Modulation of taste sensitivity by the olfactory system in <i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An animal’s sensory percepts are not raw representations of the outside world. Rather, they are constructs influenced by many factors including the species, past experiences, and internal states. One source of perceptual variability that has fascinated researchers for decades is the effect of losing one sensory modality on the performance of another 1 . Typically, dysfunction of one sense has been associated with elevated function of others, creating a type of sensory homeostasis 2 . For example, people with vision loss have been reported to demonstrate enhanced tactile and auditory functions, and deafness has been associated with heightened attention to visual inputs for communication 3,4 . By contrast, smell and taste—the two chemosensory modalities—are so intrinsically linked in their contributions to flavor that loss of smell is often anecdotally reported as leading to deficiencies in taste 5–8 . However, human studies specifically examining taste are mixed and generally do not support this widely-held belief, and data from animal models is largely lacking 9 . Here, we examine the impact of olfactory dysfunction on taste sensitivity in Drosophila melanogaster . We find that partial loss of olfactory input (hyposmia) dramatically enhances flies’ sensitivity to both appetitive (sugar, low salt) and aversive (bitter, high salt) tastes. This taste enhancement is starvation-independent and occurs following suppression of either first- or second-order olfactory neurons. Moreover, optogenetically increasing olfactory inputs reduces taste sensitivity. Finally, we observed that taste enhancement is not encoded in the activity of peripheral gustatory sensory neurons, but is associated with elevated sugar responses in protocerebrum anterior medial (PAM) dopaminergic neurons of the mushroom bodies. These results suggest a level of homeostatic control over chemosensation, where flies compensate for lack of olfactory input by increasing the salience of taste information.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".