ArticleChemical senses2017
CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J Mice Differ in Their Oral and Postoral Attraction to Glucose and Fructose.
Article in Chemical senses, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in cocaine responses across genetically diverse mouse strains.Psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Early ingestive experience with a high-fat diet tunes satiation and nutrient-specific appetitive behaviors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Determining gene specificity from multivariate single-cell RNA sequencing data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The elusive cephalic phase insulin response: triggers, mechanisms, and functions.Physiological reviews · 2023Review
- Article
- Residual Glucose Taste in T1R3 Knockout but not TRPM5 Knockout Mice.Physiology & behavior · 2020Article
- Profound differences in fat versus carbohydrate preferences in CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J mice: Role of fat taste.Physiology & behavior · 2018Article
- From appetite setpoint to appetition: 50years of ingestive behavior research.Physiology & behavior · 2018Review
- Flavor preferences conditioned by nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners in mice.Physiology & behavior · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A recent study indicated that CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J mice differ in their taste preferences for maltodextrin but display similar sucrose preferences. The present study revealed strain differences in preferences for the constituent sugars of sucrose. Whereas B6 mice preferred 8% glucose to 8% fructose in 2-day tests, the CAST mice preferred fructose to glucose. These preferences emerged with repeated testing which suggested post-oral influences. In a second experiment, 2-day choice tests were conducted with the sugars versus a sucralose + saccharin (SS) mixture which is highly preferred in brief access tests. B6 mice strongly preferred glucose but not fructose to the non-nutritive SS whereas CAST mice preferred SS to both glucose and fructose even when food restricted. This implied that CAST mice are insensitive to the postoral appetite stimulating actions of the 2 sugars. A third experiment revealed, however, that intragastric glucose and fructose infusions conditioned significant but mild flavor preferences in CAST mice, whereas in B6 mice glucose conditioned a robust preference but fructose was ineffective. Thus, unlike other mouse strains and rats, glucose is not more reinforcing than fructose in CAST mice. Their oral preference for fructose over glucose may be related to a subsensitive maltodextrin receptor or glucose-specific receptor which is stimulated by glucose but not fructose. The failure of CAST mice to prefer glucose to a non-nutritive sweetener distinguishes this strain from other mouse strains and rats.
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.