Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 1559–1575 | Cite as

Effectiveness of cardenolides as feeding deterrents toPeromyscus mice

  • John I. Glendinning


I compared the feeding responses of five species ofPeromyscus mice (aztecus, polionotus, melanotis, leucopus, andmaniculatus) to three bitter-tasting cardenolides (ouabain, digoxin, and digitoxin) that differ greatly in lipophilic character.Peromyscus, like other muroid rodents, are unusual in that they can ingest relatively large amounts of cardenolides without adverse physiologic effects. In experiment 1, I determined avoidance thresholds for the three cardenolides with 48 hr, two-choice tests. Mice exhibited large interspecific differences in avoidance threshold, and the interspecific ranking of the thresholds (maniculatus=leucopus >melanotis >polionotus >aztecus) was the same for each of the cardenolides. In experiment 2, I reevaluated the avoidance thresholds, but this time monitored the pattern of intake (i.e., bout lengths) during initial feeding encounters with cardenolidelaced diets. For each cardenolide, mice were subjected to three tests. In test 1, they received a control diet; in test 2, a diet containing the cardenolide at a concentration 1 log, unit below the avoidance threshold (as determined in experiment 1); and in test 3, a diet containing the cardenolide at the avoidance threshold concentration. Results were similar across all species and cardenolide types: Bout lengths in tests 1 and 2 were statistically equal, whereas those in test 3 were significantly shorter than those in test 1. The rapid rejection of cardenolide-laced diets in test 3 is consistent with a preingestive (i.e., gustatory) mechanism underlying the avoidance thresholds. I conclude (1) thatPeromyscus species differ substantially in taste sensitivity to cardenolides and that these differences may influence each species' respective ability to eat cardenolide-laced insects; and (2) that a species' relative taste sensitivity to one cardenolide predicts its sensitivity to other cardenolides.

Key words

Primary taste aversions deterrency taste thresholds bitterness lipophilic character cardenolides ouabain digoxin digitoxin preference tests feeding bouts mice Peromyscus Muridae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arellano-G., A., Glendinning, J.I., Anderson, J.B., andBrower, L.P. 1992. Interspecific comparisons of the foraging dynamics of black-backed orioles and black-headed grosbeaks on overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico, in S.B. Malcolm, M.P. Zalucki (eds.). Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles. In Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asao, M., Iwamura, H., Akamatsu, M., andFujita, T. 1987. Quantitative structure-activity relationships of the bitter thresholds of amino acids, peptides and their derivatives.J. Med. Chem. 30:1973–1879.Google Scholar
  3. Brower, L.P., andCalvert, W.H. 1985. Foraging dynamics of bird predators on overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico.Evolution 39:852–868.Google Scholar
  4. Brower, L.P., andFink, L.S. 1985. A natural toxic defense system: Cardenolides in butterflies versus birds.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 443:171–186.Google Scholar
  5. Detweiler, D.K. 1967. Comparative pharmacology of cardiac glycosides.Fed. Proc. 26:1119–1124.Google Scholar
  6. Fink, L.S., andBrower, L.P. 1981. Predation of unpalatable butterflies.Nature 291:7–13.Google Scholar
  7. Fink, L.S., Brower, L.P., Waide, R.B., andSpitzer, P.R. 1983. Overwintering monarch butterflies as food for insectivorous birds in Mexico.Biotropica 15:151–153.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, R., Griffin, F., andPasamanick, B. 1965. The perception of taste: Some psychophysiological, pathophysiological, pharmacological and clinical aspects, pp. 129–163,in P.H. Hoch, J. Zubin (eds.). Psychopathology of Perception. Grune & Sratton, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Gagnon, J., Roth, J.M., Carroll, M., Hofmann, R., Haycock, K.A., Plamondon, J., Feld-Man, D.S., Jr., andSimpson, J. 1991. SuperANOVA: Accessible General Linear Modeling. Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  10. Gannon, K.S., Smith, J.C., Henderson, R., andHendrick, P. 1992. A system for studying the microstructure of ingestive behavior in mice.Physiol. Behav. 51:515–521.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, R.J. 1978. Lipophilicity and bitter taste.J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 30:531–532.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, R.J. 1979. Lipophilicity and the perception of bitterness.Chem. Senses Flav. 4:275–286.Google Scholar
  13. Glendinning, J.I. 1990. Responses of three mouse species to deterrent chemicals in the monarch butterfly. II. Taste tests using intact monarchs.Chemoecology 1:124–130.Google Scholar
  14. Glendinning, J.I., andBrower, L.P. 1990. Feeding and breeding responses of five mice species to overwintering aggregations of the monarch butterfly.J. Anim. Ecol. 59:1091–1112.Google Scholar
  15. Glendinning, J.I., andSmith, J.C. 1990. A moment-by-moment comparison of intake of five bitter compounds by Sprague-Dawley rats.Chem. Senses 15:584.Google Scholar
  16. Glendinning, J.I., Brower, L.P., andMontgomery, C.A. 1990. Responses of three mouse species to deterrent chemicals in the monarch butterfly. I. Taste and toxicity tests using artificial diets laced with digitoxin or monocrotaline.Chemoecology 1:114–123.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, M.J., Bartoshuk, L.M., Cain, W.S., andStevens, J.C. 1975. PTC taste blindness and the taste of caffeine.Nature 253:442–443.Google Scholar
  18. Koyama, N., andKurihara, K. 1972. Mechanism of bitter taste reception: Interaction of bitter compounds with monolayers of lipids from bovine circumvallate papillae.Biochim. Biophys. Acta 288:22–26.Google Scholar
  19. Lauterbach, F. 1981. Intestinal absorption and secretion of cardiac glycosides, pp. 105–139,in K. Greeff, (ed.). Cardiac Glycosides, Part II: Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacology. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Malcolm, S.B., andBrower, L.P. 1989. Evolutionary and ecological implications of cardenolide Sequestration in the monarch butterfly.Experientia 45:284–294.Google Scholar
  21. Malcolm, S.B., Cockrell, B.J., andBrower, L.P. 1989. Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch butterflies reared on the common milkweed,Asclepias syriaca L.J. Chem. Ecol. 15:819–853.Google Scholar
  22. Marty, M.M. 1983. Disposition and metabolism of milkweed (Asclepiadaceae) cardenolides in monarch butterfly larvae,Danaus plexippus, and in a predator,Peromyscus maniculatus. PhD dissertation. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, L.V., andScudder, G.G.E. 1985. Selective sequestration of milkweed (Asclepias sp.) cardenolides inOncopeltus fasciatus (Dallas) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae).J. Chem. Ecol. 11:667–687.Google Scholar
  24. Seiber, J.N., Brower, L.P., Lee, S.M., McChesney, M.M., Cheung, H.T.A., Nelson, C.J., andWatson, T.R. 1986. Cardenolide connection between overwintering monarch butterflies from Mexico and their larval food plant,Asclepias syriaca.J. Chem. Ecol. 12:1157–1170.Google Scholar
  25. Slansky, F.J. 1980. Quantitative food utilization and reproductive allocation by adult milkweed bugs,Oncopeltus fasciatus.Physiol. Entomol. 5:73–86.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, J.C. 1988. Behavioral measures of the taste of sucrose in the rat, pp. 205–214, in I.J. Miller, Jr. (ed.). The Beidler Symposiun on Taste and Smell: A Festschrift to Lloyd Beidler. Book Service Associates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  27. Tanimura, S., andMattes, R.D. 1989. Correlation between bitter taste sensitivity and consumption of bitter substances, pp. 171–174,in Y. Kurihara (ed.). Proceedings of the 23rd Japanese Symposium on Taste and Smell. Japanese Association for the Study of Taste and Smell, Gifu, Japan.Google Scholar
  28. Tatken, R.L., andLewis, R.J., Sr. 1983. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1981–82, Volume 3. United States Department of Health and Human Sciences, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  29. Whitney, G., Maggio, J.C., andHarder, D.B. 1990. Manifestations of the major gene influencing sucrose octaacetate (SOA) tasting among mice: Classic taste qualities.Chem. Senses 15:243–252.Google Scholar
  30. Whitney, G., Harder, D.B., Gannon, K.S., andMaggio, J.C. 1991. Congenic lines differ in ability to taste sucrose octaacetate, pp. 243–262, in C.J. Wysocki and M.R. Kare (eds.). Chemical Senses, Volume 3, Genetics of Perception and Communication. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Wolkowski, Z.W., Moccatti, D., Heymans, F., andGodfroid, J. 1977. A quantitative structureactivity approach to chemoreception: Importance of lipophilic properties.J. Theor. Biol. 66:181–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • John I. Glendinning
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations