Literature DB >> 26485292

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

Tamar T Kraft1, Donald Huang2, Melanie Lolier2, Deena Warshaw2, Sam LaMagna2, Elona Natanova2, Anthony Sclafani3, Richard J Bodnar4.   

Abstract

Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-nutritive sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fructose; Glucose; Learning; Saccharin; Sucralose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26485292      PMCID: PMC5575923          DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.10.020

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Gut-brain nutrient signaling. Appetition vs. satiation.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 3.868

2.  Gut T1R3 sweet taste receptors do not mediate sucrose-conditioned flavor preferences in mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Damien S Glass; Robert F Margolskee; John I Glendinning
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 3.619

Review 3.  Role of gut nutrient sensing in stimulating appetite and conditioning food preferences.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 3.619

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

Authors:  Alexander Pinhas; Michael Aviel; Michael Koen; Simon Gurgov; Vanessa Acosta; Michael Israel; Leonid Kakuriev; Elena Guskova; Isabelle Fuzailov; Khalid Touzani; Anthony Sclafani; Richard J Bodnar
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2011-09-14

5.  Conditioned flavor avoidance, preference, and indifference produced by intragastric infusions of galactose, glucose, and fructose in rats.

Authors:  A Sclafani; L J Fanizza; A V Azzara
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1999-08

6.  Postoral glucose sensing, not caloric content, determines sugar reward in C57BL/6J mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Steven Zukerman; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 3.160

7.  Sucrose motivation in sweet "sensitive" (C57BL/6J) and "subsensitive" (129P3/J) mice measured by progressive ratio licking.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2006-03-10

8.  Intragastric glucose but not fructose conditions robust flavor preferences in rats.

Authors:  A Sclafani; C Cardieri; K Tucker; D Blusk; K Ackroff
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1993-08

9.  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

10.  Post-oral appetite stimulation by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs.

Authors:  Steven Zukerman; Karen Ackroff; Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 3.619

View more
  5 in total

1.  CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J Mice Differ in Their Oral and Postoral Attraction to Glucose and Fructose.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Austin S Vural; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  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

3.  MCH receptor deletion does not impair glucose-conditioned flavor preferences in mice.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Antoine Adamantidis; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2016-05-16

4.  SGLT1 sugar transporter/sensor is required for post-oral glucose appetition.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Hermann Koepsell; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 3.619

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.