ringo
Uploaded by
20 SLIDES
336 VUES
200LIKES

Quantifying Odor Tuning Curves in Water-Deprived Mice: Insights from ORN Responses

DESCRIPTION

This study investigates the tuning curve shapes of olfactory receptors in water-deprived mice through a two-choice test involving familiar odor cues (Methyl Butyrate and Methyl Valerate). Using a water delivery system, we trained the mice to associate specific odors with rewards. Different concentrations of odors were tested to quantify performance differences between wild-type and heterozygous mice. Results indicate that wild-type mice demonstrate superior performance at certain concentrations, revealing crucial insights into olfactory processing and the impact of disrupted projections on odor perception.

1 / 20

Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Quantifying Odor Tuning Curves in Water-Deprived Mice: Insights from ORN Responses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Wild type Kir Mice ORNs G MC ORNs G MC

  2. Quantify the tuning curve shape by computing S (Sparseness) Index. (Michelle L Schlief & Rachel Wilson, 2007)

  3. Interval Water Delivery Water Port IR Cross Two-choice Test • Initial Training • Motivation to water- Training water-deprived (about 1.5 ml per day) mice. • Mice familiar with the boxes. • Interest to holes- Mice were rewarded with water for every nose poke into the sniff port. • Training 1- Associate the odor with the water port. • a. Odor A with water A. • b. Odor B with water B. • 5. Two choice WaterA Odor WaterB 3.

  4. Methyl Butyrate Methyl Valerate E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6

  5. E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 E-2 Wt (normal projection) mice show better performance than Het (disrupted projection) at some concentration.

  6. Cross-habitation Odor presenting sequence: MO MO MO MO MO OdorA OdorA OdorA OdorA OdorA OdorB OdorB Waiting time = 5 min, Odor presenting duration = 2 min, Interval = 3 mins Flow rate: total: 300ml/min each box, 30ml/min for odor deliver each box.

  7. Amyl Acetate Vs Heptanal B6, 12mice

  8. Methyl Butyrate vs Methyl Valerate B6, 12mice

  9. Amyl Acetate Vs Heptanal WT/HET 9 animals

  10. Amyl Acetate vs Heptanal HET/HET 9 animals

  11. Methyl Butyrate vs Methyl Valerate WT/HET 9 animals

  12. Methyl Butyrate vs Methyl Valerate HET/HET 9 animals

  13. Ultrasonic vocalization

  14. .contact with awake female

  15. Mixture Dilution Amyl Acetate vs. Heptanal

More Related
SlideServe
Audio
Live Player
Audio Wave
Play slide audio to activate visualizer