Expression of Aquaporin Water Channels in Rat Taste Buds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to gain insight into the molecular mechanisms that allow taste cells to respond to changes in their osmotic environment, we have used primarily immunocytochemical and molecular approaches to look for evidence of the presence of aquaporin-like water channels in taste cells. Labeling of isolated taste buds from the fungiform, foliate, and vallate papillae in rat tongue with antibodies against several of the aquaporins (AQPs) revealed the presence of AQP1, AQP2, and AQP5 in taste cells from these areas. AQP3 antibodies failed to label isolated taste buds from any of the papillae. There was an apparent difference in the regional localization of AQP labeling within the taste bud. Antibodies against AQP1 and AQP2 labeled predominantly the basolateral membrane, whereas the AQP5 label was clearly evident on both the apical and basolateral membranes of cells within the taste bud. Double labeling revealed that AQP1 and AQP2 labeled many, but not all, of the same taste cells. Similar double-labeling experiments with anti-AQP2 and anti-AQP5 clearly showed that AQP5 was expressed on or near the apical membranes whereas AQP2 was absent from this area. The presence of these 3 types of AQPs in taste buds but not in non-taste bud-containing epithelia was confirmed using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Experiments using patch clamp recording showed that the AQP inhibitor, tetraethylammonium, significantly reduced hypoosmotic-induced currents in rat taste cells. We hypothesize that the AQPs may play roles both in the water movement underlying compensatory mechanisms for changes in extracellular osmolarity and, in the case of AQP5 in particular, in the gustatory response to water.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".