed through the odor sample bottle at a rate of 100 ml/min. The sample was further diluted by injection into an air stream by a glass manifold with multiple ports for the different odorants. There were three presentations of each odorant and the three responses were averaged. Approximately 60 s elapsed between each stimulus presentation. All series contained a blank stimulus to test for contamination or other artifacts. All responses were normalized to the peak response to isoamyl acetate presented orthonasally at a dilution of 0.001 times vapor saturation.
The properties that determine odorant sorption in the nose are not perfectly known. Mozell et al. (1991) used the gas chromatographic retention time on a carbowax column as an estimate, but those numbers are not available for all odorants. We chose odorants to span the range of odorants we previously used in recordings from the epithelium (Scott and Brierley 1999; Scott et al. 2000). To estimate hydrophobicity, we used the Hansen solubility parameter (Burke 1984; Hansen 1999), which represents the amount of energy required to separate molecules of a compound. This index (calculated with Molecular Modeling Pro v.3.2 software, ChemSW, Fairfield, CA) was useful in predicting the relative response across the epithelium with direct odorant application (Scott 2006) and the response of odorants with differing nasal air flow rates (Scott et al. 2006). Polarity (the degree of charge separation in the molecule) is one factor in that index. Liquids that are highly soluble in water have high solubility parameters. Therefore we will describe the odorants in this study as being hydrophobic or hydrophilic, although we are aware that other properties may be important in determining the response. The odorants, illustrated in Fig. 1C, were picked to have a range of hydrophobicity and to have some variation in structure.
For orthonasal stimulation, odorized air flowed in front of the rat's nose at a rate of 1,000 ml/min for 9 s to allow the odorant concentration to stabilize in the system before a vacuum was applied through the tracheal cannula to initiate a 2-s sniff at 500 ml/min. For retronasal stimulation, odorized air was applied from the tracheal cannula. In this case air flowed constantly through the glass manifold at a rate of 500 ml/min, but a vacuum port pulled that air away so that it did not enter the nose (see Fig. 1B). Odorants were added into the manifold for 9 s before the vacuum valve was closed to force odorized air into the nose through the cannula. The stimulus period was 2.5 s, followed by inspiration at 500 ml/min. Orthonasal stimuli were retested after the retronasal series to ensure that no electrode had moved. The orthonasal odor tube was set back about 1 cm from the rat's nose to avoid forcing odor into the nose before sniff onset. In contrast, the retronasal flow system was tightly closed and depended on forcing air into the trachea. As a consequence of the different flow rates, the effective concentration of the retronasal stimulus was double that of the orthonasal stimulus. This issue is addressed in some of the experiments. The stimulus control valves were controlled by a program written in LabVIEW.
Multiunit recording
Because there are uncertainties about the exact relationship of the EOG to activity in the olfactory receptor neurons and to the activity in olfactory bulb, we also performed recordings from the olfactory bulb in urethane (1.5 g/kg) anesthetized rats. We chose multiunit recording methods to avoid bias from the inputs to a single cell. The 4 x 4 electrode arrays from NeuroNexus provided sampling from populations of cells over a spatial extent of nearly 400 x 150 µ (see Fig. 2A). This should be more than two- to threefold the size of a single glomerulus. Similar series of stimuli were presented. At least three, sometimes six, presentations, were made of each stimulus orthonasally, then retronasally, and then retested orthonasally.
|
We attempted to confine the recordings to the nerve layer and glomerular layer by inserting the electrode arrays only to the point where the first reliable responses were found on a majority of electrode sites. The depths from the pial surface were measured for seven of the 11 experiments. These measurements were probably overestimates because of tissue dimpling, but only two arrays penetrated to a nominal depth of >800 µm.
The activity on adjacent poles of the arrays was clearly related, but it was not identical (see Fig. 2C). Multiunit activity was evaluated by computing the mean and SD of the voltage on each pole during the 1-s period before each stimulus. All transients that exceeded 1.5 SDs above or below the mean were counted at the point of criterion crossing (and thus each spike was counted only once). These counts were then low-pass filtered with a function that decayed to half-maximum in 50 ms to give smooth estimates of multiunit spiking. These estimates were summed across the poles of the electrode array to help reduce the bias of a single glomerulus or cell. In this summation, we excluded any pole for which there was spike suppression during an orthonasal odor pulse. This exclusion was intended to bias against cells that were influenced by inhibitory interneurons in the bulb.
Not all recording sites gave obvious responses to all odorants. We adopted an automatic criterion for response. The mean summed activity at the peak time was compared with the mean activity in the second before stimulus onset with a t-test using the SD at the time and the maximum SD at any time during the prestimulus activity. The t-test was required to achieve a probability level of P < 0.05. We cannot claim that this is an accurate estimate of the probability, but it reliably picked responses that looked consistent by eye.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Examples of dorsal and lateral responses to a very hydrophilic odorant (methyl benzoate), a very hydrophobic odorant (vinyl cyclohexane), and one of intermediate solubility (isoamyl acetate) appear in Fig. 3. The orthonasal responses (Fig. 3A) were similar to our previous reports (Scott et al. 1996, 2006). The retronasal responses (Fig. 3B) were very small for methyl benzoate on either site. For vinyl cyclohexane, the responses at both sites were nearly as large as the orthonasal responses. Isoamyl acetate retronasal responses were small during the stimulus presentation, but they terminated with an additional inflection when inspiration occurred after the flow in the expiratory direction. We termed this inflection the "retronasal inspiration" response. In the five animals with dual dorsal electrodes, the early part of the retronasal response to isoamyl acetate was always smaller on the caudal site than that on the rostral site (Fig. 3C, P < 0.01 by the Wilcoxson rank sum test), but the inspiration responses were not different between the two sites. This inflection disappeared if there was no inspiration, although there could be a slight upward drift that might have resulted from odor diffusion (Fig. 3D). We believe that the inspiration response results from odorant remaining in the dead space in the vestibule of the nose. This odorant is drawn back into the olfactory region by inspiration. There were no systematic response differences between the two electrodes in the lateral recess.
|
Quantification of the response peaks across a series of odorants arrayed in the order of their solubility is shown in Fig. 4 for the first five animals. The orthonasal responses were similar to our previous reports in being large dorsally for hydrophilic odorants and large laterally for hydrophobic odorants (Fig. 4A). The retronasal responses to hydrophilic odorants were reduced relative to orthonasal responses (Fig. 4B). For both the dorsal and the lateral sites, there was a significant variation across odorants for the difference between the orthonasal and retronasal responses (P < 0.001 for the dorsal sites and P < 0.01 for the lateral sites, by the Friedman two-way ANOVA). At the dorsal site, the retronasal responses were smaller to all odorants except vinyl cyclohexane and heptane (P < 0.01 by the Wilcoxon test). At the lateral site, only anisole, isoamyl acetate, and limonene had significantly smaller retronasal responses (P < 0.01). The mean orthonasal–retronasal differences across odorants correlated strongly with the Hansen solubility parameter for the dorsal site (r = 0.89, P < 0.01). The same result was found for calculated odorant polarity. This correlation was not significant (r = 0.19 for the Hansen parameter) for the lateral site. In contrast, the molecular weight or calculated molecular volume of the odorants did not correlate significantly with the difference in responses at either site.
|
Relationship to solubility independent of concentration
A second experiment tested whether some of the differences in Fig. 4 resulted from different effective concentrations because of the twofold difference in the air dilution phase between orthonasal and retronasal presentation. For this experiment, we presented four selected odorants in two concentrations with 10-fold differences in the mineral oil dilution. For methyl benzoate, we added another stimulus concentration 50 times stronger. Figure 5 shows recordings from the second set of animals using the electrodes in the same positions as those in Fig. 4. (There were no systematic differences between the two electrodes of the dorsal set other than those illustrated in Fig. 3C and no differences between the two electrodes of the lateral set.) The orthonasal responses were greater for the stronger stimuli, showing that the stimuli were within the dynamic range of the system. Neither concentration was effective at producing large retronasal responses to the more polar, hydrophilic odorants, but both concentrations of vinyl cyclohexane evoked responses nearly as large as the orthonasal presentations on both sites. There were effective retronasal inspiration responses to the higher concentrations of anisole and isoamyl acetate, as well as a modest response to both concentrations of vinyl cyclohexane. Only the strongest concentration of methyl benzoate produced a detectable retronasal inspiration response.
|
750 ms to the latency, the retronasal latencies remain significantly longer (P < 0.001 by paired t-test). Effect of humidity
One possible concern about these experiments is that the humidity of air passing through the nasal cavity in the two directions would be very different, leading to differences in sorption to the cavity walls. We tested this by varying the humidity in the carrier air (Fig. 6). Peak responses were normalized to the orthonasal isoamyl acetate response for each condition. The humid condition was run first. The nose was kept humid between stimuli. The vinyl cyclohexane and heptane concentrations are lower than those in previous figures, so the shapes of the profiles are slightly different from those in Fig. 4. Both orthonasal and retronasal responses were essentially unchanged by the presentation in dry air. This indicates that modest differences in the humidity of air entering from the lungs versus the external environment are not the cause of the differences shown in Figs. 3–5.
|
Multiunit recordings from the superficial layers of the olfactory bulbs of anesthetized rats with multiple-electrode arrays were obtained during orthonasal and retronasal stimulation with similar procedures. We cannot claim that these recordings represent only the input patterns. Most likely they represent a mixture of cells in the vicinity of the glomeruli. We excluded all recordings from any probe that showed suppression of activity during the orthonasal presentation of any of the odorants. This was intended to bias against tufted cells or other cells that were responding extensively to inhibitory inputs. We saw no evidence to suggest that any of the recordings were from mitral cells. Most recording sites showed "hash"-like multiunit spiking from which single cells could not be isolated, in spite of the fact that we have often recorded large mitral cell spikes with these electrodes. The data shown are for the sums of multiunit activity on the dorsal and lateral arrays as described in METHODS. Therefore even the presence of a large spike on one of the recording sites did not dominate the record.
Figure 7 shows a summed multiunit example from one animal of responses recorded simultaneously from a dorsal and a lateral site on the olfactory bulb. The orthonasal responses were similar to the EOGs in their sharp onset. These orthonasal multiunit responses usually had a sharp initial transient followed by a slower decline in response that was similar to the orthonasal EOGs. This declining phase often ended with a sharp offset (methyl benzoate and isoamyl acetate responses in Fig. 7). Although the orthonasal multiunit responses were larger at the dorsal site for the polar odorant and larger at the lateral site for the nonpolar odorant, these responses also agreed with the EOGs in showing some response to both types of odorant at both sites. However, many of the multiunit recordings did show greater odor specificity than did the EOGs, in that they failed to show consistent responses to one or more of the odorants in the series. The retronasal multiunit responses were also similar to the retronasal EOGs. They showed longer latencies from odor onset and a slower rise time. Like the retronasal EOGs the retronasal multiunit responses generally had a more rapid decline than the orthonasal multiunit responses. Two of the multiunit recording sessions also showed a response to inspiration after expiration like those of the EOG responses to isoamyl acetate and anisole. The circled response seen in the retronasal response to isoamyl acetate occurred in each of the individual summed responses to six presentations of the odorant and did not appear in the orthonasal responses.
|
|
) and with the bulb literature (Ho et al. 2006a,b; Takahashi et al. 2004) in showing larger lateral responses to nonpolar odorants. The difference between dorsal and lateral responses across odorants was significant (P < 0.001, by ANOVA). This indicates that our recordings were from parts of the bulb receiving inputs from different types of odorants. Responses to all odorants were smaller with the retronasal presentation, but the decrease of retronasal responses relative to orthonasal responses was greatest for the more hydrophilic odorants. The difference across odorants between orthonasal versus retronasal responses was significant (P < 0.001, by ANOVA) for the dorsal sites, but not for the lateral sites. Thus in spite of any uncertainty about the identity of recorded cells, there is a strong difference in these population responses between the two stimulus modes. This is in line with the EOG results of Figs. 4, 5, and 6, which show large changes for the polar odorants that activate dorsal epithelium and little effect on the response to nonpolar odorants that activate lateral epithelium.
We also analyzed the total data set, including responses that were not judged significant. ANOVA was not appropriate because the small nonsignificant responses made the data deviate strongly from normality. However, the Friedman two-way ANOVA showed a significant variation across odorants between the two electrodes (P < 0.001) and showed a significant variation across odorants for the difference between orthonasal and retronasal responses at the dorsal sites (P < 0.01). This indicates that the data analysis was not biased by selection of large responses.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
These data show that odorant responses differ between the orthonasal and retronasal modes. The EOGs are a direct measure of the receptor cell population response, thus providing the best estimate of which odorants reach the receptors and of their relative concentrations. Our results are complementary to the results of Frasnelli et al. (2005) and of Heilmann and Hummel (2004), who measured odorant concentrations near the olfactory cleft. Those studies had the advantage of using human subjects, but the disadvantage that tubes placed in the nose to sample air could disturb the air flow in the nose. In addition, that technique does not measure the time course of odorant arrival or the concentrations that partition into the mucus layer surrounding the receptor cilia. Within our sample, nonpolar, hydrophobic odorants are more effective than hydrophilic odorants in retronasal stimulation of olfactory receptors. The result is independent of odorant concentration and of carrier air humidity.
We also found longer latencies for the retronasal responses, suggesting that the flow of air entering the olfactory region takes longer, even when the total flow rate in the nasal cavity was the same. These latencies are not accounted for by the dead space of the stimulus delivery system. They may be related to the dead space in the nasal cavity, but that is difficult to estimate. These differences suggest that a sorptive mechanism produces these response differences by removing the polar odorants from the air stream before reaching the olfactory receptor cells. This might occur either by more internal dead space in the retronasal region or because only a fraction of expired air enters the olfactory region at a slower rate.
The form and interpretation of responses
Although the ultimate goal of any physiological investigation of air flow in olfaction is to understand the effects produced in normal breathing, sniffing, chewing, and swallowing, this study began that investigation with an artificial situation that allows reasonable control of concentration and air flow. The durations of our stimuli were single unphysiologically long pulses, although previous work showed that it can take at least 1 s for some responses to reach a peak with orthonasal flow (Scott et al. 2006). We found that under those conditions of long-duration stimulation, the absolute and relative sizes of most odorant responses were similar to those with direct application odorant to the exposed epithelium (Scott et al. 2006; Scott-Johnson et al. 2000). The current data set a kind of upper limit and tell us that with long-duration stimuli very nonpolar odorants can approach complete access to the epithelium in the retronasal mode. In contrast, very polar odorants had very depressed retronasal responses even with very long durations. The long-duration, single stimuli also allowed demonstration of response latencies, which would not have been clear with multiple pulses or studies in behaving animals.
The EOG is a useful measure of response in the epithelium for this study because of the relative ease of recording and the fact that it represents a population of receptors. It gives a more accurate measure of the amount of odorant reaching the receptors than any attempt to measure odorant concentration in the nasal cavity because of the small spaces in the olfactory region and the necessity for odors to cross the air–liquid interface to reach the receptor sites. The major conclusion that retronasal presentation produced decreased response to polar odorants and longer latencies for all odorants was confirmed in multiunit recordings from the superficial layers of the olfactory bulb. The multiunit bulb recordings differed from the EOGs in one important respect. The bulb responses were more specific, so that in some preparations there were strong responses to some odorants of a class (either polar or nonpolar) and weak responses to others. This was not the case for the EOGs where all polar odorants produced significant responses in the dorsal epithelium and all nonpolar odorants produced significant responses in the lateral epithelium. For that reason, the EOG is a better method for characterizing the overall chemical properties correlating with differences between orthonasal and retronasal responses, although it will ultimately be very important to know the effects of these differences on the responses of olfactory bulb mitral/tufted cells.
The multiunit records add the important information that the difference between orthonasal and retronasal responses is preserved at the upper layers of the bulb. The summation across the multiprobe arrays and the numbers of preparations tested makes it clear that the results are not dominated by a single cell type. Because of this exclusion and the shallow depth of the electrodes, very few, if any, of the recordings are likely to have been from mitral cells. Excitation is spread from external tufted cells to short axon cells and then to inhibitory neurons in the glomerular layer (Aungst et al. 2003). Thus inhibition can be induced without involvement of the granule cell population. Our intent in restricting the recordings to apparent excitatory responses was to minimize the canceling out of excitatory responses by inhibitory interactions. The electrode-array placements were not exactly the same in all animals because we had to avoid the large surface veins. In addition, the potential for spread of excitation in the glomerular layer (Aungst et al. 2003) makes it likely that these recordings do not represent only local inputs. However, the pattern of response to polar versus nonpolar odorants in the orthonasal recordings confirms that the dorsal and lateral arrays were in appropriate positions to reflect the differences between the dorsal and lateral parts of the epithelium. This spatial distribution of sensitivity in the bulb was reported in a number of investigations (Ho et al. 2006a,b; Imamura et al. 1992; Takahashi et al. 2004) and it agrees with our observations in the epithelium (Scott and Brierley 1999). The multiunit records also confirmed the longer latencies and slower rise times of the EOG results. This suggests a slower access of odorants to the receptor neurons for retronasal presentation. As we discuss below, this temporal difference is an important clue to the mechanism of the orthonasal/retronasal response differences.
Responses at the end of the retronasal pulse for some odorants probably arise from the inspiration of odorants remaining in the anterior part of the airway. This is supported by the disappearance of those responses if the stimulus is terminated without inspiration. This effect in the EOG shows the differential effects on odorant access even within the dorsomedial recess of the nasal cavity. The inspiration responses after retronasal stimulation were most prominent for odorants of intermediate solubility. Here those odorants were isoamyl acetate and anisole, but we have seen similar results for 2-hexanone (Phan, unpublished data). Only a subset of flavor-related odorants are in this solubility range. Odorants are known to enter the nose during chewing and swallowing (Burdach and Doty 1987; Hodgson et al. 2003). These movements and ongoing respiration probably facilitate the movement of odorants into the olfactory region. It may be that the inspiration responses are important in this context. These retronasal inspiratory responses were confirmed in two of the bulb recordings, but they were less prominent in the bulb recordings. Only future experiments would determine whether these responses are significant in control of bulb activity. It would be important to determine whether human observers can discriminate the sensations associated with these two aspects of retronasal olfaction.
The mechanism of differences
The reduced response to hydrophilic odorants during retronasal presentation must result from reduced concentration in the space directly overlying the receptor neurons because there were strong orthonasal responses to these stimuli before and after the retronasal tests. The size of the EOG is monotonically related to odorant concentration (Scott et al. 2000, 2006) and the response seen with orthonasal stimulation of long duration is roughly equal to that seen when odorants are directly applied to the headspace over the epithelium (Scott et al. 2006; Scott-Johnson et al. 2000). Thus it appears that with sufficiently long odor pulses at high flow rates even rather hydrophilic odorants will reach the receptor sheet in high concentrations in the orthonasal mode, but the concentrations of hydrophilic and moderately soluble odorants are very depressed in the retronasal mode. It is likely that the rate of air movement is the mechanism for this differential effect. Modeling of the rat nasal cavity by Zhao et al. (2006) suggests that expiratory air streams do not enter the olfactory region as effectively as the inspiratory streams. A reduced mass movement of air would provide more time for sorption of polar, hydrophilic odorants. On the other hand a slower transfer of air into the olfactory region is still consistent with strong responses to nonpolar, hydrophobic odorants (Mozell et al. 1991; Scott et al. 2006). Unfortunately, direct measurements of the air flow in the small spaces of the rodent nasal cavity are not available, but these results are very consistent with the predictions of responses in the rat from the air flow model of Zhao et al. (2006).
The correlation of solubility with the orthonasal/retronasal difference is consistent with the speculations by previous investigators of human retronasal olfaction (Pierce and Halpern 1996; Small et al. 2005; Sun and Halpern 2005) that the sorption of odorants is a significant factor in the differences between orthonasal and retronasal odorant recognition. Most human psychophysical investigations have used complex odor stimuli to simplify recognition by subjects. We followed the strategy of using pure odorants with a range of solubilities to test the sorption hypothesis. In such cases, the pattern of access to the olfactory region by the various odorous components could provide one cue by which the sensations differ. As in our recent publications (Scott 2006; Scott et al. 2006), we represented odorants by the Hansen solubility parameter. This descriptor is one of many that might be applied to the current data to show the same relationship. We found it useful because it is easily calculated and the retention time information used by Mozell et al. (1991) is not available for all of the odorants that we used. There are other mechanisms such as odorant-binding proteins (Hajjar et al. 2006; Löbel et al. 2002) and enzymes that break down odorants (Leclerc et al. 2002) that could influence the concentration of odorants in the airway. At this point, we know too little of those mechanisms to propose clear tests of those alternatives.
Alternatively, some of the response differences among these odorants could be attributable to other mechanisms such as diffusion (Zhao et al. 2004, 2006). The substantially longer latencies of the retronasal responses or the relatively smaller retronasal response to limonene, a molecule larger than heptane or vinyl cyclohexane, might support a diffusion explanation. Calculated molecular volume, which should be a factor in diffusion, was not correlated with the orthonasal–retronasal difference. Investigations with a larger, even more diverse sample of odorants would be necessary to test more complicated relationships between stimulus properties and the behavior in this system.
Functional implications
Our results are consistent with the speculations by previous investigators of human retronasal olfaction (Pierce and Halpern 1996; Small et al. 2005; Sun and Halpern 2005). It is complementary to the results of Frasnelli et al. (2005) and of Heilmann and Hummel (2004). Although they were able to measure odorant concentrations near the olfactory cleft, they did not measure receptor responses. Thus they were unable to know concentrations in the narrow space of the olfactory cleft or to know how effectively the odorants traversed the mucus to reach receptors.
In complex odor blends, the pattern of access to the olfactory region by the various odorous components could provide one cue by which the sensations differ. Psychophysical studies (Sun and Halpern 2005) and imaging of cortex/basal ganglia were previously used to study higher-order response to stimuli presented in the orthonasal versus retronasal modes. It is not yet known whether the circuitry of the olfactory bulb compensates for the mode of stimulation under control of cues such as trigeminal innervation. It seems likely that the bulbar output cells show very different responses to mixtures in the two stimulus modes. Nonpolar odorants would likely partition more effectively into dietary fat. The enhanced response to nonpolar odorants in fatty foods may be one element of preference for fat in the diet.
These results do not diminish the importance of taste or other cues in retronasal olfaction. One possible cue is trigeminal stimulation. Frasnelli et al. (2004) studied event-related potentials and found different cortical reactions depending on whether a trigeminal stimulus (carbon dioxide) was applied to the anterior or posterior part of the nasal cavity. Another contributing factor could be the presence of neural activity that codes the sniff and tells the brain about the direction of air flow. An example of this would be the activity correlated with sniffing and mouth movements in motor regions of the brain (Burdach and Doty 1987; Small et al. 2005; Sobel et al. 1998).
There is growing recognition of the importance of retronasal olfaction for normal oral sensation. In addition to psychophysical and imaging approaches, direct measurement of aroma release by materials in the mouth (Mestres et al. 2005) and measurement of intranasal concentrations in the human mouth (Frasnelli et al. 2005) are being used in these studies. Observations like these on the olfactory epithelium can be used to investigate the chemical parameters of retronasal olfaction with sufficient temporal resolution to distinguish the inspiratory and expiratory phases. The rat seems an appropriate model for further investigation because of behavioral reports indicating the importance of retronasal olfaction for the rat (Bouton et al. 1986; Inui et al. 2006; Slotnick et al. 1997) as well as the presence of flow modeling for both species. The animal model has the advantage of being applicable to a wide range of stimuli and stimulus conditions that would facilitate further investigation of peripheral and central mechanisms.
|
GRANTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. W. Scott, Department of Cell Biology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322 (E-mail: JohnS{at}cellbio.emory.edu)
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Bouton ME, Jones DL, McPhillips SA, Swartzentruber D. Potentiation and overshadowing in odor-aversion learning: role of method of odor presentation, the distal-proximal cue distinction, and the conditionability of odor. Learn Motiv 17: 115–138, 1986.[CrossRef][ISI]
Burdach KJ, Doty RL. The effects of mouth movements, swallowing, and spitting on retronasal odor perception. Physiol Behav 41: 353–356, 1987.[CrossRef][Medline]
Burke J. Solubility parameters: theory and application. In: The Book and Paper Group Annual, edited by Jensen C. Ann Arbor, MI: The American Institute for Conservation, 1984, p. 13–58.
Diaz ME. Comparison between orthonasal and retronasal flavour perception at different concentrations. Flavour Fragr J 19: 499–504, 2004.[CrossRef]
Frasnelli J, Heilmann S, Hummel T. Responsiveness of human nasal mucosa to trigeminal stimuli depends on the site of stimulation. Neurosci Lett 362: 65–69, 2004.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Frasnelli J, van Ruth S, Kriukova I, Hummel T. Intranasal concentrations of orally administered flavors. Chem Senses 30: 575–582, 2005.
Hajjar E, Perahia D, Debat H, Nespoulous C, Robert CH. Odorant binding and conformational dynamics in the odorant-binding protein. J Biol Chem 281: 29929–29937, 2006.
Hansen CM. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999.
Heilmann S, Hummel T. A new method for comparing orthonasal and retronasal olfaction. Behav Neurosci 118: 412–419, 2004.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Ho SL, Johnson BA, Chen AL, Leon M. Differential responses to branched and unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the rat olfactory system. J Comp Neurol 499: 519–532, 2006b.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Ho SL, Johnson BA, Leon M. Long hydrocarbon chains serve as unique molecular features recognized by ventral glomeruli of the rat olfactory bulb. J Comp Neurol 498: 16–30, 2006a.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Hodgson M, Linforth RS, Taylor AJ. Simultaneous real-time measurements of mastication, swallowing, nasal airflow, and aroma release. J Agric Food Chem 51: 5052–5057, 2003.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Imamura K, Mataga N, Mori K. Coding of odor molecules by mitral/tufted cells in rabbit olfactory bulb. I. Aliphatic compounds. J Neurophysiol 68: 1986–2002, 1992.
Inui T, Shimura T, Yamamoto T. Effects of brain lesions on taste-potentiated odor aversion in rats. Behav Neurosci 120: 590–599, 2006.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Leclerc S, Heydel JM, Amosse V, Gradinaru D, Cattarelli M, Artur Y, Goudonnet H, Magdalou J, Netter P, Pelczar H, Minn A. Glucuronidation of odorant molecules in the rat olfactory system: activity, expression and age-linked modifications of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms, UGT1A6 and UGT2A1, and relation to mitral cell activity. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 107: 201–213, 2002.[Medline]
Lobel D, Jacob M, Volkner M, Breer H. Odorants of different chemical classes interact with distinct odorant binding protein subtypes. Chem Senses 27: 39–44, 2002.
Mestres M, Moran N, Jordan A, Buettner A. Aroma release and retronasal perception during and after consumption of flavored whey protein gels with different textures. 1. In vivo release analysis. J Agric Food Chem 53: 403–409, 2005.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Mozell MM, Jagodowicz M. Chromatographic separation of odorants by the nose: retention times measured across in vivo olfactory mucosa. Science 181: 1247–1249, 1973.
Mozell MM, Kent PF, Murphy SJ. The effects of flow-rate upon the magnitude of the olfactory response differs for different odorants. Chem Senses 16: 631–649, 1991.
Mozell MM, Sheehe PR, Hornung DE, Kent PF, Youngentob SL, Murphy SJ. "Imposed" and "inherent" mucosal activity patterns. Their composite representation of olfactory stimuli. J Gen Physiol 90: 625–650, 1987.
Murphy C, Cain WS. Taste and olfaction: independence vs interaction. Physiol Behav 24: 601–605, 1980.[CrossRef][Medline]
Murphy C, Cain WS, Bartoshuk LM. Mutual action of taste and olfaction. Sens Process 1: 204–211, 1977.
Pierce J, Halpern BP. Orthonasal and retronasal odorant identification based upon vapor phase input from common substances. Chem Senses 21: 529–543, 1996.
Rozin P. "Taste-smell confusions" and the duality of the olfactory sense. Percept Psychophys 31: 397–401, 1982.[ISI][Medline]
Scott JW. Sniffing and spatiotemporal coding in olfaction. Chem Senses 31: 119–130, 2006.
Scott JW, Acevedo HP, Sherrill L. Effects of concentration and sniff flow rate on the rat electroolfactogram. Chem Senses 31: 581–593, 2006.
Scott JW, Brierley T. A functional map in rat olfactory epithelium. Chem Senses 24: 679–690, 1999.
Scott JW, Brierley T, Schmidt FH. Chemical determinants of the rat electro-olfactogram. J Neurosci 20: 4721–4731, 2000.
Scott JW, Davis LM, Shannon D, Kaplan C. Relation of chemical structure to spatial distribution of sensory responses in rat olfactory epithelium. J Neurophysiol 75: 2036–2049, 1996.
Scott-Johnson PE, Blakley D, Scott JW. Effects of air flow on rat electroolfactogram. Chem Senses 25: 761–768, 2000.
Slotnick BM, Westbrook F, Darling FMC. What the rat's nose tells the rat's mouth: long delay aversion conditioning with aqueous odors and potentiation of taste by odors. Anim Learn Behav 25: 357–369, 1997.[ISI]
Small DM, Gerber JC, Mak YE, Hummel T. Differential neural responses evoked by orthonasal versus retronasal odorant perception in humans. Neuron 47: 593–605, 2005.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Sobel N, Prabhakaran V, Desmond JE, Glover GH, Goode RL, Sullivan EV, Gabrieli JD. Sniffing and smelling: separate subsystems in the human olfactory cortex. Nature 392: 282–286, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sun BC, Halpern BP. Identification of air phase retronasal and orthonasal odorant pairs. Chem Senses 30: 693–706, 2005.
Takahashi YK, Kurosaki M, Hirono S, Mori K. Topographic representation of odorant molecular features in the rat olfactory bulb. J Neurophysiol 92: 2413–2427, 2004.
Zhao K, Dalton P, Yang GC, Scherer PW. Numerical modeling of turbulent and laminar airflow and odorant transport during sniffing in the human and rat nose. Chem Senses 31: 107–118, 2006.
Zhao K, Scherer PW, Hajiloo SA, Dalton P. Effect of anatomy on human nasal air flow and odorant transport patterns: implications for olfaction. Chem Senses 29: 365–379, 2004.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
