ArticleChemical senses2013
Impact of T1r3 and Trpm5 on carbohydrate preference and acceptance in C57BL/6 mice.
Article in Chemical senses, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms and Functions of Sweet Reception in Oral and Extraoral Organs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- TRPM4 and PLCβ3 contribute to normal behavioral responses to an array of sweeteners and carbohydrates but PLCβ3 is not needed for taste-driven licking for glucose.Chemical senses · 2024Article
- The elusive cephalic phase insulin response: triggers, mechanisms, and functions.Physiological reviews · 2023Review
- Fat preference deficits and experience-induced recovery in global taste-deficient Trpm5 and Calhm1 knockout mice.Physiology & behavior · 2022Article
- Taste perception of cyclic oligosaccharides: α, β, and γ cyclodextrins.Chemical senses · 2022Article
- Variation in the geneAmerican journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2021Article
- Nutrient-conditioned intake stimulation does not require a distinctive flavor cue in rats.Appetite · 2020Article
- Residual Glucose Taste in T1R3 Knockout but not TRPM5 Knockout Mice.Physiology & behavior · 2020Article
- Sugar causes obesity and metabolic syndrome in mice independently of sweet taste.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Article
- Altered salt taste response and increased tongue epithelium Scnna1 expression in adult Engrailed-2 null mice.Physiology & behavior · 2018Article
- Greater reductions in fat preferences in CALHM1 than CD36 knockout mice.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2018Article
- Role of lipolysis in postoral and oral fat preferences in mice.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2018Article
- From appetite setpoint to appetition: 50years of ingestive behavior research.Physiology & behavior · 2018Review
- CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J Mice Differ in Their Oral and Postoral Attraction to Glucose and Fructose.Chemical senses · 2017Article
- Glucose Intake Alters Expression of Neuropeptides Derived from Proopiomelanocortin in the Lateral Hypothalamus and the Nucleus Accumbens in Fructose Preference Rats.Neural plasticity · 2017Article
- Sugar-induced cephalic-phase insulin release is mediated by a T1r2+T1r3-independent taste transduction pathway in mice.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2015Article
- Intragastric fat self-administration is impaired in GPR40/120 double knockout mice.Physiology & behavior · 2015Article
- Postoral glucose sensing, not caloric content, determines sugar reward in C57BL/6J mice.Chemical senses · 2015Article
- Flavor change and food deprivation are not critical for post-oral glucose appetition in mice.Physiology & behavior · 2015Article
- Flavor preference conditioning by different sugars in sweet ageusic Trpm5 knockout mice.Physiology & behavior · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Knockout (KO) mice missing the sweet taste receptor subunit T1r3 or the signaling protein Trpm5 have greatly attenuated sweetener preferences but learn to prefer sucrose in 24-h tests. Here, we examined 24-h preferences of T1r3 KO, Trpm5 KO, and C57BL/6J wild-type (WT) mice for glucose, fructose, galactose, and corn starch. Unlike glucose, fructose has little postoral reward effect in WT mice, whereas conflicting data have been obtained with galactose. Naïve KO mice were initially indifferent to dilute glucose solutions (0.5-4%) but exhibited strong preferences for 8-32% concentrations. In a second test, they strongly preferred (~90%) all glucose concentrations although they drank less sugar than WT mice. Naïve KO mice were indifferent to 0.5-8% fructose and avoided 16-32% fructose. However, the glucose-experienced KO mice displayed significant preferences for all fructose solutions. Naïve KO mice preferred only 8% galactose, whereas WT mice preferred 4-16% galactose, and all mice avoided 32% galactose. Galactose experience enhanced the preference for this sugar in KO and WT mice. Naïve T1r3 KO and WT mice displayed similar preferences for 0.5-32% corn starch, which were enhanced by starch experience. Naïve Trpm5 KO mice did not prefer starch but did so after 1-bottle starch experience. The results confirm the sweet taste deficits of T1r3 KO and Trpm5 KO mice but demonstrate their ability to develop strong glucose and milder galactose preferences attributed to the postoral actions of these sugars. The acquired preference for the non-sweet flavor properties of glucose generalized to those of fructose. The findings further demonstrate that although Trpm5 (but not T1r3) signaling is essential for starch preference, Trpm5 KO mice can learn to prefer starch based on its postoral effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.