EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Preference for sucralose predicts behavioral responses to sweet and bittersweet tastants


Chemical Senses 37(5): 445-453
Preference for sucralose predicts behavioral responses to sweet and bittersweet tastants
Rats can be classified as either sucralose avoiders (SA) or sucralose preferrers (SP) based on their behavioral responses in 2-bottle preference, 1-bottle intake, and brief-access licking tests. The present study demonstrates that this robust phenotypic variation in the preference for sucralose predicts acceptance of saccharin, an artificial sweetener with a purported concentration-dependent "bitter" side taste and a 0.25 M sucrose solution adulterated with increasing concentrations of quinine hydrochloride (QHCl). Specifically, SA displayed decreased preference for and intakes of saccharin (≥41.5 mM) and sucrose-QHCl (>0.5 mM QHCl) solutions, relative to SP. In a second experiment involving brief-access (30-s) tests, SP and SA did not differ in their unconditioned licking responses across a range of sodium chloride or QHCl solutions (0.03-1 mM). However, the acceptability threshold for sucrose was lower in SA, relative to SP (0.06 and 0.13 M, respectively). Our findings suggest that phenotypic differences in sucralose preference are indicative of a more general difference in the hedonic processing of stimuli containing "bittersweet" or "sweet" taste qualities.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 055116367

PMID: 22281530

DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjr126



Related references

Sweet preference predicts mood altering effect of and impaired control over eating sweet foods. Eating Behaviors 7(3): 181-187, 2006

Cellular responses of NG108-15 and SK-N-MC lines to sweet and bitter tastants as measured by extracellular acidification rates. Journal of Neuroscience Research 63(1): 64-71, January 1, 2001

Linoleic and oleic acids alter the licking responses to sweet, salt, sour, and bitter tastants in rats. Chemical Senses 31(9): 835-843, 2006

The sweet taste quality is linked to a cluster of taste fibers in primates: lactisole diminishes preference and responses to sweet in S fibers (sweet best) chorda tympani fibers of M. fascicularis monkey. Bmc Physiology 9: 1-1, 2009

Distinct behavioral phenotypes in ethanol-induced place preference are associated with different extinction and reinstatement but not behavioral sensitization responses. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8: 267-267, 2014

The bamboo-eating giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) has a sweet tooth: behavioral and molecular responses to compounds that taste sweet to humans. Plos One 9(3): E93043-E93043, 2015

Sweet preference predicts drug dependence severity and treatment outcome in alcoholics and poly-substance abusers. Alcoholism Clinical & Experimental Research 25(5 Supplement A): 146A, 2001

Sweet and bittersweet memories. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 8(3): 83-84, 1987

Paired preference placebo tests with identical stimuli does introducing graded preference responses affect the frequency of no preference responses?. Journal Of Sensory Studies: 4, 439-449, 2008

Detection of sweet tastants by a conserved group of insect gustatory receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(4): 1598-1603, 2014