Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 141, Issue 3, pp 297–301 | Cite as

Gustatory responses of the cockroach, house fly, and gerbils to methyl glycosides

  • William JakinovichJr.
  • Dorothy Sugarman
  • Vasiliki Vlahopoulos


Behavioral taste responses to sucrose and methyl glycosides were observed in the cockroach,Periplaneta americana and the fly,Musca domestica. In addition, the integrated taste responses to stimulation of the tongue by the same chemicals were recorded from the intact chorda tympani nerve in four species of gerbils (Meriones libycus, M. shawi, M. unguiculatus andPsammomys obesus). We observed the following:
  1. 1.

    Sucrose was the most effective stimulant.

  2. 2.

    Among the anomers, methyl α-D-glucopyranoside was more effective than methylβ-D-glucopyranoside (MBD-GLU).

  3. 3.

    Among the epimers, methylα-D-glucopyranoside (MAD-GLU) was more effective than methylα-D-mannopyranoside (MAD-MAN), methylα-D-allopyranoside (MAD-ALLO) or methylα-D-galactopyranoside (MAD-GAL).

  4. 4.

    Compared to the fly which responds only to sucrose and MAD-GLU to any extent, the cockroach responded positively to all the compounds tested except MBD-GLU and MAD-ALLO.

  5. 5.

    Among the gerbils, the effectiveness rank of the epimers is MAD-GLU > MAD-MAN > MAD GAL except forM. shawi where the ranking is MAD-GLU > MAD-GAL > MAD-MAN.



Methyl Sucrose Glycoside Musca Domestica Methyl Glycoside 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold WN (1968) The selection of sucrose as the translocate of higher plants. J Theor Biol 21:13–20Google Scholar
  2. Birch GG (1976) Structural relationships of sugars to taste. Crit Rev Fd Sci Nutr 8:57–95Google Scholar
  3. Birch GG, Cowell ND, Eyton D (1970) A quantitative investigation of Shallenberger's sweetness hypotheses. J Food Technol 50:277–280Google Scholar
  4. Birch GG, Mylyvaganam AR (1976) Evidence for the proximity of sweet and bitter receptor sites. Nature 260:632–634Google Scholar
  5. Dethier VG (1955) The physiology and histology of the contact chemoreceptors of the blowfly. Q Rev Biol 30:348–371Google Scholar
  6. Dethier VG, Kuch JH (1971) Electrophysiological studies of gustation in lepidopterous larvae. I. Comparative sensitivity to sugars, amino acids, and glycosides. Z Vergl Physiol 72:343–363Google Scholar
  7. Evans ME, Angyal SJ (1972) Complex of carbohydrates with metal cations Part II. Glycosidations of D-allose in the presence of strontium and calcium ions. Carbohydr Res 25:43–48Google Scholar
  8. Frings H (1946) Gustatory thresholds for sucrose and electrolytes for the cockroach,Periplaneta americana (L.). J Exp Zool 10:23–50Google Scholar
  9. Frisch K von (1935) Über den Geschmackssinn der Biene. Z Vergl Physiol 21:1–156Google Scholar
  10. Hanamori T, Shiraishi A, Kijima H, Morita H (1972) Stimulation of labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by glucosides. Z Vergl Physiol 76:115–124Google Scholar
  11. Hanamori T, Shiraishi A, Kijima H, Morita H (1974) Structure of effective monosaccharides in stimulation of the sugar receptor of the fly. Chem Senses Flavor 1:147–166Google Scholar
  12. Hasset CC, Dethier VG, Gans J (1950) A comparison of nutritive values and taste thresholds of carbohydrates for the blowfly. Biol Bull 99:446–453Google Scholar
  13. Ishikawa S (1967) Maxillary chemoreceptors in the silkworm. In: Hayashi T (ed) Olfaction and taste II. Pergamon Press, Oxford pp 761–777Google Scholar
  14. Jakinovich W Jr, Goldstein IJ (1976) Stimulation of the gerbils gustatory receptors by monosaccharides. Brain Res 110:491–504Google Scholar
  15. Jakinovich W Jr, Oakley B (1975) Comparitive gustatory response in four species of Gerbilline rodents. J Comp Physiol 99:89–101Google Scholar
  16. Jakinovich W Jr, Goldstein IJ, Baumgarten RJ von, Agranoff BW (1971) Sugar receptor specificity in the fleshfly,Sarcophaga bullata. Brain Res 35:369–378Google Scholar
  17. Jakinovich W Jr, Goldstein IJ, Oakley B (1975) Taste preference aversion of the Mongolian gerbil to methyl mannosides. Neurosci Abstr, 5th Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimura L, Beidler LM (1961) Microelectrode study of taste receptors of rat and hamster. J Cell Comp Physiol 58:131–140Google Scholar
  19. Minnich DE (1921) An experimental study of the tarsal chemoreceptors of two nymphalid butterflies. J Exp Biol 33:173–203Google Scholar
  20. Noma A, Sato M, Tsuzuki Y (1974) Taste effectiveness of anomers of sugars and glycosides as revealed from hamster taste responses. Comp Biochem Physiol 48A:249–262Google Scholar
  21. Pazur JH (1970) Oligosaccharides. In: Pigman W, Horton D (eds) The carbohydrates: Chemistry and biochemistry. Academic Press, New York, pp 69–137Google Scholar
  22. Pflumm WW (1972) Molecular structure and stimulating effectiveness of Oligosaccharides and glycosides. In: Schneider D (ed) Olfaction and taste IV. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, pp 364–370Google Scholar
  23. Wieczorek H (1976) The glycoside receptor of the larvae ofMamestra brassicae L. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). J Comp Physiol 106:153–176Google Scholar
  24. Wieczorek H (1978) Biochemical and behavioral studies of sugar reception in the cockroach. J Comp Physiol 124:353–356Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • William JakinovichJr.
    • 1
  • Dorothy Sugarman
    • 1
  • Vasiliki Vlahopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Herbert H. Lehman CollegeThe City University of New YorkBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations