| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
1 Division of Oral Physiology,
2 Removable Prosthodontics, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 5274, Gakkocho-dori 2, Niigata 951-8514, Japan; and
3 Division of Orthodontics and Biomedical Engineering, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 1-7-1, Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8588, Japan;
*corresponding author, yamada{at}dent.niigata-u.ac.jp
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: freely behaving mouse • masticatory jaw movement • masticatory muscle activity • chewing rhythm • food texture
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In contrast, many novel genes have been identified from human genome and other studies. The next important step is to identify the function of a particular gene and its link to human diseases. Gene-targeted mice are useful models for studying the consequences of overexpression, underexpression, and complete inactivation of a particular gene. Such animal models have been developed recently to study genetic links to Alzheimer’s disease (Hsiao et al., 1996) and Huntington’s disease (Carter et al., 1999). Among gene-targeted animals are serotonin receptor-deficient mice (Tecott et al., 1995) that exhibit eating disorders and epilepsy. Serotonin has also been suggested to be linked with oral dyskinesias (Eberle-Wang et al., 1996) that often result from dysfunction of the basal ganglia.
Therefore, genetically modified mice are expected to enhance our understanding of neural and motor disorders in the craniomandibular system. Little research has been conducted on this system other than to describe the basic parameters of chewing in the mouse (Kobayashi et al., 2002). The present study describes precise ingestive movements in freely behaving mice from recordings of three-dimensional jaw movement trajectories and masticatory muscle activities during the chewing of foods of different consistencies.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
To synchronize the jaw movement and EMG signals, we stored all of the analog signals in computer memory through a 12-bit analog/digital (A/D) converter. Because the sampling rate was fixed at 100 Hz for the jaw-tracking system (Koga et al., 2001), which was not enough to identify the duration of muscle bursts, we used EMG recordings to evaluate the amplitude of muscle bursts. For this, EMG signals were high-pass-filtered (cut-off frequency of 100 Hz), full-wave-rectified, and smoothed before the signals were forwarded to the A/D converter. For each animal, analyses were carried out on 20 chewing cycles in which foods were crushed between the upper and lower molars. The average and standard error of the data from all the animals tested were obtained from the averages of the 20 cycles of each animal (i.e., means’ mean and SEM). Parametric data were analyzed by paired t tests. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
. The masticatory sequence began with the mouse opening its jaw widely to ingest the food. The animal held an adequate amount of food between its forefeet, then stabilized its head in the upright position for further food processing. The sequence could be divided into two motor behaviors (food intake and mastication) according to the jaw movement orbits. During food intake, the jaw was lowered, protruded, and then withdrawn with little vertical fluctuation, and this stage was characterized by relatively low MAS activity. Food intake then changed to mastication, apparent by large antero-posterior movements. Cycles in mastication (the so-called masticatory series) were characterized by large anterior movements and regular jaw movement trajectories. At the end of a masticatory series, the jaw lowered as seen in the beginning of the sequence for food intake.
|
). A large anterior movement was obvious in the sagittal plane, and a subsequent lateral movement was obvious in the frontal plane. Chewing movements in the sagittal plane showed three distinct strokes with directional changes. Stroke 1 began at the most protrusive jaw position and ended at the maximum opening position in a single masticatory cycle. The jaw shifted laterally toward the chewing side. After stroke 1, stroke 2 closed the jaw. The jaw then moved laterally toward the centric occlusion. After stroke 2, stroke 3 protruded the jaw. In the middle of stroke 1, a small anterior movement could be seen during bread chewing (Fig. 2B) that was not apparent during pellet chewing (Fig. 2A).
|
When individual stroke durations were closely observed, the mean duration of stroke 3 varied significantly (p < 0.01) between 38 ± 5 msec (mean ± SEM, n = 5) (soft food) and 64 ± 5 msec (hard food). In contrast, the mean duration of stroke 1 was significantly shorter (p < 0.05) for the hard food: The difference was 33 msec between soft food (93 ± 20 msec) and hard food (60 ± 10 msec). In contrast, the mean duration of stroke 2 showed no significant differences between foods: The difference was only 9 msec. The mean total cycle (TC) duration of chewing varied between 188 ± 19 msec (hard food) and 204 ± 37 msec (soft food), but there were no significant differences.
Shown in Fig. 3 is an example of both jaw movements and EMG recordings while a mouse was chewing pellets (Fig. 3A) and bread (Fig. 3B). Rhythmic activities of the MAS and DIG muscles were observed; however, the mean peak amplitudes of the two muscles were different between foods. Although there were no significant differences, the amplitudes of the two muscles were just opposite—i.e., the MAS activity during pellet chewing (3.80 ± 0.52 mV) was greater than during bread chewing (3.55 ± 0.58 mV), while the DIG activity of jaw opening was greater during bread chewing (1.55 ± 0.66 mV) than during pellet chewing (1.37 ± 0.52 mV).
|
). With the light load on the jaw from bread chewing, only the duration of stroke 1 proved to be a factor affecting TC duration (r = 0.90, slope = 1.33). With the heavy load on the jaw from pellet chewing, only the duration of stroke 2 was determined to be a factor affecting TC duration (r = 0.73, slope = 1.06).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Patterns of jaw movements are different among species. Fundamental characteristics of jaw movements of the rat are antero-posterior movements with few lateral excursions (Hiiemae, 1968). In the rabbit, however, jaw movements show large unilateral excursions (Morimoto et al., 1985; Schwartz et al., 1989; Yamada and Yamamura, 1996). Jaw movements in the mouse were found, by two-dimensional analysis (Kobayashi et al., 2002), to be essentially the same as those in the rat, but our study, by three-dimensional analysis, clarified the antero-posterior movements and found a great deal of lateral movement. It is novel that mice have lateral jaw movements similar to those of humans.
We could distinguish a mouse’s masticatory sequence, from one food intake event to the next, by the pattern of jaw movements. We could divide the chewing cycle into three strokes on the basis of directional changes of the movement in the sagittal plane. Stroke 1 was an opening movement, stroke 2 was a closing movement, and stroke 3 was a protruding movement. Because the protruding stroke coincided with great MAS activity and lasted longer during the chewing of hard food, it was considered to be comparable with the so-called power stroke of the human chewing cycle. In the middle of the opening stroke, a small anterior movement could be seen during bread chewing, in which the food texture was soft and somewhat sticky, but that same movement was not apparent during pellet chewing. This additional movement may account for the significantly longer duration of the opening stroke during the chewing of soft food than of hard food.
Both MAS and DIG muscle activities were affected by food consistency. The closing muscle was more active when the animals were chewing the pellet than while they chewed the bread. The hard food consistency may have required more power activity from the MAS. In contrast, the gape size was greater when they chewed the bread than when they chewed the pellet. The soft food consistency may have required more jaw opening activity from the DIG.
The change in the TC duration or the chewing rhythm may not necessarily vary equally over several chewing cycles. In the rabbit, the duration of the opening stroke is reportedly correlated with the TC duration during the chewing of soft food, while the duration of the closing stroke is correlated with the TC duration when hard food is chewed (Yamada and Yamamura, 1996). Although the jaw movement pattern during chewing, especially in stroke 3 (the power stroke), in the mouse showed some difference from that in the rabbit, the present results suggest that the sensory feedback mechanism controlling the masticatory movement may work in the mouse as has been suggested in the rabbit.
Our study demonstrated that although a mouse is small, it can be used as a model for studying masticatory disorders for two basic reasons: (a) jaw motor behaviors could be identified from the movement orbit and muscle activity, and (b) the contribution of sensory feedback on jaw behaviors could be evaluated. Making comparisons between the normal mouse and the transgenic mouse with a behavioral dysfunction will greatly assist in the investigation of brain-behavior relationships and may facilitate our understanding of the molecular genetic pathology of oral motor disorders.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received December 6, 2001; Last revision September 23, 2002; Accepted January 23, 2003
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Carter RJ, Lione LA, Humby T, Mangiarini L, Mahal A, Bates GP, et al. (1999). Characterization of progressive motor deficits in mice transgenic for the human Huntington’s disease mutation. J Neurosci 19:3248–3257.
Eberle-Wang K, Lucki I, Chesselet MF (1996). A role for the subthalamic nucleus in 5-HT2c-induced oral dyskinesia. Neuroscience 72:117–128.[ISI][Medline]
Hiiemae KM (1968). A cinefluorographic study of mandibular movement during feeding in the rat (Rattus norvegicus). J Zool Lond 154:139–154.
Hsiao K, Chapman P, Nilsen S, Eckman C, Harigaya Y, Younkin S, et al. (1996). Correlative memory deficits, Abeta elevation, and amyloid plaques in transgenic mice. Science 274:99–102.
Jacquin JD, Borday V, Schneider-Maunoury S, Topilko P, Ghilini G, Kato F, et al. (1996). Reorganization of pontine rhythmogenic neuronal networks in Krox-20 knockout mice. Neuron 17:747–758.[ISI][Medline]
Kobayashi M, Masuda Y, Fujimoto Y, Matsuya T, Yamamura K, Yamada Y, et al. (2002). Electrophysiological analysis of rhythmic jaw movements in the freely moving mouse. Physiol Behav 75:377–385.[Medline]
Koga Y, Yoshida N, Kobayashi K, Okayasu I, Yamada Y (2001). Development of a three-dimensional jaw-tracking system implanted in the freely moving mouse. Med Eng Phys 23:201–206.[ISI][Medline]
Lund JP (1991). Mastication and its control by the brain stem. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2:33–64.
Morimoto T, Inoue T, Nakamura T, Kawamura Y (1985). Characteristics of rhythmic jaw movements of the rabbit. Arch Oral Biol 30:673–677.[ISI][Medline]
Nakamura Y, Katakura N (1995). Generation of masticatory rhythm in the brainstem. Neurosci Res 23:1–19.[ISI][Medline]
Picciotto MR, Wickman K (1998). Using knockout and transgenic mice to study neurophysiology and behavior. Physiol Rev 78:1131–1163.
Schwartz G, Enomoto S, Valiquette C, Lund JP (1989). Mastication in the rabbit: a description of movement and muscle activity. J Neurophysiol 62:273–287.
Tecott LH, Sun LM, Akana SF, Strack AM, Lowenstein DH, Dallman MF, et al. (1995). Eating disorder and epilepsy in mice lacking 5-HT2c serotonin receptors. Nature 374:542–546.[Medline]
Thexton AJ, Hiiemae KM, Crompton AW (1980). Food consistency and bite size as regulators of jaw movement during feeding in the cat. J Neurophysiol 44:456–474.
Yamada Y, Yamamura K (1996). Possible factors which may affect phase durations in the natural chewing rhythm. Brain Res 706:237–242.[ISI][Medline]
Yamada Y, Haraguchi N, Oi K, Sasaki M (1988). Two-dimensional jaw tracking and EMG recording system implanted in the freely moving rabbit. J Neurosci Methods 23:257–261.[ISI][Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
