ArticleJournal of undergraduate research (Gainesville, Fla.)2025
Taste sensitivity and consumption responses to sucrose and artificial sweeteners in
Article in Journal of undergraduate research (Gainesville, Fla.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial sweeteners may alter taste sensitivity and feeding behavior, but their effects compared to natural sugars and the role of the gut microbiome in modulating these responses remain unclear. This study compares taste sensitivity and consumption responses to erythritol (Truvia), sucralose (Splenda), and sucrose in flies with a gut microbiome (conventional) and without a microbiome (axenic). Taste sensitivity was assessed using the proboscis extension response (PER) assay, while the capillary feeder (CAFE) assay was used to measure consumption. PER results revealed that sucrose elicited a significantly stronger taste response than Splenda or Truvia, with response rates increasing at higher concentrations. CAFE assays indicated fly aversion to Truvia, and axenic flies consuming significantly more Truvia compared to conventional flies, suggesting a significant microbiome effect. In the Splenda trials, axenic flies consumed significantly more yeast than those in the sucrose treatment, suggesting a potential compensatory feeding response due to the lack of calories in artificial sweeteners.
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.