ArticleScientific reports2025
The non-synthetic sweeteners, miraculin and mogroside V, but not stevia, disrupt the intestinal epithelial barrier function through a sweet taste receptor-dependent mechanism.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impaired intestinal barrier function is a precursor to various metabolic diseases which can occur when the intestinal epithelium is directly exposed to certain dietary components. Previous studies have demonstrated the barrier disruptive effect of artificial sweeteners such as sucralose and saccharin, in the intestinal epithelium. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of 3 non-synthetic sweeteners, stevia, miraculin, and mogroside V, on Caco-2 monolayer barrier integrity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and tight junction protein expression as compared to the artificial sweetener saccharin. Miraculin and mogroside V exerted a significant impact on cell numbers with decreased cell viability at both 24 and 48 h. ROS production was also significantly increased by miraculin and mogroside V and epithelial barrier function, assessed by transepithelial electrical resistance and FITC-dextran leak, was significantly disrupted with both miraculin and mogroside V. Stevia exhibited no effect on epithelial cell viability, ROS accumulation or barrier function, despite a range of concentrations investigated. Knockdown of the sweet taste receptor, T1R3, significantly attenuated miraculin- and mogroside V-induced loss of cell viability, ROS accumulation and barrier disruption suggesting a T1R3-dependent mechanism. Gene expression analysis revealed differential regulation of cell junction-related genes by mogroside V and miraculin with upregulated expression of genes such as CAV1, CLDN2 and CLDN10, and downregulated expression of genes such as CAV3 and CDH2. These findings demonstrate that miraculin and mogroside V, but not stevia, negatively regulate ROS formation and intestinal epithelial barrier function in a T1R3-dependent manner and potentially through modulation of tight junction proteins. This highlights the need for further investigation into the long-term dietary implications of natural sweeteners, particularly miraculin and mogroside V, on gut health.
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.