Olfactory sensitivity to amino acids in the blackspot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo): a comparison between olfactory receptor recording techniques in seawater
- 239 Downloads
The current study investigated the olfactory sensitivity of the blackspot sea bream to amino acids, odorants associated with food detection in fish, and compared the efficacy of two different experimental methods: multi-unit recording from the olfactory nerve and the electro-olfactogram (EOG). Twenty essential amino acids plus l-DOPA evoked clear, concentration-dependent olfactory responses using both methods, with estimated thresholds of 10−8.5–10−6.2 M (nerve recording) and 10−7.5–10−4.8 M (EOG). The most potent amino acids were l-cysteine, l-methionine (both sulphur-containing), l-alanine, l-leucine (both neutral), l-glutamine (amide-containing) and l-serine (hydroxyl-containing). The least potent were l-proline (secondary α-amino group), the aromatic amino acids and glycine (simplest). Although the rank order of olfactory potency was similar for the two methods used, and the calculated thresholds given by the two methods were positively correlated, the sensitivity of the EOG was consistently lower than multi-unit recording by approximately one order of magnitude, presumably due to the electrical shunting effect of seawater. As in freshwater, the EOG could be a valid method for comparing olfactory potency of different odorants in stenohaline marine fish; however, for absolute ‘biological’ thresholds, a more invasive recording technique, such as multi-unit recording from the olfactory nerve, should be used.
KeywordsOlfaction Amino acid Sea bream Electro-olfactogram (EOG) Electrophysiology
Analysis of variance
Ethyl-3-aminobenzoate methanesulfonate salt
This research was supported by the Pluriannual Funding Program of the Science and Technology Foundation (FCT), Portugal. Fish care and experimentation complied with the “Principles of animal care” (No. 86-23, revised 1985) of the National Institute of Health (USA) and Portuguese national laws.
- Brünnich MT (1768) Ichthyologia massiliensis. Roth & Proft, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Caprio J, Derby CD (2008) Aquatic animal models in the study of chemoreception. In: Basbum AI, Kaneko A, Shepherd GM, Westheimer G (eds) Olfaction and taste, vol 4. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 97–134Google Scholar
- Hanson LR, Sorensen PW, Cohen Y (1998) Sex pheromones and amino acids evoke distinctly different spatial patterns of electrical activity in the goldfish olfactory bulb. In: Murphy C (ed) Olfaction and taste Xii—an international symposium, vol 855. New York Acad Sciences, New York, pp 521–524Google Scholar
- Wheeler A (1978) Key to the fishes of Northern Europe. Frederick Warne Publishers Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Higher Education, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Zielinski BS, Hara TJ (2006) Olfaction. In: Hara TJ, Zielinski BS (eds) Sensory systems neuroscience, vol 25. Elsevier, New York, pp 1–43Google Scholar