Literature DB >> 21945373

Strain differences in sucrose- and fructose-conditioned flavor preferences in mice.

Alexander Pinhas1, Michael Aviel, Michael Koen, Simon Gurgov, Vanessa Acosta, Michael Israel, Leonid Kakuriev, Elena Guskova, Isabelle Fuzailov, Khalid Touzani, Anthony Sclafani, Richard J Bodnar.   

Abstract

Genetic factors strongly influence the intake and preference for sugar and saccharin solutions in inbred mouse strains. The present study determined if genetic variance also influences the learned preferences for flavors added to sugar solutions. Conditioned flavor preferences (CFPs) are produced in rodents by adding a flavor (CS+) to a sugar solution and a different flavor (CS-) to a saccharin solution (CS-) in one-bottle training trials; the CS+ is subsequently preferred to the CS- when both are presented in saccharin solutions in two-bottle tests. With some sugars (e.g., sucrose), flavor preferences are reinforced by both sweet taste and post-oral nutrient effects, whereas with other sugars (e.g., fructose), sweet taste is the primary reinforcer. Sucrose and fructose were used in three experiments to condition flavor preferences in one outbred (CD-1) and eight inbred strains which have "sensitive" (SWR/J, SJL/J, C57BL/10J, C57BL/6J) or "sub-sensitive" (DBA/2J, BALB/cJ, C3H/HeJ, 129P3/J) sweet taste receptors (T1R2/T1R3). Food-restricted mice of each strain were trained (1 h/day) to drink flavored 16% sucrose (CS+ 16S, Experiment 1), 16% fructose (CS+ 16F, Experiment 2) or 8% fructose+0.2% saccharin (CS+ 8F, Experiment 3) solutions on five alternate days and a differently flavored saccharin solution (0.05% or 0.2%, CS-) on the other five alternating days. The CS+ and CS- flavors were presented in 0.2% saccharin for two-bottle testing over six days. All strains preferred the CS+ 16S to CS- although there were significant strain differences in the magnitude and persistence of the sucrose preference. The strains also differed in the magnitude and persistence of preferences for the CS+ 16F and CS+ 8F flavors over the CS- with two strains failing to prefer the fructose-paired flavors. Sucrose conditioned stronger preferences than did fructose which is attributed to differences in the taste and post-oral actions of the sugars. These differential training intakes may not have influenced the sucrose-CFP because of the post-oral reinforcing actions of sucrose. Overall, sweet sensitive and sub-sensitive mice did not differ in sucrose-CFP, but unexpectedly, the sub-sensitive mice displayed stronger fructose-CFP. This may be related to differential training intakes of CS+ and CS- solutions: sweet sensitive mice consumed more CS- than CS+ during training while sub-sensitive mice consumed more CS+.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21945373      PMCID: PMC3225606          DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.09.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Behav        ISSN: 0031-9384


  38 in total

1.  Flavor preferences conditioned by intragastric fructose and glucose: differences in reinforcement potency.

Authors:  K Ackroff; K Touzani; T K Peets; A Sclafani
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2001-04

Review 2.  Heritable variation in food preferences and their contribution to obesity.

Authors:  D R Reed; A A Bachmanov; G K Beauchamp; M G Tordoff; R A Price
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.805

3.  Inbred mouse strain survey of sucrose intake.

Authors:  Sarah R Lewis; Sabrina Ahmed; Cheryl Dym; Eleonora Khaimova; Benjamin Kest; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2005-08-07

4.  Sweetener preference of C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice.

Authors:  A A Bachmanov; M G Tordoff; G K Beauchamp
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.160

5.  Initial licking responses of mice to sweeteners: effects of tas1r3 polymorphisms.

Authors:  John I Glendinning; Susan Chyou; Ivy Lin; Maika Onishi; Puja Patel; Kun Hao Zheng
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 3.160

6.  Sugar and fat conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J and 129 mice: oral and postoral interactions.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; John I Glendinning
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 3.619

7.  DBA/2J mice develop stronger lithium chloride-induced conditioned taste and place aversions than C57BL/6J mice.

Authors:  F O Risinger; C L Cunningham
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.533

8.  Dopamine D1 and D2 antagonists reduce the acquisition and expression of flavor-preferences conditioned by fructose in rats.

Authors:  Robert M Baker; Mamta J Shah; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.533

9.  Polymorphisms in the taste receptor gene (Tas1r3) region are associated with saccharin preference in 30 mouse strains.

Authors:  D R Reed; S Li; X Li; L Huang; M G Tordoff; R Starling-Roney; K Taniguchi; D B West; J D Ohmen; G K Beauchamp; A A Bachmanov
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Naltrexone does not prevent acquisition or expression of flavor preferences conditioned by fructose in rats.

Authors:  Robert W Baker; Yin Li; Mariel G Lee; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.533

View more
  19 in total

1.  Flavor preferences conditioned by nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners in mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2017-02-10

2.  Flavor preferences conditioned by intragastric glucose but not fructose or galactose in C57BL/6J mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2012-03-14

3.  Genetic relationship between ethanol-induced conditioned place preference and other ethanol phenotypes in 15 inbred mouse strains.

Authors:  Christopher L Cunningham
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 1.912

4.  BALB/c and SWR inbred mice differ in post-oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non-nutritive sweetener tests.

Authors:  Tamar T Kraft; Donald Huang; Melanie Lolier; Deena Warshaw; Sam LaMagna; Elona Natanova; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2015-10-17

5.  Genetic differences in the behavioral organization of binge eating, conditioned food reward, and compulsive-like eating in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J strains.

Authors:  Richard K Babbs; Julia C Kelliher; Julia L Scotellaro; Kimberly P Luttik; Megan K Mulligan; Camron D Bryant
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2018-09-24

6.  Rapid post-oral stimulation of intake and flavor conditioning by glucose and fat in the mouse.

Authors:  Steven Zukerman; Karen Ackroff; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 3.619

7.  Flavor preference conditioning by different sugars in sweet ageusic Trpm5 knockout mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2014-12-12

8.  Maltodextrin and sucrose preferences in sweet-sensitive (C57BL/6J) and subsensitive (129P3/J) mice revisited.

Authors:  Karen Ackroff; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2016-08-12

9.  Double-dissociation of D1 and opioid receptor antagonism effects on the acquisition of sucrose-conditioned flavor preferences in BALB/c and SWR mice.

Authors:  Cheryl T Dym; Tamar T Kraft; Veronica S Bae; Yakov Yakubov; Khalid Touzani; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.533

10.  Dopamine D1 and opioid receptor antagonists differentially reduce the acquisition and expression of fructose-conditioned flavor preferences in BALB/c and SWR mice.

Authors:  Tamar T Kraft; Yakov Yakubov; Donald Huang; Gregory Fitzgerald; Elona Natanova; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2015-07-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.