The Role of Post-Ingestive Feedback in the Development of an Enhanced Appetite for the Orosensory Properties of Glucose over Fructose in Rats.

Kevin P Myers, Megan Y Summers, Elizabeth Geyer-Roberts, Lindsey A Schier
Author Information
  1. Kevin P Myers: Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA. ORCID
  2. Megan Y Summers: Neuroscience Program, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, US.
  3. Elizabeth Geyer-Roberts: Department of Biomedical Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA.
  4. Lindsey A Schier: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.

Abstract

The simple sugars glucose and fructose share a common "sweet" taste quality mediated by the T1R2+T1R3 taste receptor. However, when given the opportunity to consume each sugar, rats learn to affectively discriminate between glucose and fructose on the basis of cephalic chemosensory cues. It has been proposed that glucose has a unique sensory property that becomes more hedonically positive through learning about the relatively more rewarding post-ingestive effects that are associated with glucose as compared to fructose. We tested this theory using intragastric (IG) infusions to manipulate the post-ingestive consequences of glucose and fructose consumption. Food-deprived rats with IG catheters repeatedly consumed multiple concentrations of glucose and fructose in separate sessions. For rats in the "Matched" group, each sugar was accompanied by IG infusion of the same sugar. For the "Mismatched" group, glucose consumption was accompanied by IG fructose, and vice versa. This condition gave rats orosensory experience with each sugar but precluded the differential post-ingestive consequences. Following training, avidity for each sugar was assessed in brief access and licking microstructure tests. The Matched group displayed more positive evaluation of glucose relative to fructose than the Mismatched group. A second experiment used a different concentration range and compared responses of the Matched and Mismatched groups to a control group kept naïve to the orosensory properties of sugar. Consistent with results from the first experiment, the Matched group, but not the Mismatched or Control group, displayed elevated licking responses to glucose. These experiments yield additional evidence that glucose and fructose have discriminable sensory properties and directly demonstrate that their different post-ingestive effects are responsible for the experience-dependent changes in the motivation for glucose versus fructose.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Genet. 2001 May;28(1):58-63 [PMID: 11326277]
  2. Physiol Behav. 2001 Apr;72(5):691-703 [PMID: 11337001]
  3. J Neurosci. 2007 Oct 17;27(42):11242-53 [PMID: 17942718]
  4. Nat Neurosci. 2001 May;4(5):492-8 [PMID: 11319557]
  5. J Neurosci. 2010 Jun 9;30(23):8012-23 [PMID: 20534849]
  6. Nat Neurosci. 2016 Mar;19(3):465-70 [PMID: 26807950]
  7. Behav Neurosci. 1998 Jun;112(3):678-94 [PMID: 9676983]
  8. Science. 2003 Aug 8;301(5634):850-3 [PMID: 12869700]
  9. Physiol Behav. 2016 Oct 1;164(Pt B):473-477 [PMID: 27126968]
  10. Physiol Rev. 2019 Jan 1;99(1):605-663 [PMID: 30475657]
  11. J Neurosci. 2016 Jan 6;36(1):113-24 [PMID: 26740654]
  12. PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 20;16(3):e2001959 [PMID: 29558472]
  13. Cell. 2003 Oct 31;115(3):255-66 [PMID: 14636554]
  14. Cell. 2001 Aug 10;106(3):381-90 [PMID: 11509186]
  15. Physiol Behav. 1997 Dec 31;63(1):7-14 [PMID: 9402608]
  16. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013 Oct 1;305(7):R840-53 [PMID: 23926132]
  17. Physiol Behav. 1991 Oct;50(4):815-24 [PMID: 1775557]
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Apr 2;99(7):4692-6 [PMID: 11917125]
  19. Front Integr Neurosci. 2018 Nov 21;12:57 [PMID: 30519164]
  20. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2019 May 1;316(5):R448-R462 [PMID: 30624973]
  21. Physiol Behav. 2017 May 1;173:188-199 [PMID: 28192132]
  22. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012 Jul 15;303(2):R218-35 [PMID: 22621968]
  23. Physiol Behav. 2012 Jun 25;106(4):457-61 [PMID: 22445944]
  24. Neurosci Lett. 1993 Dec 12;163(2):197-200 [PMID: 8309632]
  25. Curr Biol. 2005 Nov 8;15(21):1948-52 [PMID: 16271873]

MeSH Term

Animals
Appetite
Feedback
Food Preferences
Fructose
Glucose
Male
Rats
Rats, Sprague-Dawley
Taste

Chemicals

Fructose
Glucose

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0glucosefructosegroupsugarratspost-ingestiveIGtasteMatchedMismatchedsensorypositivelearningeffectscomparedconsequencesconsumptionaccompaniedorosensorylickingdisplayedexperimentdifferentresponsespropertiessimplesugarssharecommon"sweet"qualitymediatedT1R2+T1R3receptorHowevergivenopportunityconsumelearnaffectivelydiscriminatebasiscephalicchemosensorycuesproposeduniquepropertybecomeshedonicallyrelativelyrewardingassociatedtestedtheoryusingintragastricinfusionsmanipulateFood-deprivedcathetersrepeatedlyconsumedmultipleconcentrationsseparatesessions"Matched"infusion"Mismatched"viceversaconditiongaveexperienceprecludeddifferentialFollowingtrainingavidityassessedbriefaccessmicrostructuretestsevaluationrelativesecondusedconcentrationrangegroupscontrolkeptnaïveConsistentresultsfirstControlelevatedexperimentsyieldadditionalevidencediscriminabledirectlydemonstrateresponsibleexperience-dependentchangesmotivationversusRolePost-IngestiveFeedbackDevelopmentEnhancedAppetiteOrosensoryPropertiesGlucoseFructoseRatsflavor–nutrientgutnutrientsensingvisceroceptivefeedback

Similar Articles

Cited By