Literature DB >> 25497884

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

Anthony Sclafani1, Karen Ackroff2.   

Abstract

Knockout (KO) mice missing the taste signaling protein Trpm5 have greatly attenuated sweetener preferences but develop strong preferences for glucose in 24-h tests, which is attributed to post-oral sugar conditioning. Trpm5 KO mice express mild preferences for galactose but no preferences for fructose in 24-h tests, which suggests that these sugars differ in their post-oral reinforcing effects. Here we investigated sugar-conditioned flavor preferences in Trpm5 KO and C57BL/6J wildtype (B6) mice. The mice were trained to consume a flavored (CS+, e.g. grape) 8% sugar solution and flavored (CS-, e.g., cherry) water on alternating days followed by two-bottle choice tests with CS+ vs. CS- flavors in water and with unflavored sugar vs. water. The KO mice displayed strong preferences (>80%) for the CS+ glucose and CS+ galactose but not for the CS+ fructose flavor. They also preferred glucose and galactose, but not fructose to water. In contrast, the B6 mice preferred all three CS+ flavors to the CS- flavor, and all three sugars to water. In tests with the non-metabolizable sugar α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside (MDG), the KO and B6 mice preferred 8% MDG to water but did not prefer the CS+ 8% MDG to CS-. However, they preferred a CS+ flavor mixed with 4% MDG over the CS- flavor. Trpm5 KO mice also preferred galactose and MDG to fructose in direct choice tests. The Trpm5 KO data indicate that glucose and, to a lesser extent, galactose and MDG have post-oral reinforcing actions that stimulate intake and preference while fructose has a much weaker effect. The CS+ flavor and sugar preferences of B6 mice may be mediated by the sweet taste and/or post-oral actions of the various sugars. Glucose, galactose, and MDG, but not fructose, are ligands for the sodium-glucose transporter 1 (SGLT1) which is implicated in post-oral sugar conditioning in B6 mice.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  C57BL/6J mice; Flavor-nutrient learning; Flavor-taste learning; Fructose; Galactose; Glucose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25497884      PMCID: PMC4313566          DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.12.027

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

2.  Coding of sweet, bitter, and umami tastes: different receptor cells sharing similar signaling pathways.

Authors:  Yifeng Zhang; Mark A Hoon; Jayaram Chandrashekar; Ken L Mueller; Boaz Cook; Dianqing Wu; Charles S Zuker; Nicholas J P Ryba
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2003-02-07       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Detection of sweet and umami taste in the absence of taste receptor T1r3.

Authors:  Sami Damak; Minqing Rong; Keiko Yasumatsu; Zaza Kokrashvili; Vijaya Varadarajan; Shiying Zou; Peihua Jiang; Yuzo Ninomiya; Robert F Margolskee
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-07-17       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Stimulation of the gerbil's gustatory receptors by monosaccharides.

Authors:  W Jakinovich; I J Goldstein
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1976-07-16       Impact factor: 3.252

5.  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

6.  The relative taste effectiveness of various sugars and sugar alcohols for the rat.

Authors:  A Noma; J Goto; M Sato
Journal:  Kumamoto Med J       Date:  1971-03-31

7.  Sucrose-conditioned flavor preferences in sweet ageusic T1r3 and Calhm1 knockout mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Philippe Marambaud; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2013-12-31

8.  Taste aversion to sugars by the gerbil.

Authors:  W Jakinovich
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1982-06

9.  Comparison of different dietary sugars as inducers of intestinal sugar transporters.

Authors:  D H Solberg; J M Diamond
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1987-04

10.  Fructose-conditioned flavor preferences in male and female rats: effects of sweet taste and sugar concentration.

Authors:  Karen Ackroff; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.868

View more
  7 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.  Ghrelin signaling is not essential for sugar or fat conditioned flavor preferences in mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Khalid Touzani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2015-05-21

3.  Fat preference deficits and experience-induced recovery in global taste-deficient Trpm5 and Calhm1 knockout mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2022-01-06

4.  Residual Glucose Taste in T1R3 Knockout but not TRPM5 Knockout Mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Steven Zukerman; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2020-05-15

5.  Chronic Intake of Commercial Sweeteners Induces Changes in Feeding Behavior and Signaling Pathways Related to the Control of Appetite in BALB/c Mice.

Authors:  Alberto A Barrios-Correa; José A Estrada; Caroline Martel; Martin Olivier; Rubén López-Santiago; Irazú Contreras
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-01-28       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Behavioral Evidence for More than One Taste Signaling Pathway for Sugars in Rats.

Authors:  Lindsey A Schier; Alan C Spector
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Galactose protects against cell damage in mouse models of acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Shuang Peng; Julia V Gerasimenko; Tetyana M Tsugorka; Oleksiy Gryshchenko; Sujith Samarasinghe; Ole H Petersen; Oleg V Gerasimenko
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 14.808

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.