Literature DB >> 28192132

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

Anthony Sclafani1, Karen Ackroff2.   

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that preferences are conditioned by nutritive (sucrose) but not by non-nutritive (sucralose) sweeteners in mice. Here we compared the effectiveness of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners to condition flavor preferences in three mouse strains. Isopreferred sucrose and sucralose solutions both conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J (B6) mice but sucrose was more effective, consistent with its post-oral appetition action. Subsequent experiments compared flavor conditioning by fructose, which has no post-oral appetition effect in B6 mice, and a sucralose+saccharin mixture (SS) which is highly preferred to fructose in 24-h choice tests. Both sweeteners conditioned flavor preferences but fructose induced stronger preferences than SS. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored SS solution paired with intragastric fructose infusions did not enhance the SS-conditioned preference. Thus, the post-oral nutritive actions of fructose do not explain the sugar's stronger preference conditioning effect. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored fructose solution containing SS did not reduce the sugar-conditioned preference, indicating that SS does not have an off-taste that attenuates conditioning. Although B6 mice strongly preferred flavored SS to flavored fructose in a direct choice test, they preferred the fructose-paired flavor to the SS-paired flavor when these were presented in water. Fructose conditioned a stronger flavor preference than an isopreferred saccharin solution, indicating that sucralose is not responsible for the limited SS conditioning actions. SS is highly preferred by FVB/NJ and CAST/EiJ inbred mice, yet conditioned only weak flavor preferences. It is unclear why highly or equally preferred non-nutritive sweeteners condition weaker preferences than fructose, when all stimulate the same T1r2/T1r3 sweet receptor. Recent findings support the existence of non-T1r2/T1r3 glucose taste sensors; however, there is no evidence for receptors that respond to fructose but not to non-nutritive sweeteners.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  C57BL/6J mice; CAST/EiJ mice; FVB/NJ mice; Flavor-preference conditioning; Fructose; Saccharin; Sucralose; Sucrose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28192132      PMCID: PMC5357161          DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.02.008

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


  57 in total

1.  The effect of carbohydrate mouth rinse on 1-h cycle time trial performance.

Authors:  James M Carter; Asker E Jeukendrup; David A Jones
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.411

2.  Pharmacology of flavor preference conditioning in sham-feeding rats: effects of naltrexone.

Authors:  W Z Yu; A Sclafani; A R Delamater; R J Bodnar
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.533

3.  Palatability shifts in taste and flavour preference conditioning.

Authors:  Catherine A Forestell; Vincent M LoLordo
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol B       Date:  2003-02

4.  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

5.  Bitter taste receptors for saccharin and acesulfame K.

Authors:  Christina Kuhn; Bernd Bufe; Marcel Winnig; Thomas Hofmann; Oliver Frank; Maik Behrens; Tatjana Lewtschenko; Jay P Slack; Cynthia D Ward; Wolfgang Meyerhof
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-11-10       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  The receptors for mammalian sweet and umami taste.

Authors:  Grace Q Zhao; Yifeng Zhang; Mark A Hoon; Jayaram Chandrashekar; Isolde Erlenbach; Nicholas J P Ryba; Charles S Zuker
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2003-10-31       Impact factor: 41.582

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Flavor preferences conditioned in C57BL/6 mice by intragastric carbohydrate self-infusion.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; John I Glendinning
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2003-09

10.  Female rats show a bimodal preference response to the artificial sweetener sucralose.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Richard A Clare
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.160

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  From appetite setpoint to appetition: 50years of ingestive behavior research.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2018-01-02

2.  The preference for sugar over sweetener depends on a gut sensor cell.

Authors:  Kelly L Buchanan; Laura E Rupprecht; M Maya Kaelberer; Atharva Sahasrabudhe; Marguerita E Klein; Jorge A Villalobos; Winston W Liu; Annabelle Yang; Justin Gelman; Seongjun Park; Polina Anikeeva; Diego V Bohórquez
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 28.771

Review 3.  Taste Processing: Insights from Animal Models.

Authors:  Andrés Molero-Chamizo; Guadalupe Nathzidy Rivera-Urbina
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 4.411

4.  The Role of Post-Ingestive Feedback in the Development of an Enhanced Appetite for the Orosensory Properties of Glucose over Fructose in Rats.

Authors:  Kevin P Myers; Megan Y Summers; Elizabeth Geyer-Roberts; Lindsey A Schier
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 5.717

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.