ebook img

Post-oral appetite stimulation by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs PDF

14 Pages·2013·0.27 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Post-oral appetite stimulation by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs

AmJPhysiolRegulIntegrCompPhysiol305:R840–R853,2013. FirstpublishedAugust7,2013;doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013. Post-oral appetite stimulation by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs Steven Zukerman, Karen Ackroff, and Anthony Sclafani DepartmentofPsychology,BrooklynCollege,CityUniversityofNewYork,Brooklyn,NewYork;andCognition,Brain, andBehaviorDoctoralSubprogram,GraduateSchool,CityUniversityofNewYork,NewYork,NewYork Submitted17June2013;acceptedinfinalform3August2013 Zukerman S, Ackroff K, Sclafani A. Post-oral appetite stimula- bygastric,duodenal,andjejunalglucoseinfusions,butnotby tion by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs. Am J Physiol gastric infusions with a closed pylorus, or by ileal, hepatic- Regul Integr Comp Physiol 305: R840–R853, 2013. First published portal,orintraperitonealglucoseinfusions(2,15,67).Hepatic- August 7, 2013; doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013.—Post-oral sugar portal glucose infusions produced preferences in other condi- actions enhance the intake of and preference for sugar-rich foods, a tioning paradigms, however, which suggest that sugar sensors process referred to as appetition. Here, we investigated the role of in both the upper intestinal and hepatic portal regions contrib- intestinalsodiumglucosecotransporters(SGLTs)insugarappetition ute to sugar conditioning (39, 58). D in C57BL/6J mice using sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs that differ in their affinity for SGLT1 and SGLT3. In experiments 1 Thepresenceoftheoralsweettastereceptor(T1R2(cid:2)T1R3) ow n and 2, food-restricted mice were trained (1 h/day) to consume a in the intestinal tract suggested the possibility that the same lo flavoredsaccharinsolution[conditionedstimulus(CS(cid:1))]pairedwith sensorthatstimulatessugarappetiteinthemouthalsomediates ad e intragastric (IG) self-infusions of water and a different flavored sugar appetition in the gut (5). However, this notion is not d solution (CS(cid:2)) paired with infusions of 8 or 12% sugars (glucose, supported by the findings that sweet ageusic mice missing fro fructose, and galactose) or sugar analogs ((cid:3)-methyl-D-glucopyrano- critical sweet taste-signaling elements (T1R3, TRPM5, gust- m sbiodtetl,eMCDS(cid:2)G;v3s-.OC-Sm(cid:1)ethchyol-iDc-egtleusctospwyerarenocsoinddeu,cOteMdGw)i.thSouubtsceoqiunefnutsitownos-. ducin)demonstratenormalflavor-conditioningresponsestoIG http InfusionsoftheSGLT1ligandsglucose,galactose,MDG,andOMG sugar infusions (50). Furthermore, not all ligands of the sweet ://a stimulated CS(cid:2) licking above CS(cid:1) levels. However, only glucose, taste receptor are effective in conditioning flavor preferences jp MDG, and galactose conditioned significant CS(cid:2) preferences, with byIGinfusions.Whereasglucoseandglucose-containingsac- reg the SGLT3 ligands (glucose, MDG) producing the strongest prefer- charides(sucrose,maltose,andmaltodextrin)conditionrobust u.p ences.Fructose,whichisnotaligandforSGLTs,failedtostimulate flavor preferences, IG fructose has weaker or no conditioning h y CMSD(cid:2)G(cid:2)intpahkleoroidrzpirnef(earneSncGeL.TE1x/p3erainmtaegnotn3isrte)vbelaolcekdetdhMatDIGGianpfpuesitoitnioonf, etifofnecetds,awmhielrdeaasvethrseionnon(5n0u)t.riTtivheeseswfienedteinngesr isnudcircaalotesethcaotngdui-t siolo whereas phloridzin had minimal effects on glucose-induced appeti- sensors other than T1R2 and T1R3 mediate the appetition gy tion. However, adding phloretin (a GLUT2 antagonist) to the .o ggleuthcoers,e(cid:2)thpehsleorfiidnzdiinnginsfussuigognesbtlotchkaetdhgulmucoorasel saipgpneatlistiogne.nTeraakteedn tboy- pcarondduidcaetde sbeynsgoarsstarirce saonddiuimntegsltuicnoaslegcloutcroasnespionrftuerssio(nSsG. LTTw1o) byrg/ intestinalSGLT1andSGLT3,andtoalesserdegree,GLUT2,mediate and SGLT3. The sodium glucose cotransporter SGLT1 is a 1 0 post-oral sugar appetition in mice. The MDG results indicate that transporter of glucose in intestinal enterocytes and is also .2 sugarmetabolismisnotessentialforthepost-oralintake-stimulating thought to serve as a glucose sensor in enteroendocrine cells 20 andpreference-conditioningactionsofsugarsinmice. (56, 63). The related protein SGLT3 has little or no transport .3 3 functionbutmayserveasaglucosesensorinthegut(56,63). .5 post-oralsugarconditioning;glucose;fructose;galactose SGLT1andSGLT3areattractivecandidatesbecausetheybind on to glucose but not fructose. The two sensors differ in that J u FOOD INTAKE AND PREFERENCE are guided by oral sensations glucose and galactose are substrates for SGLT1 but only ne (taste,odor,andmouthfeel)thatcontributetotheidentification glucosebindstoSGLT3.Inratsandmice,IGgalactosefailed 1 2 and hedonic evaluation of food flavor. Considerable progress toconditionflavorpreferences(49,51),whichwouldappearto , 2 0 hasbeenmadeinidentifyingthetastereceptorsthatrespondto implicate SGLT3 as the sensor responsible for post-oral glu- 1 7 sugar,fat,andaminoacidsthatprovideattractivesweet,fatty, cose appetition. However, a recent study reported that IG andumamiflavorstofoods(8).Theappetiteforsuchfoodsis intubation of glucose and galactose, but not fructose, condi- further enhanced by the post-oral actions of ingested nutrients tionedplacepreferencesinmice(30).Inaddition,werecently (50). This is demonstrated in laboratory rodents by the intake reported that sweet ageusic T1r3 and Trpm5 knockout (KO) stimulation and learned preferences for arbitrary flavors (con- mice expressed preferences for glucose and galactose, but not ditioned stimuli, CS) that are paired with gastric or intestinal forfructose,in24-hsugarvs.watertests,whichweattributed infusionsofsugar,fat,andproteins(orglutamate)(50).How- to the differential post-oral actions of the sugars (68). Taken ever, relatively little is known about the sites and identities of together,thesefindingssuggestthatgalactose,likeglucose,has the sensors that mediate the post-oral appetite-stimulating ac- post-oral reward actions in mice in some test situations. tions of nutrients, a process we refer to as appetition (48). In The present study investigated the role of SGLT1 and the case of sugars, several findings implicate the upper small SGLT3 in post-oral sugar appetition by using agonists and intestineasaprimarysiteofactionforglucoseappetition.That antagonistsofthesesugarsensors.Thisstrategyhasbeenused is,preferencesforflavoredsaccharinsolutionsareconditioned to characterize the sugar sensors involved in gut hormone release, sugar-induced satiety, and brain neural responses (12, 20, 43, 45, 54, 56). Experiment 1 compared the post-oral Addressforreprintrequestsandothercorrespondence:A.Sclafani,Dept.of conditioningeffectsofglucose,galactose,andfructoseusinga Psychology,BrooklynCollegeofCUNY,2900BedfordAve.,Brooklyn,NY 11210(e-mail:[email protected]). newly developed IG self-infusion paradigm that reveals both R840 0363-6119/13Copyright©2013theAmericanPhysiologicalSociety http://www.ajpregu.org POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE R841 rapid glucose stimulation of intake and flavor preference con- infusion rate and volume by its licking response. In particular, the ditioning in C57BL/6J mice (67, 69). Experiment 2 extended computer accumulated licks during 3-s bins and activated the pump this analysis by comparing the post-oral appetition effects of for 3 s when a criterion number of licks was recorded. The oral-to- infusion intake ratio was maintained at (cid:5)1:1 by adjusting the lick glucose with those of two nonmetabolizable glucose analogs: (cid:3)-methyl-D-glucopyranoside(MDG)and3-O-methyl-D-gluco- criterionforeachmouse.Dailyoralfluidintakesweremeasuredtothe nearest0.1g,andIGinfusionswererecordedtothenearest0.5ml. pyranoside (OMG). These analogs were of interest because Testsolutions.TheCSsolutionscontained0.025%sodiumsaccha- they are both ligands for the SGLT1 transporter, and MDG is rin (Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, MO) flavored with 0.02% ethyl also a ligand for SGLT3 (56, 63). Furthermore, they both acetateorpropylacetate(Sigma).TheCS(cid:1)solutionwaspairedwith evoke physiological responses similar to glucose, such as IG infusion of water, while the CS(cid:2) solution was paired with IG inhibition of gastric emptying and release of GLP-1 and GIP infusion of food-grade glucose, fructose (Honeyville Food Products, hormones, although MDG is more effective than OMG in RanchoCucamonga,CA),orgalactose(Sigma).Inexperiment1A,the mimickingglucoseactionsinsomeresponses(35,44).Exper- 8%Fructose,8%Galactoseand8%Glucosegroupscontained14,12, iment 3A determined the effects of the SGLT1/3 antagonist and 10 mice, respectively. In experiment 1B, the 12% Fructose, Galactose,andGlucosegroupscontained12,9,and12mice,respec- phloridzin on the flavor-conditioning effects of glucose and tively.Forabouthalfoftheanimalsineachgroup,theCS(cid:1)solution MDG. Experiment 3B then determined whether blocking glu- contained ethyl acetate, and the CS(cid:2) solution contained propyl D cose actions on SGLT1 and SGLT3, as well as on the sugar o acetate;theflavorswerereversedfortheremaininganimals. w transporter GLUT2, using a mixture of phloridzin and phlore- Procedure. The mice were trained (1 h/day) in the test cages for n tin would more effectively prevent glucose-conditioned flavor two sessions with unflavored 0.025% sodium saccharin solution, loa d preferences (see Ref. 29). whilewater-deprivedandthenforfoursessionswhilefood-restricted e d MATERIALS AND METHODS tpoai8re5d–9w0i%thomfatthcheierd-avdolluibmiteuminfbuosdioynswoefigwhta;tesra.cTchhaerimnicinetawkeersewtheerne from Experiment1—Glucose,Galactose,andFructose giventhree1-htestsessionswiththeCS(cid:1)saccharinsolutionpaired h with IG water infusions followed by three sessions with the CS(cid:2) ttp This experiment compared the post-oral appetition effects of IG saccharin solution paired with IG infusions of the appropriate sugar ://a self-infusionsofglucose,galactose,andfructose,whichhavediffer- solution.Themicewerethengiventwoalternating(A)sessions,each jp entialactionsonSGLT1andSGLT3.Thetestprotocolwasidentical withtheCS(cid:1)/IGwater(days1and3)andtheCS(cid:2)/IGsugar(days2 re g tothatusedinourrecentstudyof2–32%glucoseself-infusions(67). and4)toenhancetheirdiscriminationbetweenthetwosolutions(67). u In experiment 1A, the mice were infused with 8% sugar solutions In the last of each CS(cid:1) and CS(cid:2) session, the mice were given a .ph basedonourfindingthat8%glucosewasthethresholdconcentration second sipper tube containing water not paired with IG infusions to ys to condition a CS(cid:2) preference (67). Experiment 1B determined familiarize them with the presence of two sipper tubes for the io whetherahighersugarconcentration(12%)enhancedthecondition- subsequenttwo-bottletest.Thetwo-bottletestwiththeCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1) log y ingresponsetogalactoseandfructose. solutions,nolongerpairedwithIGinfusions,wasconductedoverfour .o Animals.AdultmaleC57BL/6J(B6)mice(10wkold)borninthe 1h/daysessions. rg laboratory from Jackson Laboratories (Bar Harbor, ME) stock were Data analysis. CS(cid:1) licks and total intakes (oral (cid:2) IG infusate) b/ y singly housed in plastic tub cages kept in a test room maintained at during the last two 1 h/day sessions were averaged. The data from 1 2ch2o°Cww(5i0th01a;1P2M:1I2-Nhultirgithito-ndaIrnktecryncalteio.nTahl,eBmriecnetwwoeored,mMaiOn)tapinreiodrotno dthuersinegtwthoestehsrseioenCs,Sr(cid:2)efesreressdiotnosa(stetsetsst10–,3a)ndwethree alincaklsyzaendduisnitnagkeas 0.22 0 food restriction. During testing, they were maintained at 85–90% of mixed-model ANOVA with a group factor (IG Sugar group) and .3 t(h0e.5iroard1libgi,tuBmiob-oSdeyrvw, eFirgehntcbhytowfene,diNngJ)t,hwemhicfihxeadll-osiwzeedchfoowr ppreelcliestes CreSp(cid:2)eatleidck-msedausruinregsthfaecttworo(atletsetrsna0t–in3g).oSniem-biolatrtlley,sethsesiomnesaanndCSth(cid:1)efaonudr 3.5 o adjustment of daily food rations. Experimental protocols were ap- two-bottle tests were compared in separate ANOVAs. Additional n J proved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at analysesaredescribedintheresults. u n Brooklyn College and were performed in accordance with the Na- e 1 triaotonrayl IAnnstiimtuatless.of Health Guidelines for the Care and Use of Labo- RESULTS 2, 2 Surgery.MicewerefittedwithIGcatheters(0.84mmOD(cid:4)0.36 Experiment 1A. Fig. 1A shows the total 1-h lick data for 01 7 mm ID, Micro-Renathane tubing, MRE-033; Braintree Scientific, CS(cid:1)test0andCS(cid:2)tests1–3.Analysisofthesedatarevealed Braintree,MA)whileanesthetizedwithisoflurane(2%)inhalation,as that the 8% sugar groups did not differ in their CS(cid:1) licks previouslydescribed(52).About10daysaftersurgerythemicewere pairedwithIGwaterself-infusion(test0)butdiddifferintheir briefly(5min)anesthetizedwithisoflurane,andtubingwasattached CS(cid:2)lickspairedwithIG8%sugarself-infusion[group(cid:4)test to the gastric catheter and then passed through an infusion harness withaspringtether(CIH62,InstechLaboratories,PlymouthMeeting, interaction,F(6,99)(cid:6)4.32,P(cid:7)0.001].The8%Glucoseand PA).Thetubingwasthenattachedtoaninfusionswivelmountedon 8% Galactose groups, but not the 8% Fructose group, signifi- a counterbalanced lever (Instech Laboratories). The body weight of cantlyincreased1-hlickswhenswitchedfromtheCS(cid:1)tothe each mouse was measured before and after it was fitted with the CS(cid:2). A comparison of the CS(cid:2) tests 1–3 licks indicated that infusiontether/swivelsystem;dailybodyweightsweremonitoredby the 8% Glucose group licked more (P (cid:7) 0.01) than the 8% weighingthemousewiththeattachedinfusiontether/swivelsystem. Fructosegroup,whilethelicksofthe8%Galactosegroupwere Each animal was then returned to a tub cage, and the swivel- intermediatebetweentheothertwogroups[F(2,32)(cid:6)6.2,P(cid:7) counterbalancedleverwasattachedabovethecage. 0.01]. Within-group analyses revealed that the 8% Galactose Apparatus. IG infusion tests were conducted in plastic test cages group [F(3,33) (cid:6) 10.1, P (cid:7) 0.001] and 8% Glucose group (52). The sipper spouts were interfaced via electronic lickometers [F(3,27)(cid:6)14.5,P(cid:7)0.001]lickedmoreineachofCS(cid:2)tests (Med Electronics, St. Albans, VT) to a computer, which operated a syringe pump (A-99; Razel Scientific, Stamford, CT) that infused 1–3thaninCS(cid:1)test0andthattheirlicksintests1–3didnot liquidintothegastriccathetersastheanimalslicked.Thepumprate differ. The 1-h intake data (CS solution (cid:2) IG infusion) re- was nominally 0.5 ml/min, but the animal controlled the overall vealed a similar pattern of results [group (cid:4) test interaction, AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org R842 POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE A One-Bottle Tests tively), whereas the CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) licks did not differ in the 8%Fructosegroup(769.8vs.833.9)[group(cid:4)CSinteraction, F(2,33) (cid:6) 12.9; P (cid:7) 0.001]. 2000 CS+3 Figure 1B presents the lick data for the two-bottle CS(cid:2) vs. CS+2 CS(cid:1) choice test conducted without IG infusions. Analysis of 11550000 CS+1 ** * * * Pthe(cid:7)sed0a.0ta01re]v.eIanledpaartgicrouulapr,(cid:4)thCeS8i%nterGacluticoonse[Fa(2n,d33G)a(cid:6)lac2t2o.s6e; CS-0 * * groups licked significantly more (P (cid:7) 0.001 and P (cid:7) 0.05, h 1 respectively)fortheCS(cid:2)thanCS(cid:1),whiletheCSlicksofthe s / 1000 8%Fructosegroupdidnotdiffer.Furthermore,theCS(cid:2)licks ck differed (P (cid:7) 0.001) among the groups: 8% Glucose (cid:8) 8% Li Galactose(cid:6)8%Fructosegroups,butCS(cid:1)licksdidnotdiffer. A similar pattern of results was obtained in the analysis of 500 two-bottle intake data except that the CS(cid:2) intakes of the 8% Glucose and Galactose groups only marginally differed (P (cid:6) D 0.052). Also, the Glucose group consumed less CS(cid:1) than the o w 0 Fructose and Galactose groups (data not shown). The groups n 8% FRU 8% GAL 8% GLU lo alsodifferedintheirpercentCS(cid:2)licks[F(2,33)(cid:6)27.9;P(cid:7) a B d Two-Bottle Tests 0.001]. The 8% Glucose group displayed a higher preference ed 2500 (70%, P (cid:7) 0.01) than did 8% Galactose (56%) and Fructose fro (51%) groups, which did not differ from one another. Note m 2000 CCSS+- 70*% tvthheaartnytChweSe(cid:1)a5k6.,%buCtS1(cid:2)0porfeftehreen1c2emoficteheli8c%kedGamlaocrteosfeorgrthoeupCwS(cid:2)as http://ajp re g h 1500 Experiment 1B u 1 .p Licks / 1000 56*% tesFtsig1.–23A.sAhnoawlysstihseotfottahle1s-ehdliactkadreavtaeafolerdCtSh(cid:1)atttehset012a%ndsCuSg(cid:2)ar hysiolo 51% groups did not differ in their CS(cid:1) licks paired with IG water gy self-infusion (test 0) but did differ in their CS(cid:2) licks paired .o 500 with IG 12% sugar self-infusion in tests 1–3 [group (cid:4) test brg/ interaction, F(6,99) (cid:6) 14.80; P (cid:7) 0.001]. The 12% Glucose y 1 andGalactosegroups,butnotthe12%Fructosegroup,signif- 0 0 icantlyincreased1-hlickswhenswitchedfromtheCS(cid:1)tothe .22 8% FRU 8% GAL 8% GLU CS(cid:2). A comparison of the CS(cid:2) tests 1–3 licks indicated that 0.3 Groups the 12% Glucose and Galactose groups did not differ and both 3.5 Fig.1.Experiment1A:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:1-htotallicks lickedmore(P(cid:7)0.01)thanthe12%Fructosegroup[F(2,33)(cid:6) o n areplottedforonebottletests0–3.Themicedrank(1h/day)aconditioned 23.7;P(cid:7)0.001].Within-groupanalysesrevealedthatthe12% J stimuli (CS)-flavored saccharin solution paired with intragastric (IG) water Glucose group increased (P (cid:7) 0.01) CS licks from test 0 to 1 un infusionsintest0beforebeingswitchedtoaCS(cid:2)-flavoredsaccharinsolution e pairedwithIGsugarself-infusionsintests1–3.The8%GLU,8%FRU,and and then in each successive CS(cid:2) test. The 12% Galactose 12 8% GAL groups were infused with 8% glucose, fructose, and galactose, groupincreased(P(cid:7)0.01)theirlicksfromtest0to1andthen , 2 respectively. B: 1-h licks are plotted for CS(cid:2)- and CS(cid:1)-flavored saccharin fromtest2to3.The1-hintakedatarevealedasimilarpattern 0 1 solutionsduringthetwo-bottlepreferencetestforthe8%GLU,8%FRU,and of results [group (cid:4) test interaction, F(6,99) (cid:6) 12.74, P (cid:7) 7 8% GAL groups. CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes were not paired with IG infusions duringtest.NumberatopbarrepresentsmeanpercentpreferencefortheCS(cid:2) 0.001]. Overall, intakes significantly increased from CS(cid:1) test solution.*Significantdifference(P(cid:7)0.05)betweentest0vs.tests1–3licks 0 to CS(cid:2) test 3 in the 12% Glucose (2.1 to 3.5 g/h) and the andbetweenCS(cid:2)vs.CS(cid:1)licks. 12% Galactose (2.0 to 3.2 g/h) groups, but not in the 12% Fructosegroup(2.1to2.2g/h).TheCS(cid:1)intakesofthegroups F(6,99) (cid:6) 4.77, P (cid:7) 0.001]. Overall, intakes significantly did not differ in test 0, whereas their CS(cid:2) test 1 and test 3 increased from CS(cid:1) test 0 to CS(cid:2) test 3 in the 8% Glucose intakes differed as follows: 12% Glucose (cid:6) 12% Galactose (cid:8) (2.0 to 3.3 g/h) and the 8% Galactose (1.9 to 2.9 g/h) groups, 12%Fructose.Test2intakesdifferedasfollows:12%Glucose(cid:8) but not in the 8% Fructose group (1.9 to 2.2 g/h). The CS(cid:1) 12%Galactose(cid:8)12%Fructose. intakesofthegroupsdidnotdifferintest0,whereastheirCS(cid:2) In the alternating training sessions, the 12% Glucose and tests 1–3 intakes differed as follows: 8% Glucose (cid:1) 8% Galactose groups licked more than the 12% Fructose group Galactose (cid:8) 8% Fructose. [F(2,33)(cid:6)13.1;P(cid:7)0.01].Inaddition,the12%Glucoseand Inthealternatingtrainingsessions,the8%Glucoseand8% Galactose groups licked more (P (cid:7) 0.001) in the CS(cid:2) than Galactose groups licked more than the 8% Fructose group CS(cid:1)sessions(1,665.0vs.1,252.1,1,375.8vs.1,092.5,respec- [F(2,33) (cid:6) 7.9, P (cid:7) 0.01]. In addition, the 8% Glucose and tively), whereas the CS(cid:2) and CS- licks did not differ in the Galactose groups licked more (P (cid:7) 0.001) in the CS(cid:2) than 12%Fructosegroup(931.1vs.939.5)[group(cid:4)CSinteraction; CS(cid:1) sessions (1,467.0 vs. 1,152.1, 1,129.6 vs. 910.4, respec- F(2,33) (cid:6) 9.7, P (cid:7) 0.001]. AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE R843 A One-BottleTests alsodifferedintheirpercentCS(cid:2)licks[F(2,33)(cid:6)34.0;P(cid:7) 0.001].The12%Glucosegroupdisplayedahigher(P(cid:7)0.01) preference(84%)thanthe12%Galactosegroup(64%),which CS+3 2000 displayed a higher preference than the 12% Fructose (53%) CS+2 * group. CS+1 * * 11550000 CS-0 * * DISCUSSION ** h Glucose. As previously reported, the 8% Glucose mice ks / 1 1000 lCicSk(cid:2)edtessigtn1ifiacnadndtliyspmlaoyreedfoarstihgeniCficSa(cid:2)nttChaSn(cid:2)CpSr(cid:1)efebreegnicneniinngthine c Li two-bottle choice test without IG infusions (67). Experiment 1B revealed an even greater stimulation of CS(cid:2) licking and 500 CS(cid:2)preferenceinthe12%Glucosegroup.Thisconfirmsour prior concentration-response findings obtained with mice D testedwith2,4,8,16,and32%glucoseinfusions.Asdetailed o w 0 12% FRU 12% GAL 12% GLU irnevoeaulredpritohratretphoertI,Ganglauncaolsyesisgroofupwsithinincr-eseassseidonthleicirk CraSt(cid:2)es nloa B licking as early as 4–6 min in CS(cid:2) test 1 and showed de 2500 Two-Bottle Tests saunbds3ta.nStiiamliilnacrrcehaasnesgeinsiCnSl(cid:2)icklircakteinsgwienremoinbusteersve1d–3inotfhtees1t2s%2 d fro 84% m CS+ * Glucose group in the present study (data not shown). h 2000 CS- FruFcrtuocsteosger.oIunpscofnatirleadstttooitnhcerGealsuecothseeigrr1o-uhplsi,ctkhsei8n%CaSn(cid:2)d1te2s%ts ttp://a 1–3 or display a significant preference for the CS(cid:2) over the jp 64% CS(cid:1). This is consistent with prior 1-h lick data obtained with reg 1 h 1500 * B6micedrinking0.8%sucraloseandless“sweet”8%glucose u.ph s / and8%fructosesolutions.Thatis,themicethatswitchedfrom ys Lick 1000 53% sthuecrmaliocseethtoatgsluwciotcsheeldicfkreodmmsuuccrhalmosoeretofofrrutchteosseugliacrk,ewdhmeruecahs iolog y less sugar than sucralose (66). The present 1-h IG results are .o also in agreement with our 24-h IG study showing that IG rg 500 infusions of 8% or 16% fructose, unlike glucose infusions, b/ y failed to stimulate intake or condition CS(cid:2) preferences in B6 1 0 mice(49).The1-and24-hIGconditioningresultsindicatethat .2 2 0 the post-oral actions of fructose have no reinforcing effects in 0 12% FRU 12% GAL 12% GLU B6 mice. This conclusion is compatible with the failure of .33 Groups naïvesweetageusicT1r3KOandTrpm5KOmicetodevelop .5 o preferences for orally consumed fructose solutions, which n Fig.2.Experiment1B:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:1-htotallicks J areplottedforonebottletests0–3.Themicedrank(1h/day)aCS(cid:1)-flavored contrasts with their robust experience-induced preferences for u n saccharin solution paired with IG water infusions in test 0 before being glucose solutions (68). e switched to a CS(cid:2)-flavored saccharin solution paired with IG sugar self- Galactose.Thepresentresultsprovidethefirstevidencethat 12 infusionsintests1–3.The12%GLU,12%FRU,and12%GALgroupswere IG infusions of galactose can stimulate intake and condition , 2 infusedwith12%glucose,fructose,andgalactose,respectively.B:1-hlicks 0 are plotted for CS(cid:2)- and CS(cid:1)-flavored saccharin solutions during the two- flavor preferences in rodents. The 8% and 12% galactose 17 bottle preference test for the 12% GLU, 12% FRU, and 12% GAL groups. infusionsincreasedlickratesintheveryfirstCS(cid:2)testsession CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes were not paired with IG infusions during the test. and further stimulated licking in subsequent test sessions. Number atop bar represents mean percent preference for the CS(cid:2) solution. Overall, the 8% and 12% galactose infusions stimulated CS(cid:2) *Significant differences (P (cid:7) 0.05) between test 0 vs. tests 1–3 licks and licking as much as did the IG glucose infusions. However, betweenCS(cid:2)vs.CS(cid:1)licks. galactose conditioned weaker CS(cid:2) preferences than did glu- cose. In particular, the preference of the 8% Galactose group, Fig. 2B presents the lick data for the two-bottle CS(cid:2) vs. while statistically significant, was quite modest (56%) and CS(cid:1)choicetest.Analysisofthesedatarevealedagroup(cid:4)CS substantially less than the 70% CS(cid:2) preference of the 8% interaction[F(2,33)(cid:6)15.3,P(cid:7)0.001].Inparticular,the12% Glucose group. The 12% galactose IG infusions increased the Glucose and Galactose groups licked significantly more (P (cid:7) CS(cid:2)preferenceto64%,butitwassignificantlylowerthanthe 0.01) for the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1), while the CS licks of the 12% 84% preference produced by the 12% glucose infusions. Fructose group did not differ. Furthermore, the CS(cid:2) licks To determine whether a higher galactose concentration differed(P(cid:7)0.001)amongthegroups:12%Glucose(cid:8)12% wouldconditionastillstrongerCS(cid:2)preference,anothergroup Galactose (cid:6) 12% Fructose groups. CS(cid:1) licks also differed of mice (n (cid:6) 12) was tested as in experiment 1 but with IG (P(cid:7)0.01)amongthegroups:12%Fructose(cid:6)12%Galactose(cid:8) infusions of 16% galactose. These mice displayed only a 12% Glucose. A similar pattern of results was obtained in the marginal (P (cid:6) 0.079) increase in CS(cid:2) licks in tests 1–3. The analysisoftwo-bottleintakedata(datanotshown).Thegroups 16% galactose mice showed a weak (54%), albeit significant AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org R844 POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE (P (cid:7) 0.05), CS(cid:2) preference in the two-bottle tests, which AA One-BottleTests contrasts with the 80% CS(cid:2) preference displayed by rats infused with 16% glucose infusions (67). Thus, while IG CS+3 galactose can stimulate intake and condition a flavor prefer- 2000 ence, it is effective only at a limited concentration range and CS+2 much less so than glucose. Postabsorptive metabolic factors CS+1 * may limit the appetition effects of galactose (see GENERAL 11550000 CS-0 * * * * DISCUSSION). * h * * Experiment 2: Glucose Analogs 1 Thepresentexperimentfurtherexploredtheroleofintestinal ks / 1000 c SGLTproteinsinsugarappetitionbycomparingthecondition- Li ing effects of two nonmetabolizable glucose analogs: MDG, a substrate for both SGLT1 and SGLT3, and OMG, a substrate 500 for SGLT1 only. Prior studies have used these two glucose D analogs to reveal the sugar-sensing mechanisms involved in ow gastrointestinal hormone release and satiety effects (7, 12, 18, n 0 lo 19, 21, 33, 37), but their abilities to stimulate intake and 8% OMG 8% MDG 8% GLU ad condition flavor preferences have not been previously investi- B ed gtiaotnedf.aiOlendetsotucdoyndreitpioonrtead,plhaocweepvreerf,etrheantceOiMnGmigcaest(r3ic0)i.ntuba- 2000 Two-Bottle Tests from Attheendofbehavioraltesting,theeffectsoftheIGglucose CS+ 70% h amnedasgulruecdo.sTehaisnawloasgoifnfinutseiorensstboencabuloseodofgtlhuecopsoetenletviaellsrowleeoref CS- 70% * ttp://a 1500 jp postabsorptive glucose in preference conditioning (39, 58). * re A prior study indicated that gastric intubation of MDG, gu unlikeglucose,didnotincreaseplasmaglucoselevelsinB6 h .p mice (37). s / 1 1000 56% hysio ck lo MATERIALS AND METHODS Li gy .o Adult male B6 mice were housed and tested as in experiment 1. rg Experiment2Aincluded8%MDG(n(cid:6)14)and8%OMG(n(cid:6)15) 500 b/ groups and experiment 2B included 12% MDG (n (cid:6) 14) and 12% y OMG (n (cid:6) 9) groups. Their licking responses were compared with 10 thoseofthe8%and12%Glucosegroupsofexperiment1. .2 2 Following the two-bottle tests, blood glucose levels were mea- 0 0 .3 sured. Each mouse was infused with 0.6 ml of its respective sugar 8% OMG 8% MDG 8% GLU 3 solution(8%or12%glucose,MDG,orOMG)overa10-minperiod Groups .5 o (see Ref. 67). Tail blood samples were measured using a FreeStyle n Freedom Lite (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) blood glucose Fig.3.Experiment2A:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:1-htotallicks J meterjustbefore(0min),and15,30,and60minfollowingthestart areplottedforonebottletests0–3.Themicedrank(1h/day)aCS(cid:1)-flavored un saccharin solution paired with IG water infusions in test 0 before being e omficthee(nIG(cid:6)in1f2u)sitohna.tDwaetraewinefruesecdolIlGectwedithfro0m.6amnlaodfdwitiaotenralingsrtoeuapd ooff sinwfiutscihoendsitnotaesCtsS1(cid:2)–-3fl.aTvhoere8d%saGccLhUar,in8%soMluDtioGn,apnadire8d%wOitMhGIGgrsouugpasrwseelrfe- 12, 2 glucose(67).ThebloodglucosedatawereanalyzedusinganANOVA infused with 8% glucose, MDG and OMG, respectively. B: 1-h licks are 0 1 with a group factor and a repeated-measure factor (sample time plottedforCS(cid:2)-andCS(cid:1)-flavoredsaccharinsolutionsduringthetwo-bottle 7 points). In addition, incremental areas under the curve (IAUC) were preference test for the 8% GLU, MDG, and OMG groups. CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) calculatedandcomparedacrossgroupswithaone-wayANOVA. intakes were not paired with IG infusions during the test. Number atop bar representsmeanpercentpreferencefortheCS(cid:2)solution.*Significantdiffer- RESULTS ences(P(cid:7)0.05)betweentest0vs.tests1–3licksandbetweenCS(cid:2)vs.CS(cid:1) licks. Experiment 2A Fig.3Ashowsthetotal1-hlickdataforCS(cid:1)test0andCS(cid:2) tests 1–3. Analysis of these data revealed that the 8% sugar than in CS(cid:1) test 0, whereas the 8% MDG group licked more groups did not differ in their CS- licks paired with IG water only in CS(cid:2) tests 2 and 3 than in CS(cid:1) test 0. The 1-h intake self-infusion (test 0), and all three groups increased their data revealed a similar pattern of results [group (cid:4) test inter- lickingresponseintheCS(cid:2)tests,althoughtodifferentdegrees action,F(6,108)(cid:6)4.46;P(cid:7)0.001].Overall,allthreegroups [group (cid:4) test interaction, F(6,108) (cid:6) 4.4; P (cid:7) 0.001]. A significantly increased their solution intakes from CS(cid:1) test 0 comparison of the CS(cid:2) tests 1–3 revealed that the Glucose toCS(cid:2)test3(2.0to3.3g/hfor8%Glucose,2.4to3.2g/hfor group licked more than the 8% MDG group in test 1; there 8%MDG,and1.9to2.7g/hfor8%OMG).TheCS(cid:1)intakes werenoothergroupdifferences[F(4,72)(cid:6)4.9;P(cid:7)0.01].In ofthegroupsdidnotdifferintest0,whereastheirCS(cid:2)test1 addition, within-group analyses revealed that the 8% Glucose intakes differed as follows: 8% Glucose (cid:8) 8% OMG (cid:6) 8% and8%OMGgroupslicked(P(cid:7)0.01)moreinCS(cid:2)tests1–3 MDG; CS(cid:2) intakes did not differ in tests 2 and 3. AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE R845 In the alternating training sessions, the groups differed in A One-BottleTests theirCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)licks[group(cid:4)CSinteraction,F(2,36)(cid:6) 4.4; P (cid:7) 0.05]. Only the 8% Glucose and 8% MDG groups CS+3 licked more (P (cid:7) 0.001) in the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1) sessions 2000 (1,467.0 vs. 1,152.1, 1,391.4 vs. 1,102.2, respectively); CS(cid:2) CS+2 * and CS(cid:1) licks did not significantly differ in the 8% OMG CS+1 * group (1,102.9 vs. 1,006.4). Fig. 3B presents the lick data for the two-bottle CS(cid:2) vs. h 11550000 CS-0 ** * CS(cid:1)choicetest.Analysisofthesedatarevealedagroup(cid:4)CS 1 * * * * interaction[F(2,36)(cid:6)9.75;P(cid:7)0.001].Inparticular,the8% / s Glucose and MDG groups licked significantly more (P (cid:7) k 1000 c 0.001) for the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1), while the CS licks of the 8% Li OMGgroupdidnotdiffer.Furthermore,theCS(cid:2)licksdiffered (P(cid:7)0.001)amongthegroups:8%Glucose(cid:8)8%MDG(cid:8)8% 500 OMGgroups,butCS(cid:1)licksdidnotdiffer.Asimilarpatternof D results was obtained in the analysis of the two-bottle intake o data, except that the CS(cid:2) intakes of the 8% Glucose and 8% wn MDGgroupsdidnotsignificantlydiffer(datanotshown).The 0 loa g1pr0lao.y2ue2pd;ssPaimls(cid:7)oilad0ri.p0ffr0ee1rfe]e.dreTnihnceetsh8(e%7ir0%Gpe)lurtccheoanstteexCacnSed(cid:2)edMeldiDc(kGPs(cid:7)g[Fr0o(2.u0,p31s6))dthi(cid:6)sa-t B 2500 12% OMG T w o -1B2%ot MtleDG T e s t s 12% GLU ded from of the 8% OMG group (56%). CS+ 84% h * ttp Experiment 2B 2000 CS- 71% ://a * jp Fig. 4A shows the total 1-h licks for CS(cid:1) test 0 and CS(cid:2) reg h u tests 1–3. Analysis of these data revealed that the 12% sugar 1 1500 .p groups did not differ in their CS(cid:1) licks paired with IG water / hy sl[igeclrkfo-iuinnpgfur(cid:4)esisoptnoesnt(steeinsinttetr0ha)ec,tCiaoSnnd(cid:2), Fate(ll6st,s9th6ar)lethe(cid:6)ougg7roh.6ut5po;sdPiifnfc(cid:7)erreean0st.e0dd0e1gt]rh.eeeAisr Licks 1000 55% siology.o comparisonoftheCS(cid:2)tests1–3revealedthatoveralltheCS(cid:2) rg licks of the 12%GlucosegroupexceededthatoftheMDGand 500 by/ OMGgroups,whichdidnotdifferfromoneanother[F(2,32)(cid:6) 1 6.74; P (cid:7) 0.001]. Within-group analyses indicated that the 0.2 12%GlucoseandMDGgroupslickedmoreinCS(cid:2)tests1–3 0 20 thaninCS(cid:1)test0,whereasthe12%OMGgrouplickedmore 12% OMG 12% MDG 12% GLU .33 onlyinCS(cid:2)test3comparedwithCS(cid:1)test0.The1-hintake Groups .5 data revealed a similar pattern of results [group (cid:4) test inter- on aincctiroenas,eFd(6th,9e6ir)s(cid:6)ol4u.t8io;nPi(cid:7)nta0k.e0s1]f.roAmllCthSr(cid:1)eetgersotu0pstosiCgSni(cid:2)fictaensttly3 Fasariecgc.ph4lao.rtEitnexdpseforolirumtoeinonent2bpBoat:itrlVeedatleuswetssith0ar–eI3Ge.xTpwhreeastmesreidcienafsdurmsaineokanns(s1i(cid:9)nh/dSteaEsy.t)Aa0:C1b-Seh(cid:1)foto-rfletaalvbloeicirnekdgs June (12% glucose: 2.1 to 3.5 g/h; 12% MDG: 2.1 to 2.8 g/h; 12% switched to a CS(cid:2)-flavored saccharin solution paired with IG sugar self- 12 OMG: 1.9 to 2.4 g/h). infusionsintests1–3.The12%GLU,12%MDG,and12%OMGgroupswere , 2 infused with 12% glucose, MDG, and OMG, respectively. B: 1-h licks are 0 In the alternating training sessions, the groups differed in 1 plottedforCS(cid:2)-andCS(cid:1)-flavoredsaccharinsolutionsduringthetwo-bottle 7 theirCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)licks[group(cid:4)CSinteraction,F(2,32)(cid:6) preferencetestforthe12%GLU,MDG,andOMGgroups.CS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1) 7.9;P(cid:7)0.01].Onlythe12%GlucoseandMDGgroupslicked intakes were not paired with IG infusions during the test. Number atop bar more (P (cid:7) 0.05) in the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1) sessions (1,665.0 vs. representsmeanpercentpreferencefortheCS(cid:2)solution.*Significantdiffer- 1,252.1, 1,368.8 vs. 1,230.3, respectively); CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) ences(P(cid:7)0.05)betweentest0vs.tests1–3licksandbetweenCS(cid:2)vs.CS(cid:1) licks. licksweresimilarforthe12%OMGgroup(1,037.6vs.992.4). Fig. 4B presents the lick data for the two-bottle CS(cid:2) vs. CS(cid:1)choicetest.Analysisofthesedatarevealedagroup(cid:4)CS was greater in the 12% glucose group (84%) than the MDG interaction[F(2,32)(cid:6)8.6;P(cid:7)0.001].Inparticular,the12% group(71%),which,inturn,wasgreaterthanthatoftheOMG Glucose and MDG groups licked significantly more (P (cid:7) group (56%). 0.001)fortheCS(cid:2)thanCS(cid:1),whiletheCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)licks Blood glucose measures. Fig. 5 presents the blood glucose of the 12% OMG group did not differ. Furthermore, the (BG) data following IG infusions of water, glucose, MDG, or number of CS(cid:2) licks was greater in the 12% Glucose and OMGinthedifferentgroups.AnalysisoftheabsoluteBGdata MDG groups than in the 12% OMG group (P (cid:7) 0.01), while revealed that overall, the three 8% sugar groups differed in the CS(cid:1) licks did not differ. Similar results were obtained in theirBGresponse[F(3,47)(cid:6)30.3,P(cid:7)0.001],andtheeffect the analysis of CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes during the two-bottle varied as a function of time [group (cid:4) time interaction, tests(datanotshown).Thegroupsalsodifferedintheirpercent F(9,141) (cid:6) 66.4; P (cid:7) 0.001]. The groups did not differ at 0 CS(cid:2)licks[F(2,32)(cid:6)9.6;P(cid:7)0.001]andtheCS(cid:2)preference min. At 15 min, they differed (P (cid:7) 0.05) as follows: 8% AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org R846 POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE 300 0.001)asfollows:12%OMG(cid:8)12%Glucose(cid:6)H2O(cid:8)12% 12% GLU MDG.AnalysisoftheIAUCalsorevealedthefollowinggroup 8% GLU differences:12%Glucose(cid:8)12%OMG(cid:8)H O(cid:6)12%MDG dl) 250 182%% M MDDGG [F(3,43) (cid:6) 27.89; P (cid:7) 0.001]. 2 mg / 200 182%% O OMMGG DISCUSSION ( HH22OO e MDG. This experiment reports for the first time that a s co 150 nonmetabolizable glucose analog can stimulate CS(cid:2) licking u Gl and condition a flavor preference; these responses occurred in d theabsenceofchangesinbloodglucoselevels.The8%MDG oo 100 infusionswerenearlyaseffectiveinstimulatingCS(cid:2)intakeas Bl 8% glucose and conditioned an identical preference (70%). 50 The 8% infusions differed only in that MDG, unlike glucose, didnotstimulateCS(cid:2)lickingintest1(butseeexperiment3). In contrast, the 12% MDG infusions were less effective than D 0 0 15 30 60 12% glucose in stimulating intake in CS(cid:2) tests 1–3 and ow Time(min) conditioned a weaker CS(cid:2) preference (71% vs. 84%). To nlo a determine whether a stronger preference could be obtained d 3000 with a more concentrated MDG infusion, another group of ed mice (n (cid:6) 12) was tested as in this experiment but with IG fro -1g * min * dl) 22050000 iit0wnnw.a0fcousr5-es)baiwoosthneettaeslek(oPCefcrSh(cid:6)1(cid:2)ot6hi%ca0teno.0Mt7ttehh5sDeo)t,GsCietn.hSToe(cid:1)1fh-1,het6sah%eCletShm8Mo(cid:2)i%ucDgelhGiaschnkthgodserwoii1rneu2dpp%treoepsnftrMesleyrfeD1eanr–Grc3meeda.g(rr(6IgoPn2iun%p(cid:7)tahs)le http://ajprem m g se ( 1500 (I7t0m–a7y1b%e)t,haastwatehlligahsetrhcaotnocfean1tr6a%tioGnsl,utchoeseacgcruomupul(a8t0io%n)o(f6t7h)e. u.ph o y c nonmetabolizable MDG in the body generates satiating or s u io Gl 1000 other inhibitory signals that counteract the appetition signals lo d generated by this sugar analog. gy Bloo 500 OMG. The 8% and 12% OMG infusions stimulated CS(cid:2) .org licking about as much as did the MDG infusions but, unlike b/ MDG (and glucose), did not condition significant CS(cid:2) pref- y 1 0 erences.ThedifferentialeffectivenessofOMGandMDGmay 0 H2O OMG MDG GLU OMG MDG GLU .2 beduetothefactthatOMG,unlikeMDG,isnotasubstratefor 2 0 -------- 8% -------- -------- 12% -------- SGLT3 (3). OMG results are consistent with the findings that .3 Groups galactose, which also only binds to SGLT1, conditioned 3.5 Fig.5.Experiment2:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:bloodglucose weakerCS(cid:2)preferencesthandidglucose.However,itisalso o n at0,15,30,and60minaftera0.6-mlinfusionofglucose,MDG,orOMGin possible that, like galactose, OMG may have postabsorptive J 8%and12%groupsorwaterintheH2Ogroup.B:incrementalareaunderthe actionsthatinterferewithCS(cid:2)conditioning.Inparticular,the un curve(IAUC)forbloodglucoseaftera0.6-mlinfusionofglucose,MDG,or e IGOMGinfusionproducedasmallbutsustainedincreasedBG 1 OMGin8%and12%groupsorwaterintheH2Ogroup. 2 level.Himsworth(23)previouslyreportedasustainedincrease , 2 in BG following an intravenous infusion of OMG, which he 0 1 Glucose(cid:8)8%OMG(cid:8)H O(cid:6)8%MDG.At30and60min, attributedtoaglucoprivationresponseduetoOMGcompeting 7 they differed (P (cid:7) 0.05) a2s follows: 8% OMG (cid:8) H O (cid:6) 8% with glucose for cellular uptake. Thus, OMG-induced gluco- Glucose (cid:6) 8% MDG. Analysis of the IAUC data rev2ealed the privation in the B6 mice may have prevented CS(cid:2) flavor followinggroupdifferences:8%OMG(cid:6)8%Glucose(cid:8)H O(cid:6) preference conditioning and perhaps place preference condi- 8%MDG[F(3,47)(cid:6)26.49;P(cid:7)0.001](Fig.5). 2 tioning, as previously reported (30). AnalysisoftheabsoluteBGdatarevealedthatoverall,thethree Experiment 3: Phlorizdin and Phloretin Effects on Glucose 12% sugar groups differed in their BG response [F(3,43) (cid:6) and MDG Appetition 53.76; P (cid:7) 0.001], and the effect varied as a function of time point [group (cid:4) time interaction, F(9,129) (cid:6) 50.23; P (cid:7) The findings of the first two experiments that ligands of 0.001]. The groups differed (P (cid:7) 0.001) at the 0-min time SGLT1and/orSGLT3(glucose,galactose,MDG,OMG)stim- point in that the starting value in the 12% MDG group was ulate CS(cid:2) intake and, except for OMG, condition CS(cid:2) pref- lower than that of the other groups. At the 15-min point, the erencessuggestthattheSGLTsensorsmediatepost-oralsugar groupsdiffered(P(cid:7)0.001)inthatthe12%Glucosedisplayed appetition.Ifthisisthecase,thenIGsugarconditioningshould higher BG levels than the other three groups, which did not be blocked by the SGLT1/SGLT3 antagonist, phloridzin (17, differfromoneanother.Atthe30-mintimepoint,theydiffered 33). Experiment 3A tested this possibility by determining the (P (cid:7) 0.05) as follows: 12% OMG (cid:6) 12% Glucose (cid:8) H O (cid:8) effects of adding phloridzin to 8% glucose and 8% MDG 2 12% MDG. At the 60-min time point, they differed (P (cid:7) infusions on stimulation of CS(cid:2) licking and preference con- AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE R847 ditioning. Galactose and OMG were not included in this A One-Bottle Tests experiment because of their weaker conditioning effects. Experiment 3B determined whether combining the GLUT2 CS+3 2000 inhibitor phloretin with phloridzin would more completely CS+2 block the flavor-conditioning actions of IG glucose self-infu- * sions. This manipulation was based on a recent report that CS+1 * phloridzin alone only partially blocked glucose stimulation of 1500 * * * CS-0 ginutteshtionramloinnfeussi[oGnLpPr-e1p,arGatIiPo,n,pwephteidreeaYsaYph(PloYreYti)n](cid:2)inphalnoraidcuzitne h * * * * * 1 cocktail was fully effective (29). s / 1000 k MATERIALS AND METHODS Lic Experiment3A 500 ThreegroupsofadultmaleB6micewerehousedandtestedasin the prior experiments: an 8% Glucose(cid:2)0.4% phloridzin (GLU(cid:2)Pz, D o n(cid:6)12),an8%MDG(cid:2)0.4%phloridzingroup(MDG(cid:2)Pz;n(cid:6)12), w and an 8% MDG group (8% MDG, n (cid:6) 9). The 0.4% (8.4 mM) 0 nlo phloridzin (Sigma) concentration was based on the report of Savas- MDG+Pz MDG GLU+Pz GLU a d tano et al. (46), which investigated the drug’s effect on the feeding B ed icnohnicbeintitornatipornodwuacsednebayrtdhueodliemniatlomfasoltloudbeixlittryinofinpfhulsoiorindsziinnirnattsh.eT8h%is 2500 Two-Bottle Tests from sugar solutions. The data from the 8% GLU(cid:2)Pz group were com- CS+ h paredwiththe8%Glucosegroupdatafromexperiment1A.Anew8% ttp MDG group was included in this experiment to replicate the novel 2000 CS- 68% 70% ://a fistnimdiunlgateodf eCxSp(cid:2)eriminetnatke2 athnadt cthoendnitoinomneedtabaolpizraebfelerengclue.coFseollaonwailnogg 72% * * jpre * g behavioral testing, the effect of phloridzin on the blood glucose u h 1500 .p rabEenexsacpplaeoyurnssiismesee8wtn%oatsI3MGBpeD8r%fGorgdmliudecdnooosetnaitnlhtfeeurs8ibo%lnooMwdaDgsGlmu(cid:2)ceoaPsszeuraienndde.xN8p%oerbiMmloDeondGtg2gl.urocuopses Licks / 1 1000 57% hysiology.o testTewdoagsroinuptshe(np(cid:6)rio1r0eexapcehr)imofenatdsu.ltOmnealegrBo6upm(icGeLwUe(cid:2)rePhzo(cid:2)uPset)dwanads 500 byrg/ tested with 8% glucose self-infusions containing 0.4% (8.4 mM) 10 phloridzinand0.23%(8.4mM)phloretin.Isomolardrugdoseswere .2 2 usedbasedonapriorstudy(29).[Thisstudyusedamuchlowerdose 0 (0.5 mM), but the inhibitors were added to a more dilute glucose 0 MDG+Pz MDG GLU+Pz GLU .33 solution(1.8%)thanthatusedhere.]Becauseofthelimitedsolubility .5 of phloretin, the glucose(cid:2)phloridzin(cid:2)phloretin mixture contained Groups on 3.25% 1 N NaOH to dissolve the drugs (38). A second group Fig.6.Experiment3A:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:1-htotallicks Ju (GLU(cid:2)Pz) was tested with 8% glucose self-infusions containing n areplottedforonebottletests0–3.Themicedrank(1h/day)aCS-flavored e 0.4% phloridzin and 3.25% NaOH. This group was included to saccharin solution paired with IG water infusions in test 0 before being 1 dreestperomnsienetow8h%ethgelructohsee(cid:2)adpdhitlioornidzoifnNinafOusHionasl.teTrehdetphHe ocofngdliutcioonsien(cid:2)g sTwhietcMheDdGto(cid:2)aphClSo(cid:2)rid-zflianvo(Prezd),sMacDchGa,riGnLsoUl(cid:2)utiPozn,paanidreGdLwUithgrIoGupsusgwarerienfiunsfiuosnesd. 2, 20 phloretin(cid:2)phloridzin and glucose(cid:2)phloridzin solutions were 10.1 with8%MDG,8%MDG(cid:2)0.4%Pz,8%glucose,and8%glucose(cid:2)0.4%Pz, 17 and 10.8, respectively. Following behavioral testing, the effects of respectively. B: 1-h licks are plotted for CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1)-flavored saccharin phloridzin and phloretin on the blood glucose response to IG 8% solutionsduringthetwo-bottlepreferencetestfortheMDG,MDG(cid:2)Pz,GLU, glucose infusion were measured as in experiment 2 in the GLU(cid:2)Pz and GLU(cid:2)Pz groups. CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes were not paired with IG and GLU(cid:2)Pt(cid:2)Pz groups. Two days after the BG test, a second BG ifnofrutshioenCsSd(cid:2)urisnogluthtieonte.s*t.SNigunmifibcearnattdoipffbearernrceepsre(sPen(cid:7)tsm0.e0a5n)pbeertwceenetnprteesfetr0envcse. test was conducted in some mice (5 GLU(cid:2)Pz and 4 GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt) tests1–3licksandbetweenCS(cid:2)vs.CS(cid:1)licks. duringwhichtheywereinfusedintragastricallywithwatercontaining 3.25%of1NNaOH. test1butthatthe8%MDGgrouplickedmoreinCS(cid:2)tests2 RESULTS and 3 than did the MDG(cid:2)Pz group. A within-group analysis revealed that the 8% MDG group licked more in CS(cid:2) tests 1 Experiment 3A and2thaninCS(cid:1)test0,andmoreinCS(cid:2)test3thanintests Analysis of 8% MDG and MDG(cid:2)Pz groups revealed that 0–2.The1-hsolutionintakedatarevealedasimilarpatternof thetwogroupsdidnotdifferintheirCS(cid:1)lickspairedwithIG results [group (cid:4) test interaction, F(3,57) (cid:6) 8.4, P (cid:7) 0.001]. water self-infusion (test 0) but only the 8% MDG group The 8% MDG Group increased (P (cid:7) 0.01) its intakes from increased licks in CS(cid:2) tests 1–3 [group (cid:4) test interaction, CS(cid:1) test 0 to CS(cid:2) test 3 (2.1 to 3.6 g/h), whereas the 8% F(3,57)(cid:6)7.0,P(cid:7)0.001](Fig.6A).AcomparisonoftheCS(cid:2) MDG(cid:2)Pzgroupintakesdidnotsignificantlychangefromtest tests 1–3 licks indicated that the groups did not differ in CS(cid:2) 0 to test 3 (2.0 vs. 2.2 g/h). AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org R848 POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE In the alternating training sessions, the 8% MDG group 300 lickedmoreintheCS(cid:2)thanintheCS(cid:1)sessions(1,586.8vs. 8% GLU 1,107.4),whereastheCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)licksdidnotdifferinthe 8%MDG(cid:2)Pzgroup[975.2vs.870.7;group(cid:4)CSinteraction, 250 8H%2O GLU+Pz F(1,19)(cid:6)22.5,P(cid:7)0.01].Inaddition,theMDGgrouplicked dl) more overall than did the MDG(cid:2)Pz group [F(1,19) (cid:6) 15.6; g / 200 P (cid:7) 0.001]. (m e In the two-bottle choice test, the 8% MDG group licked s significantlymore(P(cid:7)0.001)fortheCS(cid:2)thanCS(cid:1),whilethe co 150 u CS licks of the 8% MDG(cid:2)Pz group did not differ [F(1,19) (cid:6) Gl 11.1, P (cid:7) 0.01, Fig. 6B]. Furthermore, the number of CS(cid:2) d 100 o o licks was greater in the 8% MDG group than in the 8% Bl MDG(cid:2)Pz group (P (cid:7) 0.001), while CS(cid:1) licks did not 50 differ. Similar results were obtained in the analysis of CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes during the two-bottle tests (data not D shown). The CS(cid:2) preference was also greater in the 8% 0 0 15 30 60 ow MDG than in the 8% MDG(cid:2)Pz group [72% vs. 57%, t(19) (cid:6) nlo 3.1, P (cid:7) 0.01]. Time (min) ad Analysis of the 1-h lick data for the GLU(cid:2)Pz and GLU 2500 ed groupsindicatedthatoverall,thegroupsdidnotdifferintheir fro C0StoliCckSs(cid:2), atnedstbso1th–3gr[oFu(p3s,6i3n)cr(cid:6)eas2e9d.2t1h;eiPr l(cid:7)ick0s.0fr0o1m] (CFSig(cid:1). 6tAes)t. -1* dl) 2000 httpm pdTw(CPeuhSirrte(cid:1)ih(cid:7)ionidnggl0-riitsoc.nhe0kutes1esps)lrsiaaiondscndtutiti2roefCi0fsnneSt,gmr(cid:2)Fe0itd.(nh2,leTic,c4hhofik2aomrs)twspt(cid:6)iieans2vr,e90ettde5rh,ms.ew6tsii;iGnntP1hLo–tt(cid:7)Uhf3he,e(cid:2)t0haG.Pdel0tiLz0hs1Ut1o-grh]uir.bgogtuTruheothpsiuotensplnoi1c[tb-gkouhirenftoidnumtttphhlaoeeek(cid:4)rsiieesrr ucose (mg * min 11050000 ://ajpregu.physio data revealed that both groups significantly increased their Gl log GtihnLetaUk8e%asnfdrGo2mL.0UCtoSg2(cid:1)r.o9utgeps/hte0fxoctreo8eCd%eSdG(cid:2)L(PtUes(cid:2)t(cid:7)P3z0()2,.0.a05lt)thoothu3ag.3thgoin/fhtatfhkoeers88f%o%r Blood 500 by.org/ y GLU(cid:2)PzgroupinCS(cid:2)tests1and2[group(cid:4)testinteraction, 1 0 0 F(3,63)(cid:6)2.8,P(cid:6)0.047]. H2O GLU+Pz GLU .2 2 In the alternating training sessions, the groups differed in Groups 0.3 theirCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)licks[group(cid:4)CSinteraction,F(1,21)(cid:6) 3 13.2;P(cid:6)0.01].Whereasthe8%GLUgrouplickedmore(P(cid:7) aFtig0.,7.1E5,xp3e0r,imaenndt36A0:mVianluaefstearreaex0p.6r-emssledinafsusmioenanosf(cid:9)8%SE.gAlu:cbolsoeo,d8g%lucgoluse- .5 o 0.001)inCS(cid:2)thanCS(cid:1)sessions(1,467.0vs.1,152.1),theCS cose(cid:2)0.4% phloridzin, or water in the GLU, GLU(cid:2)Pz, and H2O groups. n J licks of the 8% GLU(cid:2)Pz group did not differ (1,349.9 vs. B:bloodglucoseIAUCintheGLU,GLU(cid:2)Pz,andH2Ogroups. un e 1,318.5). 1 moTrhee(PG(cid:7)LU0(cid:2).0P01z)mfoicret,hleikCeSt(cid:2)hethGaLnUCSmiincet,hleictwkeod-bsoigttnlieficchaonitclye Experiment 3B 2, 20 1 tests [F(1,21) (cid:6) 22.85; P (cid:7) 0.001], and there were no group 7 Analysisofthe1-hlickdataindicatedthattheGLU(cid:2)Pzand differences (Fig. 6B). The GLU(cid:2)Pz and GLU groups also GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)PtgroupsdidnotdifferintheirCS(cid:1)licksintest0, displayed comparable CS(cid:2) preferences (68% and 70%, re- but only the GLU(cid:2)Pz group increased its licking response in spectively). Similar results were obtained in the analysis of the CS(cid:2) tests [group (cid:4) test interaction, F(3,54) (cid:6) 10.6, P (cid:7) CS(cid:2) and CS(cid:1) intakes during the two-bottle tests (data not 0.001] (Fig. 8A). Within-group analyses indicated that the shown). GLU(cid:2)Pz group licked more in test 1 than in test 0 and more Analysis of the BG data for the GLU, GLU(cid:2)Pz, and water intests2and3thanintest1[F(3,27)(cid:6)22.5;P(cid:7)0.001].The groupsindicatedagroup(cid:4)concentrationinteraction[F(6,96)(cid:6) 1-h intake data revealed a similar pattern of results [group (cid:4) 58.40, P (cid:7) 0.001] (Fig. 7). Individual comparisons revealed test interaction, F(3,54) (cid:6) 7.47; P (cid:7) 0.001]: the GLU(cid:2)Pz higher(P(cid:7)0.05)BGlevelsintheGLUgroupcomparedwith miceincreasedtheirintakefromCS(cid:1)test0toCS(cid:2)test3(2.1 the GLU(cid:2)Pz and water groups at the 15-min time point, to 2.6 g/h), while intake did not significantly change in the whereas the GLU(cid:2)Pz had a higher blood glucose than the GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt (2.1 to 1.9 g/h). GLU group at the 30-min time point. The IAUC analysis In the alternating training sessions, the GLU(cid:2)Pz group indicatedthatthe8%GLUgrouphadagreateroverallincrease licked more overall than the GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt group [F(1,18) (cid:6) in BG than the 8% GLU(cid:2)Pz group, which, in turn, had a 26.8;P(cid:7)0.001].TheGLU(cid:2)Pzgrouplickedsomewhatmore greater increase than the Water group [F(2,32) (cid:6) 13.90; P (cid:7) in the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1) sessions (1,226.4 vs. 1,172.0), whereas 0.001] (Fig. 7). theGLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Ptgroupshowedtheoppositepattern(863.9vs. AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org POST-ORALSUGARSENSINGANDAPPETITE R849 A One-Bottle Tests [group (cid:4) concentration interaction, F(6,75) (cid:6) 8.32; P (cid:7) 0.001] (Fig. 9). Individual comparisons revealed that groups didnotdifferatthe15-mintimepoint,buttheydiffered(P(cid:7) 2000 CS+3 0.05) at the other time points as follows: time 0: Water (cid:8) CS+2 GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:8)GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)PT;time30:GLU(cid:2)Pt(cid:6)GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2) CS+1 Pt(cid:8)Water;time60:Water(cid:8)GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:6)GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt.The 11550000 CS-0 ** IAUC analysis indicated that the GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt group had a h * * greater overall increase in BG than the GLU(cid:2)Pz and Water 1 groups [F(2,25) (cid:6) 14.46, P (cid:7) 0.001]. s / 1000 k c DISCUSSION Li The phloridzin findings of experiment 3A provide partial 500 support for the involvement of SGLT1/SGLT3 in preference conditioning. In particular, phloridzin completely blocked MDG-induced stimulation of CS(cid:2) licking and preference D o 0 conditioning. Yet, the same phloridzin dose had a relatively w GLU+Pz+Pt GLU+Pz minor effect on glucose conditioning. Glucose(cid:2)phloridzin nlo B Two-Bottle Tests stimulated licking nearly as much as glucose alone and pro- ad 2500 duced a comparable CS(cid:2) preference. Phloridzin, however, ed CS+ fro m CS- 300 h 2000 ttp s / 1 h 1500 6633*%% mg / dl) 222050000 88H%%2O GGLLUU ++ PPzz +Pt ://ajpregu.ph Lick 1000 50% ose ( 150 ysiolo c g u y 500 Gl .o d 100 rg oo b/ 0 Bl y 1 GLU+Pz+Pt GLU+Pz 50 0.2 Groups 20 Fig.8.Experiment3B:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:1-htotallicks 0 .33 areplottedforonebottletests0–3.Themicedrank(1h/day)aCS(cid:1)-flavored 0 15 30 60 .5 saccharin solution paired with IG water infusions in test 0 before being Time (min) on switchedtoaCS(cid:2)-flavoredsaccharinsolutionpairedwithIGsugarinfusions. J The GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)phloretin (Pt) and GLU(cid:2)Pz groups were infused with 8% 2500 un gNsalaucOcchoHas,eri(cid:2)nre0ss.op4le%ucttiiPovnze(cid:2)slyd0.u.2rBi3n:%g1t-Phhtealtiwncdkos-8b%aortetglleuppcloroetstfeee(cid:2)dre0nf.oc4er%tCePsStz(cid:2)wc-oitnhatnathdineiCnGgSL(cid:1)3U.-2(cid:2)fl5aP%vzo(cid:2)1rePNdt -1dl) 2000 e 12, 2 ainnfdusiGoLnsUd(cid:2)uPriznggtrhoeuptess.t.CNSu(cid:2)mbaenrdatoCpSb(cid:1)arirnetparkeessenwtsemreeannopterpcaeinretdprwefietrhenIcGe min * 017 fteosrtsth1e–C3Sli(cid:2)ckssoalnudtiobne.tw*SeeignnCifiSc(cid:2)antvds.ifCfeSre(cid:1)ncleicsk(sP. (cid:7)0.05)betweentest0vs. g * 1500 m e ( s 909.2)butthegroup(cid:4)CSinteractionwasnotsignificant[P(cid:6) o 1000 c u 0.095]. Gl The two-bottle test data revealed significant group differ- d ences(Fig.8B):theGLU(cid:2)Pzmicelickedmore(P(cid:7)0.01)for oo 550000 the CS(cid:2) than CS(cid:1), whereas the GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt mice did not Bl differ in their CS licks [group (cid:4) CS interaction, F(1,18) (cid:6) 26.4,P(cid:7)0.001].Similarresultswereobtainedintheanalysis 0 H2O GLU+Pz GLU+Pz+Pt ofthetwo-bottleCS(cid:2)andCS(cid:1)intakedata(datanotshown). Groups The CS(cid:2) preference was also greater in the GLU(cid:2)Pz group than in the GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt [63% vs. 50%, t(18) (cid:6) 4.9; P (cid:7) Fig.9.Experiment3B:Valuesareexpressedasmeans(cid:9)SE.A:bloodglucose at0,15,30,and60minaftera0.6-mlinfusionof8%glucose(cid:2)0.4%Pz,8% 0.001]. glucose(cid:2)0.4%Pz(cid:2)0.23%Pt,andwaterintheGLU(cid:2)Pz,GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt,and Analysis of the BG data for the GLU(cid:2)Pz, GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt, HOgroups,respectively.Allinfusionscontained3.25%of1NNaOH.B:blood 2 and Water groups indicated small but significant differences glucoseIAUCintheGLU(cid:2)Pz,GLU(cid:2)Pz(cid:2)Pt,andHOgroups. 2 AJP-RegulIntegrCompPhysiol•doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00297.2013•www.ajpregu.org

Description:
Post-oral sugar actions enhance the intake of and preference for sugar-rich foods, a process referred to as appetition. Here, we investigated the role of intestinal .. Fructose group, while the licks of the 8% Galactose group were Sykes S, Morgan LM, English J, Marks V. Evidence for preferential.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.