4.5 Article

Differential effects of sucrose and fructose on dietary obesity in four mouse strains

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 101, 期 3, 页码 331-343

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.06.003

关键词

Sugar-induced obesity; Hyperphagia; Mice; Sweet taste; Sucrose; Fructose

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK-031135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined sugar-induced obesity in mouse strains polymorphic for Tas1r3, a gene that codes for the T1R3 sugar taste receptor. The T1R3 receptor in the FVB and B6 strains has a higher affinity for sugars than that in the AKR and 129P3 strains. In Experiment 1. mice had 40 days of access to lab chow plus water, sucrose (10 or 34%), or fructose (10 or 34%) solutions. The strains consumed more of the sucrose than isocaloric fructose solutions. The pattern of strain differences in caloric intake from the 10% sugar solutions was FVB>129P3 = B6>AKR: and that from the 34% sugar solutions was FVB>129P3>B6 >= AKR. Despite consuming more sugar calories, the FVB mice resisted obesity altogether. The AKR and 129P3 mice became obese exclusively on the 34% sucrose diet, while the 86 mice did so on the 34% sucrose and 34% fructose diets. In Experiment 2, we compared total caloric intake from diets containing chow versus chow plus 34% sucrose. All strains consumed between 11 and 25% more calories from the sucrose-supplemented diet. In Experiment 3, we compared the oral acceptability of the sucrose and fructose solutions, using lick tests. All strains licked more avidly for the 10% sucrose solutions. The results indicate that in mice (a) Tas1r3 genotype does not predict sugar-induced hyperphagia or obesity; (b) sucrose solutions stimulate higher daily intakes than isocaloric fructose solutions; and (c) susceptibility to sugar-induced obesity varies with strain, sugar concentration and sugar type. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据