| Title |
Functional decline of sweet taste sensitivity of colobine monkeys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-018-0679-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emiko Nishi, Nami Suzuki-Hashido, Takashi Hayakawa, Yamato Tsuji, Bambang Suryobroto, Hiroo Imai |
| Abstract |
For many primates, sweet taste is palatable and is an indicator that the food contains carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches, as energy sources. However, we have found that Asian colobine monkeys (lutungs and langurs) have low sensitivity to various natural sugars. Sweet tastes are recognized when compounds bind to the sweet taste receptor TAS1R2/TAS1R3 in the oral cavity; accordingly, we conducted a functional assay using a heterologous expression system to evaluate the responses of Javan lutung (Trachypithecus auratus) TAS1R2/TAS1R3 to various natural sugars. We found that Javan lutung TAS1R2/TAS1R3 did not respond to natural sugars such as sucrose and maltose. We also conducted a behavioral experiment using the silvery lutung (Trachypithecus cristatus) and Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus entellus) by measuring the consumption of sugar-flavored jellies. Consistent with the functional assay results for TAS1R2/TAS1R3, these Asian colobine monkeys showed no preference for sucrose or maltose jellies. These results demonstrate that sweet taste sensitivity to natural sugars is low in Asian colobine monkeys, and this may be related to the specific feeding habits of colobine monkeys. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#460,076
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#43
of 1,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,013
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.