ArticlePloS one2018
Effects of fructose-containing sweeteners on fructose intestinal, hepatic, and oral bioavailability in dual-catheterized rats.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The small intestine shields the liver from fructose-induced steatosis.Nature metabolism · 2020Article
- Excess free fructose, apple juice, high fructose corn syrup and childhood asthma risk - the National Children's Study.Nutrition journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFructose is commonplace in Western diets and is consumed primarily through added sugars as sucrose or high fructose corn syrup. High consumption of fructose has been linked to the development of metabolic disorders, such as cardiovascular diseases. The majority of the harmful effects of fructose can be traced to its uncontrolled and rapid metabolism, primarily within the liver. It has been speculated that the formulation of fructose-containing sweeteners can have varying impacts on its adverse effects. Unfortunately, there is limited data supporting this hypothesis. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of different fructose-containing sweeteners on the intestinal, hepatic, and oral bioavailability of fructose.
methodsPortal and femoral vein catheters were surgically implanted in male Wistar rats. Animals were gavaged with a 1 g/kg carbohydrate solution consisting of fructose, 45% glucose/55% fructose, sucrose, glucose, or water. Blood samples were then collected from the portal and systemic circulation. Fructose levels were measured and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated.
resultsCompared to animals that were gavaged with 45% glucose/55% fructose or sucrose, fructose-gavaged animals had a 40% greater fructose area under the curve and a 15% greater change in maximum fructose concentration in the portal circulation. In the systemic circulation of fructose-gavaged animals, the fructose area under the curve was 17% and 24% higher and the change in the maximum fructose concentration was 15% and 30% higher than the animals that received 45% glucose/55% fructose or sucrose, respectively. After the oral administration of fructose, 45% glucose/55% fructose, and sucrose, the bioavailability of fructose was as follows: intestinal availability was 0.62, 0.53 and 0.57; hepatic availability was 0.33, 0.45 and 0.45; and oral bioavailability was 0.19, 0.23 and 0.24, respectively.
conclusionsOur studies show that the co-ingestion of glucose did not enhance fructose absorption, rather, it decreased fructose metabolism in the liver. The intestinal, hepatic, and oral bioavailability of fructose was similar between 45% glucose/55% fructose and sucrose.
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.