Effects of different sweeteners on behavior and neurotransmitters release in mice
- 70 Downloads
Four natural sweeteners (sucrose, stevioside, maltose and xylitol) and six artificial sweeteners (acesulfame, sucralose, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin and neotame) were used to study the effects of different sweeteners on the behavior and neurotransmitter release of mice with two-bottle preference experiments. The results showed that very significant preference behavior for 8% sucrose solution, 0.3% stevioside solution, 10 mM acesulfame, 10 mM sucralose and 10 mM aspartame solutions (p < 0.01) was observed on mice. Long-term exposure of sucrose solution and acesulfame solution can affect the behavioral indicators such as solution consumption, feed intake, body weight and the release of neurotransmitters in mice. The solution consumption and the release of neurotransmitters were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the control group (water group), but there was no significant difference in feed intake. The acesulfame-A and acesulfame-B groups had no significant difference on the consumption of solution and feed intake, but there was significant difference in the release of neurotransmitters. The result also showed that different sweetener solutions with similar sweetness had the same effect on the neurotransmitters release, and it can be inferred that mice have an addictive behavioral characteristic to sucrose.
KeywordsSweeteners Two-bottle preference test Neurotransmitters Mice
This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2017YFD0400101), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Program No. 31671824).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Gardner C, Wylie-Rosett J, Gidding SS, Steffen LM, Johnson RK, Reader D, Lichtenstein AH (2012) Non-nutritive sweeteners: current use and health perspectives: a scientific statement from the American heart association and the American diabetes association. Circulation 126:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Guo HL (2013) The biological basis research of sweet perception in oral cavity and intestine of mice after preference sweetness exposure. Zhejiang Gongshang University, HangzhouGoogle Scholar
- Mao WF, Song Y (2018) Major problems and hazards in use of sweeteners commonly found in foods. J Food Sci Technol 36(6):9–14Google Scholar
- Sun C, Liu J (2018) Modern food hygiene. People’s Medical Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Wang QP, Lin YQ, Zhang L, Wilson YA, Oyston LJ, Cotterell J, Qi Y, Khuong TM, Bakhshi N, Planchenault Y, Browman DT, Lau MT, Cole TA, Wong AC, Simpson SJ, Cole AR, Penninger JM, Herzog H, Neely GG (2016) Sucralose promotes food intake through NPY and a neuronal fasting response. Cell Metab 24(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhao DY, Huang PH, Cao JQ, Sun W, Han XL, Wang DL (2019) Effects of sesame aroma Baijiu on drinking behavior and dopamine neurotransmitter Levels in mice. Liquor Mak Sci Technol 4:55–60Google Scholar