The number, but not size, of FFP taste buds is reduced following fractionated irradiation, while both size and numbers are diminished in the CVP. The area of KCNQ1+ FFP taste bud profiles (green) was used as a proxy for taste bud size, and was unaffected in irradiated mice compared to controls (A,C–F). The area of taste bud profiles was significantly smaller in irradiated CVP compared to controls at 3 and 10 dpi, and recovered at 21 dpi (G,I–L). The number of taste bud profiles remained unchanged in the CVP at 3 and 10 dpi, and was slightly reduced at 21 dpi (H,I–L). Fewer FFP taste buds were present in irradiated tongues at 10 and 21 dpi (B). Data are represented as violin plots with median (blue line) and 1st and 3rd quartile (red lines), or mean ± SEM. Mann & Whitney test in violin plots, Student’s t-test in mean ± SEM graph (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Taste bud Eqdiameter (see methods) in control FFP was not significantly different than irradiated FFP at any time points (Mann & Whitney test, Supplementary Fig. S1A) but taste bud Eqdiameter was significantly smaller in irradiated CVP taste buds at 3 and 10 dpi (Mann & Whitney test, Supplementary Fig. S1B); therefore, Abercrombie correction was applied to counts of CVP but not FFP taste buds (uncorrected data shown in Supplementary Fig. S1C). Representative pictures are compressed confocal z-stacks. Scale bars 20 µm in (C), applies to (D–F), 50 µm in (I), applies to (J–L). FFP Control vs IR mice 3 dpi, N = 4 vs 3; 10 dpi, N = 4 vs 4; 21 dpi N = 3 vs 4. CVP Control vs IR mice 3 dpi, N = 4 vs 3; 10 dpi, N = 6 vs 6; 21 dpi N = 6 vs 7. (A) Control vs IR FFP taste bud profiles 3 dpi, n = 81 vs 59; 10 dpi, n = 83 vs 51; 21 dpi, n = 51 vs 49. (B) Control vs IR FFP section profiles 3 dpi, n = 30 vs 26; 10 dpi, n = 40 vs 40; 21 dpi, n = 30 vs 38. (G) Control vs IR CVP taste bud profiles 3 dpi, n = 350 vs 244; 10 dpi, n = 530 vs 505; 21 dpi, n = 525 vs 495. (H) Control vs IR trench profiles 3 dpi, n = 30 vs 24; 10 dpi, n = 48 vs 48; 21 dpi, n = 43 vs 46.