BACKGROUND: Intake of added sugar has been shown to correlate with many human metabolic diseases, and rodent models have characterized numerous aspects of the resulting disease phenotypes. However, there is a controversy about whether differential health effects occur because of the consumption of either of the two common types of added sugar-high-fructose corn syrup (fructose and glucose monosaccharides; F/G) or table sugar (sucrose, a fructose and glucose disaccharide). OBJECTIVES: We tested the equivalence of sucrose- vs. F/G-containing diets on mouse (Mus musculus) longevity, reproductive success, and social dominance. METHODS: We fed wild-derived mice, outbred mice descended from wild-caught ancestors, a diet in which 25% of the calories came from either an equal ratio of F/G or an isocaloric amount of sucrose (both diets had 63% of total calories as carbohydrates). Exposure lasted 40 wk, starting at weaning (21 d of age), and then mice (104 females and 56 males) were released into organismal performances assays-seminatural enclosures where mice competed for territories, resources, and mates for 32 wk. Within enclosures all mice consumed the F/G diet. RESULTS: Females initially fed the F/G diet experienced a mortality rate 1.9 times the rate (P = 0.012) and produced 26.4% fewer offspring than females initially fed sucrose (P = 0.001). This reproductive deficiency was present before mortality differences, suggesting the F/G diet was causing physiologic performance deficits prior to mortality. No differential patterns in survival, reproduction, or social dominance were observed in males, indicating a sex-specific outcome of exposure. CONCLUSION: This study provides experimental evidence that the consumption of human-relevant levels of F/G is more deleterious than an isocaloric amount of sucrose for key organism-level health measures in female mice.
BACKGROUND: Intake of added sugar has been shown to correlate with many humanmetabolic diseases, and rodent models have characterized numerous aspects of the resulting disease phenotypes. However, there is a controversy about whether differential health effects occur because of the consumption of either of the two common types of added sugar-high-fructosecorn syrup (fructose and glucose monosaccharides; F/G) or table sugar (sucrose, a fructose and glucose disaccharide). OBJECTIVES: We tested the equivalence of sucrose- vs. F/G-containing diets on mouse (Mus musculus) longevity, reproductive success, and social dominance. METHODS: We fed wild-derived mice, outbred mice descended from wild-caught ancestors, a diet in which 25% of the calories came from either an equal ratio of F/G or an isocaloric amount of sucrose (both diets had 63% of total calories as carbohydrates). Exposure lasted 40 wk, starting at weaning (21 d of age), and then mice (104 females and 56 males) were released into organismal performances assays-seminatural enclosures where mice competed for territories, resources, and mates for 32 wk. Within enclosures all mice consumed the F/G diet. RESULTS: Females initially fed the F/G diet experienced a mortality rate 1.9 times the rate (P = 0.012) and produced 26.4% fewer offspring than females initially fed sucrose (P = 0.001). This reproductive deficiency was present before mortality differences, suggesting the F/G diet was causing physiologic performance deficits prior to mortality. No differential patterns in survival, reproduction, or social dominance were observed in males, indicating a sex-specific outcome of exposure. CONCLUSION: This study provides experimental evidence that the consumption of human-relevant levels of F/G is more deleterious than an isocaloric amount of sucrose for key organism-level health measures in female mice.
Authors: Hella Jürgens; Wiltrud Haass; Tamara R Castañeda; Annette Schürmann; Corinna Koebnick; Frank Dombrowski; Bärbel Otto; Andrea R Nawrocki; Philipp E Scherer; Jochen Spranger; Michael Ristow; Hans-Georg Joost; Peter J Havel; Matthias H Tschöp Journal: Obes Res Date: 2005-07
Authors: P Ilmonen; D J Penn; K Damjanovich; J Clarke; D Lamborn; L Morrison; L Ghotbi; W K Potts Journal: J Evol Biol Date: 2008-02-23 Impact factor: 2.411
Authors: Julio E Ayala; Varman T Samuel; Gregory J Morton; Silvana Obici; Colleen M Croniger; Gerald I Shulman; David H Wasserman; Owen P McGuinness Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Kimber L Stanhope; Steven C Griffen; Brandi R Bair; Michael M Swarbrick; Nancy L Keim; Peter J Havel Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ravi Dhingra; Lisa Sullivan; Paul F Jacques; Thomas J Wang; Caroline S Fox; James B Meigs; Ralph B D'Agostino; J Michael Gaziano; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James M Rippe; John L Sievenpiper; Kim-Anne Lê; John S White; Roger Clemens; Theodore J Angelopoulos Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Dushani L Palliyaguru; Annamaria L Rudderow; Alex M Sossong; Kaitlyn N Lewis; Caitlin Younts; Kevin J Pearson; Michel Bernier; Rafael de Cabo Journal: Geroscience Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 7.713
Authors: James S Ruff; Raed B Saffarini; Leda L Ramoz; Linda C Morrison; Shambralyn Baker; Sean M Laverty; Petr Tvrdik; Wayne K Potts Journal: Genetics Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: James S Ruff; Raed B Saffarini; Leda L Ramoz; Linda C Morrison; Shambralyn Baker; Sean M Laverty; Petr Tvrdik; Mario R Capecchi; Wayne K Potts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leah R Villegas; Christopher J Rivard; Brandi Hunter; Zhiying You; Carlos Roncal; Melanie S Joy; MyPhuong T Le Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Suchada Saovieng; Jinfu Wu; Wei-Horng Jean; Chih-Yang Huang; Matthew F Higgins; Ahmad Alkhatib; Mallikarjuna Korivi; Chiao-Nan Chen; Chia-Hua Kuo Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.452