Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192132›Full record

ArticlePhysiology & behavior2017

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

Anthony Sclafani, Karen Ackroff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiology & behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Taste Processing: Insights from Animal Models.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony SclafaniBrooklyn College and the Graduate School, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210, USA. Electronic address: AnthonyS@brooklyn.cuny.edu.
Karen AckroffBrooklyn College and the Graduate School, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11210, USA.
Brooklyn College · USCity University of New York · US

Funding

Carbohydrate Appetite, Fat Appetite and ObesityR37DK031135 · NIDDK · BROOKLYN COLLEGE · PI SCLAFANI, ANTHONY · 2001 to 2010
$2.9M
CARBOHYDRATE APPETITE, FAT APPETITE, AND OBESITYR01DK031135 · NIDDK · BROOKLYN COLLEGE · PI ACKROFF, KAREN, SCLAFANI, ANTHONY · 1986 to 2015
$2.0M
Discovery of Natural Products and Natural Product-Like InhibitorsZ01DK031135 · NIDDK · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES · PI BEWLEY, CAROLE · 2007 to 2008
$844k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 DK031135NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK031135NIDDK NIH HHS R37 DK031135
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AnimalsConditioning, ClassicalFlavoring AgentsFood PreferencesMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLNon-Nutritive SweetenersSpecies SpecificitySweetening AgentsTaste PerceptionFlavoring AgentsNon-Nutritive SweetenersSweetening AgentsC57BL/6J miceCAST/EiJ miceFlavor-preference conditioningFructoseFVB/NJ miceSaccharinSucraloseSucrose

Identifiers

PMID28192132
PMCPMC5357161
OpenAlexW2587697051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.