Taste does not determine daily intake of dilute sugar solutions in mice

Glendinning, John I.; Beltran, Frans; Benton, Lauren; Cheng, Sheue-yann; Gieseke, Jade; Gillman, Jennifer; Spain, Heather N

doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00331.2010

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Percent CS+ intakes and sugar intakes (e.g., CS+/Total intake × 100) were calculated for the two-bottle tests and analyzed with analysis of variance or t-tests. A preliminary analysis revealed no sex differences in CS+ or sugar preferences, and therefore the data for male and female mice were combined; this lack of a sex difference is consistent with other findings obtained with B6 mice [11,21,37]. …”

Section: Experiments 1 Glucose Fructose and Galactose Conditionedsupporting

confidence: 87%

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

Sclafani

Ackroff

2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1 Glucose Fructose and Galactose Conditionedsupporting

confidence: 87%

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

Sclafani

Ackroff

2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their glucose solute intake over the five sessions was less than that self-infused by the KO mice in experiment 3 (0.030 vs. 0.058 g/h, P Ͻ 0.01). To induce higher glucose intakes, the KO mice in the present experiment were tested with the GϩS solution, which is highly attractive to rodents (8). This manipulation was effective, and the KO mice self-administered 0.057 g/h glucose solute in tests 1-5, which closely matched the amount self-infused by the KO mice in experiment 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

Sclafani

Koepsell

Ackroff

2016

American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings suggest that the intestinal sodium-glucose transporter 1 (SGLT1) glucose transporter and sensor mediates, in part, the appetite-stimulation actions of intragastric (IG) glucose and nonmetabolizable α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside (MDG) infusions in mice. Here, we investigated the role of SGLT1 in sugar conditioning using SGLT1 knockout (KO) and C57BL/6J wild-type (WT) mice. An initial experiment revealed that both KO and WT mice maintained on a very low-carbohydrate diet display normal preferences for saccharin, which was used in the flavored conditioned stimulus (CS) solutions. In experiment 2, mice were trained to drink one flavored solution (CS+) paired with an IG MDG infusion and a different flavored solution (CS-) paired with IG water infusion. In contrast to WT mice, KO mice decreased rather than increased the intake of the CS+ during training and failed to prefer the CS+ over the CS- in a choice test. In experiment 3, the KO mice also decreased their intake of a CS+ paired with IG glucose and avoided the CS+ in a choice test, unlike WT mice, which preferred the CS+ to CS-. In experiment 4, KO mice, like WT mice preferred a glucose + saccharin solution to a saccharin solution. These findings support the involvement of SGLT1 in post-oral glucose and MDG conditioning. The results also indicate that sugar malabsorption in KO mice has inhibitory effects on sugar intake but does not block their natural preference for sweet taste.

show abstract

“…The similar flavor conditioning effects of CS+8% Fructose and CS+16% Fructose solutions for most mouse strains may have been due to the addition of 0.2% saccharin to the CS+8% fructose training solution. Prior work indicates that adding saccharin to relatively dilute sugar solutions enhances the palatability of the solution for mice and rats (Glendinning et al , 2010a; Smith et al , 1982). Therefore, the palatability of the CS+8% Fructose + 0.2% saccharin solution may have matched that of the CS+16% Fructose solution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pinhas¹,

Aviel²,

Koen³

et al. 2012

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (CFP) 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+.

show abstract

Taste does not determine daily intake of dilute sugar solutions in mice

Cited by 30 publications

References 80 publications

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

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About