Search

Omnivores, including rodents and humans, compose their diets from a wide variety of potential foods. Beyond the guidance of a few basic orosensory biases such as attraction to sweet and avoidance of bitter, they have limited innate dietary knowledge and must learn to prefer foods based on their flavors and postoral effects. This review focuses on postoral nutrient sensing and signaling as an essential part of the reward system that shapes preferences for the associated flavors of foods. We discuss the extensive array of sensors in the gastrointestinal system and the vagal pathways conveying information about ingested nutrients to the brain. Earlier studies of vagal contributions were limited by nonselective methods that could not easily distinguish the contributions of subsets of vagal afferents. Recent advances in technique have generated substantial new details on sugar- and fat-responsive signaling pathways. We explain methods for conditioning flavor preferences and their use in evaluating gut–brain communication. The SGLT1 intestinal sugar sensor is important in sugar conditioning; the critical sensors for fat are less certain, though GPR40 and 120 fatty acid sensors have been implicated. Ongoing work points to particular vagal pathways to brain reward areas. An implication for obesity treatment is that bariatric surgery may alter vagal function.

There is much evidence that gustation mediates the preference for dietary fat in rodents. Several studies indicate that mice have fat taste receptors that activate downstream signaling elements, including TRPM5 and CALHM1 ion channels and P2X2/P2X3 purinergic gustatory nerve receptors. Experiment 1 further documented the involvement of TRPM5 in fat appetite by giving Trpm5 knockout (KO) mice, which show global taste deficits, 24-h two-bottle choice tests with ascending concentrations of soybean oil (0.1 – 10% Intralipid) vs. water. Unlike wildtype (WT) mice, naive Trpm5 KO mice were indifferent to 0.5 – 2.5% fat. They preferred 5–10% fat but consumed much less than WT mice. The same KO mice preferred all fat concentrations in a second test series, which is attributed to a postoral fat conditioned attraction to the non-taste flavor qualities of the Intralipid, although they consumed less fat than the WT mice. The fat preference deficits of the Trpm5 KO mice were as great or greater than those observed in Calhm1 KO mice, another KO line with global taste deficits. Experiment 2 examined experience-enhanced fat preferences in Trpm5 KO and Calhm1 KO mice by giving them one-bottle training with 1%, 2.5%, and 5% fat prior to two-bottle fat vs. water tests. The KO mice displayed increased two-bottle preferences for all concentrations, although they still consumed less 1% and 2.5% fat than WT mice. Thus, the postoral actions of fat induce robust preferences for fat in taste-deficient mice, but do not stimulate the high fat intakes observed in WT mice with normal fat taste signaling.

Inbred mouse strains differ in their postoral appetite stimulating response (appetition) to glucose and fructose. For example, C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB strains learn strong preferences for a flavor (CS+, e.g., cherry) paired with intragastric (IG) glucose infusions, but only FVB mice learned to prefer a CS+ paired with IG fructose infusions. Consistent with these findings, “tasteless” B6 knockout (KO) mice missing the taste signaling protein TRPM5 learn strong preferences for a CS+ added to glucose solution as well as for unflavored glucose but weak or no preferences for a fructose-paired CS+ or unflavored fructose. The present experiment reports that “tasteless” P2X2/P2X3 double-knockout (P2X2/3 DKO) mice, unlike TRPM5 KO mice, learned strong preferences for a CS+ mixed with fructose as well as for unflavored fructose. Whether differences in genetic backgrounds or other factors account for the fructose appetition displayed by P2X2/3 DKO mice but not TRPM5 KO mice remains to be determined.

When offered glucose and fructose solutions, rodents consume more glucose solution because it produces stronger postoral reinforcement. Intake of these sugars also conditions a higher avidity for glucose relative to fructose. We asked which chemosensory cue mediates the learned avidity for glucose. We subjected mice to 18 days of sugar training, offering them 0.3, 0.6, and 1 M glucose and fructose solutions. Before and after training, we measured avidity for 0.3 and 0.6 M glucose and fructose in brief-access lick tests. First, we replicated prior work in C57BL/6 mice. Before training, the mice licked at a slightly higher rate for 0.6 M fructose; after training, they licked at a higher rate for 0.6 M glucose. Second, we assessed the necessity of the glucose-specific ATP-sensitive K+(KATP) taste pathway for the learned avidity for glucose, using mice with a nonfunctional KATPchannel [regulatory sulfonylurea receptor (SUR1) knockout (KO) mice]. Before training, SUR1 KO and wild-type mice licked at similar rates for 0.6 M glucose and fructose; after training, both strains licked at a higher rate for 0.6 M glucose, indicating that the KATPpathway is not necessary for the learned discrimination. Third, we investigated the necessity of olfaction by comparing sham-treated and anosmic mice. The mice were made anosmic by olfactory bulbectomy or ZnSO4treatment. Before training, sham-treated and anosmic mice licked at similar rates for 0.6 M glucose and fructose; after training, sham-treated mice licked at a higher rate for 0.6 M glucose, whereas anosmic mice licked at similar rates for both sugars. This demonstrates that olfaction contributes significantly to the learned avidity for glucose.

The postoral actions of nutrients in rodents can stimulate intake and condition flavor preferences through an appetition process. Appetition is revealed in rodents by their increased intake of and preference for a flavored solution paired with intragastric (IG) nutrient infusions. Here we determined if IG 16% maltodextrin (MD) infusions can stimulate intake and preference in the absence of a distinctive flavor cue. Rats implanted with IG catheters were given chow and water 2 h/day followed, 2 h later, by 20-h oral access to water paired with IG MD infusions. Other rats were given bitter sucrose octaacetate solution (SOA) paired with IG MD infusions 20 h/day. Over 8 test days, the SOA rats increased their total 20-h fluid intake (oral + IG) from 26 to 119 g/20 h and Water rats increased their intake from 31 to 96 g/20 h. When infused IG with water instead of MD in a 4-day extinction test, the SOA and Water groups reduced their fluid intakes to 45–48 g/20 h. When oral fluids were again paired with IG MD infusions, the SOA and Water groups increased their intakes to 115 and 109 g/20 h, respectively. In two-bottle tests, the SOA rats drank more SOA paired with IG MD than water paired with IG water. Water rats given the choice of a water bottle paired with IG MD and water bottle paired with IG water did not consistently prefer the H2O/ID MD bottle. Instead they displayed side or sipper tube preferences although neither cue was consistently paired with IG MD during one-bottle training.

In a nutrient self-selection study, CAST/EiJ mice consumed more carbohydrate than fat while C57BL/6J (B6) mice showed the opposite preference. The present study revealed similar strain differences in preferences for isocaloric fat (Intralipid) and carbohydrate (sucrose, maltodextrin) solutions in chow-fed mice. In initial 2-day choice tests, percent fat intakes of CAST and B6 mice were 4–9% and 71–81% respectively. In subsequent nutrient vs. water tests, CAST mice consumed considerably less fat but not carbohydrate compared to B6 mice. Orosensory rather than postoral factors are implicated in the very low fat preference and intake of CAST mice. This is supported by results of a choice test with Intralipid mixed with non-nutritive sweeteners vs. non-sweet maltodextrin. The preference of CAST mice for sweetened fat exceeded that of B6 mice (94 vs. 74%) and absolute fat intakes were similar in the two strains. When given unsweetened Intralipid vs. water tests at ascending fat concentrations CAST mice displayed reduced fat preferences at 0.1 – 5% and reduced intakes at 0.5 – 5% concentrations, compared to B6 mice. The differential fat preferences of CAST and C57BL/6 mice may reflect differences in fat taste sensing or in central neural processes related to fat selection.

Several studies indicate an important role of gustation in intake and preference for dietary fat. The present study compared fat preference deficits produced by deletion of CD36, a putative fatty acid taste receptor, and CALHM1, an ion channel responsible for release of the ATP neurotransmitter used by taste cells. Naïve CD36 knockout (KO) mice displayed reduced preferences for soybean oil emulsions (Intralipid) at low concentrations (0.1–1%) compared with wild-type (WT) mice in 24 h/day two-bottle tests. CALHM1 KO mice displayed even greater Intralipid preference deficits compared with WT and CD36 KO mice. These findings indicate that there may be another taste receptor besides CD36 that contributes to fat detection and preference. After experience with concentrated fat (2.5–5%), CD36 KO and CALHM1 KO mice displayed normal preferences for 0.1–5% fat, although they still consumed less fat than WT mice. The experience-induced rescue of fat preferences in KO mice can be attributed to postoral fat conditioning. Short-term (3-min) two-bottle tests further documented the fat preference deficits in CALHM1 KO mice but also revealed residual preferences for concentrated fat (5–10%), which may be mediated by odor and/or texture cues.

Inbred mouse strains differ in their postoral appetite stimulating response (appetition) to fructose as demonstrated in intragastric (IG) sugar conditioning and oral sugar vs. nonnutritive conditioning experiments. For example, FVB and SWR strains show experience-induced preferences for 8% fructose over a 0.1% sucralose + 0.1% saccharin (S + S) solution, whereas C57BL/6 (B6) and BALB/c strains do not. All strains, however, learn to prefer 8% glucose to S + S after experience, which is attributed to the potent appetition actions of this sugar. The present study extended this analysis to DBA/2 (DBA) and 129P3 (129) inbred mice. In Experiment 1A, ad libitum fed DBA and 129 mice preferred S + S to fructose before and after separate experience with the two sweeteners, indicating an indifference to the postoral nutrient effects of the sugar. When food restricted (Experiment 1B), 129 mice continued to prefer S + S to fructose while DBA mice showed equal preference for the sweeteners after experience, indicating some sensitivity to fructose appetition. In Experiment 1C, both strains acquired significant preferences for glucose over S + S after experience, confirming their sensitivity to postoral glucose appetition. Experiment 2 revealed that C57BL/6 × 129P3 (B6:129) hybrid mice responded like inbred B6 mice and 129 mice in acquiring a preference for glucose but not fructose over S + S. This is of interest because sweet "taste-blind" P2 × 2 / P2 × 3 double-knockout (DKO) mice on a B6:129 genetic background prefer fructose to water in 24 h tests, which is indicative of fructose appetition. Whether differences in the genetic makeup of DKO and B6:129 hybrid mice or other factors explain the fructose appetition of the DKO mice remains to be determined.

Recent studies suggest that preferences are conditioned by nutritive (sucrose) but not by non-nutritive (sucralose) sweeteners in mice. Here we compared the effectiveness of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners to condition flavor preferences in three mouse strains. Isopreferred sucrose and sucralose solutions both conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J (B6) mice but sucrose was more effective, consistent with its post-oral appetition action. Subsequent experiments compared flavor conditioning by fructose, which has no post-oral appetition effect in B6 mice, and a sucralose + saccharin mixture (SS) which is highly preferred to fructose in 24-h choice tests. Both sweeteners conditioned flavor preferences but fructose induced stronger preferences than SS. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored SS solution paired with intragastric fructose infusions did not enhance the SS-conditioned preference. Thus, the post-oral nutritive actions of fructose do not explain the sugar’s stronger preference conditioning effect. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored fructose solution containing SS did not reduce the sugar-conditioned preference, indicating that SS does not have an off-taste that attenuates conditioning. Although B6 mice strongly preferred flavored SS to flavored fructose in a direct choice test, they preferred the fructose-paired flavor to the SS-paired flavor when these were presented in water. Fructose conditioned a stronger flavor preference than an isopreferred saccharin solution, indicating that sucralose is not responsible for the limited SS conditioning actions. SS is highly preferred by FVB/NJ and CAST/EiJ inbred mice, yet conditioned only weak flavor preferences. It is unclear why highly or equally preferred non-nutritive sweeteners condition weaker preferences than fructose, when all stimulate the same T1r2/T1r3 sweet receptor. Recent findings support the existence of non-T1r2/T1r3 glucose taste sensors; however, there is no evidence for receptors that respond to fructose but not to non-nutritive sweeteners.

The taste of sugar elicits cephalic-phase insulin release (CPIR), which limits the rise in blood glucose associated with meals. Little is known, however, about the gustatory mechanisms that trigger CPIR. We asked whether oral stimulation with any of the following taste stimuli elicited CPIR in mice: glucose, sucrose, maltose, fructose, Polycose, saccharin, sucralose, AceK, SC45647, or a nonmetabolizable sugar analog. The only taste stimuli that elicited CPIR were glucose and the glucose-containing saccharides (sucrose, maltose, Polycose). When we mixed an α-glucosidase inhibitor (acarbose) with the latter three saccharides, the mice no longer exhibited CPIR. This revealed that the carbohydrates were hydrolyzed in the mouth, and that the liberated glucose triggered CPIR. We also found that increasing the intensity or duration of oral glucose stimulation caused a corresponding increase in CPIR magnitude. To identify the components of the glucose-specific taste-signaling pathway, we examined the necessity of Calhm1, P2X2+P2X3, SGLT1, and Sur1. Among these proteins, only Sur1 was necessary for CPIR. Sur1 was not necessary, however, for taste-mediated attraction to sugars. Given that Sur1 is a subunit of the ATP-sensitive K+channel (KATP) channel and that this channel functions as a part of a glucose-sensing pathway in pancreatic β-cells, we asked whether the KATPchannel serves an analogous role in taste cells. We discovered that oral stimulation with drugs known to increase (glyburide) or decrease (diazoxide) KATPsignaling produced corresponding changes in glucose-stimulated CPIR. We propose that the KATPchannel is part of a novel signaling pathway in taste cells that mediates glucose-induced CPIR.

New methods, derived from animal work, for measuring food reward value (i.e. reinforcing value of food), and motivation (i.e. strength of desire) to consume, in humans are described and validated. A sipping device (sipometer) was developed that permits access to a liquid food or beverage on two reward schedules: continuous reinforcement (CR) and progressively increasing time spent exerting pressure on a straw (PR-schedule). In addition, a pictorial scale showing a cup, from which the ‘amount wanted’ could be marked was used to pre-test potential consumption. Intake, time spent sipping, breakpoint, and pressure exerted were the main dependent variables measured. Three pilot experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, participants (n = 8) consumed yogurt shakes after a 1-h or 21-h food deprivation period on both schedules. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 8) sham-consumed (i.e. spit out) sweet and non-sweet beverages, utilizing both schedules. In Experiment 3, sham-consuming sweet and non-sweet beverages on both schedules and working for shake on the PR schedule were repeated, after three nights of either habitual sleep or short sleep duration (n = 7) in a crossover design. In Experiment 1, participants sipped longer after 21-h vs. 1-h of food deprivation (13 ± 3.0 vs. 8.0 ± 2.1 s; p = 0.04), on the PR schedule. In Experiment 2, sham-intake (p = 0.01) and sipping time (p = 0.04) were greater for sweet than non-sweet beverages on the PR schedule and a similar, though not conventionally significant, effect was observed for exerted pressure (p = 0.09). In both Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 after habitual sleep, on the PR schedule, cumulative pressure difference between sweet and non-sweet beverage increased with difference in amount wanted in the taste test. In contrast, after short sleep participants were less willing to work for sweet taste as their wanting increased, suggesting that sleep deprivation raises desire, but lowers behavioral output. Taken together these results demonstrate that the sipometer and associated ratings are reliable and useful measures of motivation to consume and reward value in humans. Participants were more motivated to obtain access to sweet beverages, especially when these were better liked than to obtain access to non-sweet beverages.

Conditioned flavor preferences are elicited by fat (Intralipid) in inbred mouse strains with BALB/c and SWR mice displaying among the most robust preferences. Dopamine D1 and opioid receptor antagonism differentially reduces the acquisition (learning) and expression (maintenance) of fat-conditioned flavor preferences in these two strains. Because noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonism with MK-801 differentially altered sugar-conditioned flavor preferences in these strains, and because NMDA receptors are involved in fat intake, the present study examined whether MK-801 differentially altered expression and acquisition of fat (Intralipid)-conditioned flavor preferences in BALB/c and SWR mice. In expression studies, food-restricted male mice alternately consumed a flavored (CS+, e.g., cherry, 5 sessions) 5% Intralipid solution and a differently-flavored (CS-, e.g., grape, 5 sessions) 0.5% Intralipid solution. Two-bottle CS choice tests occurred following vehicle or MK-801 (100, 200µg/kg). MK-801 blocked expression of Intralipid-CFP at both doses in BALB/c mice, but only at the 100µg/kg dose in SWR mice. In acquisition studies, groups of BALB/c (0, 100µg/kg) and SWR (0, 100µg/kg) male mice were treated prior to the ten acquisition training sessions followed by six 2-bottle CS choice tests without injections. MK-801 eliminated acquisition of Intralipid-conditioned flavor preferences in BALB/c mice, and actually changed the preference to an avoidance response in SWR mice. Thus, NMDA receptor signaling appears essential especially for the learning of fat-conditioned flavor preferences in both mouse strains.

Mice are attracted to the tastes of sugar and maltodextrin solutions. Sugar taste is mediated by the T1R2/T1R3 sweet taste receptor, while maltodextrin taste is dependent upon a different as yet unidentified receptor. In a prior study sweet-sensitive C57BL/6J (B6) mice displayed similar preferences for sucrose and maltodextrin solutions in 24-h saccharide vs. water choice tests that exceeded those of sweet-subsensitive 129P3/J (129) mice. In a subsequent experiment reported here, sucrose and maltodextrin (Polycose) preference and acceptance were compared in the two strains in saccharide vs. saccharide choice tests with isocaloric concentrations (0.5 – 32%). The 129 mice displayed significantly greater maltodextrin preferences than B6 mice at mid-range concentrations (2–8%), while the mice displayed an opposite preference profile at the highest concentration (32%). As in prior studies, 129 mice consumed less total saccharide than B6 mice at lower concentrations. These findings show that the conclusions reached from tastant vs. water tests may differ from those pitting one tastant against another. The increased sucrose preference and intake of B6 mice, relative to 129 mice, is consistent with their sweet-sensitive phenotype.

This article summarizes research findings from 6 experts in the field of taste and feeding that were presented at the 2015 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Research Workshop. The theme was focused on the interaction of taste signals with those of a postingestive origin and how this contributes to regulation of food intake through both physiological and learning processes. Gastric bypass results in exceptional loss of fat mass and increases in circulating levels of key gut peptides, some of which are also expressed along with their cognate receptors in taste buds. Changes in taste preference and food selection in both bariatric surgery patients and rodent models have been reported. Accordingly, the effects of this surgery on taste-related behavior were examined. The conservation of receptor and peptide signaling mechanisms in gustatory and extraoral tissues was discussed in the context of taste responsiveness and the regulation of metabolism. New findings detailing the features of neural circuits between the caudal nucleus of the solitary tract (NST), receiving visceral input from the vagus nerve, and the rostral NST, receiving taste input, were discussed, as was how early life experience with taste stimuli and learned associations between flavor and postoral consequences of nutrients can exert potent and long-lasting effects on feeding.

Conditioned flavor preferences (CFP) are elicited by sucrose and fructose relative to saccharin in rats and inbred mice. Whereas dopamine, but not opioid receptor antagonists interfere with the acquisition (learning) and expression (maintenance) of sugar-CFP in rats, these antagonists differentially affect acquisition and expression of sucrose- and fructose-CFP in BALB/c and SWR inbred mice. Given that NMDA receptor antagonism with MK-801 blocks acquisition, but not expression of fructose-CFP in rats, the present study examined whether MK-801 altered the expression and acquisition of sucrose- and fructose-CFP in BALB/c and SWR mice. In expression experiments, food-restricted mice alternately consumed a flavored (CS+, e.g., cherry, 5 sessions) 16% sucrose or 8% fructose+0.2% saccharin solution and a differently-flavored (CS-, e.g., grape, 5 sessions) 0.2% saccharin solution. 2-Bottle CS choice tests occurred following vehicle or MK-801 at doses of 100 or 200μg/kg. MK-801 mildly reduced the magnitude of the expression of sucrose- and fructose-CFP in BALB/c mice, and blocked the expression of fructose-, but not sucrose-CFP at the high dose in SWR mice. In acquisition experiments, groups of BALB/c (0, 100μg/kg) and SWR (0, 100, 200μg/kg) mice were treated prior to acquisition training sessions that was followed by 2-bottle CS choice tests without injections. MK-801 (100μg/kg) eliminated acquisition of sucrose- and fructose-CFP in BALB/c, but not SWR mice. The 200μg/kg MK-801 dose eliminated acquisition of sucrose- and fructose-CFP in SWR mice. Thus, NMDA receptor signaling is essential for the learning of both forms of sugar-CFP in both strains with BALB/c mice more sensitive to MK-801 dose effects.

With respect to feeding, insulin is typically thought of as a satiety hormone, acting in the hypothalamus to limit ingestive behavior. However, accumulating evidence suggests that insulin also has the ability to alter dopamine release in the striatum and influence food preferences. With increased access to high calorie foods, Western societies have a high prevalence of obesity, accompanied by insulin insensitivity. Little is known about how insulin is trafficked into the brain following food consumption and whether insulin insensitivity in the periphery is mirrored in the central nervous system. We investigated insulin receptor activation in the ventral striatum of rats receiving water or 16% glucose either orally or intragastrically. We also investigated whether glucose-induced insulin receptor activation was altered in food-restricted (FR) or diet-induced obesity (OB) rat models. Lastly, we examined whether insulin plays a significant role in flavor-nutrient preference learning. Glucose intake stimulated a rapid increase in insulin receptor activity in the ventral striatum of FR and ad libitum (AL) fed rats, but not OB rats. Similarly, both AL and FR, but not OB rats demonstrated significant flavor-nutrient preferences. However AL rats receiving brief inhibition of insulin activity during conditioning failed to acquire a significant flavor-nutrient preference. These findings suggest that impaired insulin receptor activation in the ventral striatum may result in inaccurate valuation of nutritive foods, which could lead to overconsumption of food or the selection of foods that don't accurately meet the body's current physiological needs.

Recent findings suggest that the intestinal sodium-glucose transporter 1 (SGLT1) glucose transporter and sensor mediates, in part, the appetite-stimulation actions of intragastric (IG) glucose and nonmetabolizable α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside (MDG) infusions in mice. Here, we investigated the role of SGLT1 in sugar conditioning using SGLT1 knockout (KO) and C57BL/6J wild-type (WT) mice. An initial experiment revealed that both KO and WT mice maintained on a very low-carbohydrate diet display normal preferences for saccharin, which was used in the flavored conditioned stimulus (CS) solutions. In experiment 2, mice were trained to drink one flavored solution (CS+) paired with an IG MDG infusion and a different flavored solution (CS−) paired with IG water infusion. In contrast to WT mice, KO mice decreased rather than increased the intake of the CS+ during training and failed to prefer the CS+ over the CS− in a choice test. In experiment 3, the KO mice also decreased their intake of a CS+ paired with IG glucose and avoided the CS+ in a choice test, unlike WT mice, which preferred the CS+ to CS−. In experiment 4, KO mice, like WT mice preferred a glucose + saccharin solution to a saccharin solution. These findings support the involvement of SGLT1 in post-oral glucose and MDG conditioning. The results also indicate that sugar malabsorption in KO mice has inhibitory effects on sugar intake but does not block their natural preference for sweet taste.

Intragastric (IG) flavor conditioning studies in rodents indicate that isocaloric sugar infusions differ in their reinforcing actions, with glucose and sucrose more potent than fructose. Here we determined if the sugars also differ in their ability to maintain operant self-administration by licking an empty spout for IG infusions. Food-restricted C57BL/6J mice were trained 1 h/day to lick a food-baited spout, which triggered IG infusions of 16% sucrose. In testing, the mice licked an empty spout, which triggered IG infusions of different sugars. Mice shifted from sucrose to 16% glucose increased dry licking, whereas mice shifted to 16% fructose rapidly reduced licking to low levels. Other mice shifted from sucrose to IG water reduced licking more slowly but reached the same low levels. Thus IG fructose, like water, is not reinforcing to hungry mice. The more rapid decline in licking induced by fructose may be due to the sugar's satiating effects. Further tests revealed that the Glucose mice increased their dry licking when shifted from 16% to 8% glucose, and reduced their dry licking when shifted to 32% glucose. This may reflect caloric regulation and/or differences in satiation. The Glucose mice did not maintain caloric intake when tested with different sugars. They self-infused less sugar when shifted from 16% glucose to 16% sucrose, and even more so when shifted to 16% fructose. Reduced sucrose self-administration may occur because the fructose component of the disaccharide reduces its reinforcing potency. FVB mice also reduced operant licking when tested with 16% fructose, yet learned to prefer a flavor paired with IG fructose. These data indicate that sugars differ substantially in their ability to support IG self-administration and flavor preference learning. The same post-oral reinforcement process appears to mediate operant licking and flavor learning, although flavor learning provides a more sensitive measure of sugar reinforcement.

Knockout (KO) mice missing the sweet taste receptor subunit T1R3 or the signaling protein TRPM5 have greatly attenuated sweetener preferences. Yet both types of KO mice develop preferences for glucose but not fructose in 24-h tests, which has been attributed to the postoral reinforcing actions of glucose. Here we probed for residual sugar taste sensitivity in KO mice. Unlike wildtype (WT) mice, food-restricted T1R3 KO and TRPM5 KO mice displayed little attraction for 8% glucose and 8% fructose in 1-min, two-bottle choice tests. However, in 1-h tests about half of the T1R3 KO mice displayed a significant preference for glucose over fructose (78–84%), while WT mice showed either no or weak preferences (41–56%) for glucose. Following one-bottle training sessions, WT mice display greater glucose preferences although still weaker than those observed in T1R3 KO mice. In contrast, TRPM5 KO mice were indifferent to sugars in 1-h tests but developed a strong preference for glucose over fructose in 24-h tests. T1R3 taste cells contain the sodium glucose cotransporter 1 (SGLT1) and the ATP-gated K+ (K(ATP)) metabolic sensor, which may mediate the unlearned glucose preference displayed by T1R3 KO mice. Unlike WT mice, many T1R3 KO mice strongly preferred glucose to a non-metabolizable glucose analog (α-methyl-D-glucopyranoside, MDG) in initial 1-h choice tests. Glucose and MDG are both ligands for SGLT1 which indicates that SGLT1 sensing does not mediate the glucose preference of T1R3 KO mice. Instead, K(ATP) sensing and/or other oral sensors are implicated. The MDG findings also argue against postoral sensing as the primary source of the initial glucose preference displayed by T1R3 KO mice. Why only half of the T1R3 KO mice showed this preference in 1-h tests remains to be determined. All T1R3 KO mice preferred glucose to fructose in 24-h tests, which appears to be due to both oral and postoral glucose sensing.

I review the main themes of my 50-year research career in ingestive behavior as a graduate student at the University of Chicago and a professor at the City University of New York. A seminar course with my Ph.D. mentor, S. P. Grossman, sparked my interest in the hypothalamic obesity syndrome. I developed a wire knife to dissect the neuropathways and the functional disorder responsible for the syndrome. An elevated appetite setpoint that permitted the overconsumption of palatable foods appeared central to the hypothalamic syndrome. In brain-intact rats, providing an assortment of highly palatable foods (the cafeteria diet) stimulated diet-induced obesity that mimicked elements of hypothalamic obesity. Studies of the determinants of food palatability led to the discovery of a "new" carbohydrate taste (maltodextrin taste) and the confirmation of a fatty taste. In addition to oral taste receptors, gut nutrient sensors stimulated the intake/preference for carbohydrate- and fat-rich foods via an appetition process that stimulates brain reward systems. My research career greatly benefited from many diligent and creative students, collaborators and technicians and research support from my university and the National Institutes of Health.

Sugar appetite is influenced by unlearned and learned preferences in rodents. The present study examined whether dopamine (DA) D1 (SCH23390: SCH) and opioid (naltrexone: NTX) receptor antagonists differentially altered the expression and acquisition of fructose-conditioned flavor preferences (CFPs) in BALB/c and SWR mice. In expression experiments, food-restricted mice alternately (10 sessions, 1 h) consumed a flavored (e.g., cherry) 8% fructose + 0.2% saccharin solution (CS +) and a differently-flavored (e.g., grape) 0.2% saccharin solution (CS −). Two-bottle CS choice tests (1 h) occurred 0.5 h following vehicle: SCH (200 or 800 nmol/kg) or NTX (1 or 5 mg/kg). SCH, but not NTX significantly reduced CS + preference in both strains. In acquisition experiments, 0.5 h prior to 10 acquisition training sessions, vehicle, SCH (50 nmol/kg), NTX (1 mg/kg) or Limited Control vehicle treatments were administered, followed by two-bottle CS choice tests without injections. SCH and NTX reduced training intakes in both strains. BALB/c mice displayed hastened extinction of the fructose-CFP following training with SCH, but not NTX. SCH eliminated fructose-CFP acquisition in SWR mice, whereas NTX hastened extinction of the CFP. These results are compared to previous drug findings obtained with sucrose-CFPs in SWR and BALB/c mice, and are discussed in terms of differential effects of these sugars on oral and post-oral conditioning.

The oral and post-oral actions of sugar and fat stimulate intake and condition flavor preferences in rodents through a process referred to as appetition. Ghrelin is implicated in food reward processing, and this study investigated its involvement in nutrient conditioning in mice. In Exp. 1 ghrelin receptor-null (GHSR-null) and C57BL/6 wildtype (WT) mice learned to prefer a flavor (CS+) mixed into 8% glucose over another flavor (CS−) mixed into a "sweeter" but non-nutritive 0.1% sucralose + saccharin (S+S) solution. In Exp. 2 treating WT mice with a ghrelin receptor antagonist [(D-Lys3)-GHRP-6] during flavor training did not prevent them from learning to prefer the CS+glucose over the CS−S+S flavor. GHSR-null and WT mice were trained in Exp. 3 to drink a CS+ paired with intragastric (IG) infusion of 16% glucose and a CS− paired with IG water. Both groups drank more CS+ than CS− in training and preferred the CS+ to CS− in a choice test. The same (Exp. 4) and new (Exp. 5) GHSR-null and WT mice learned to prefer a CS+ flavor paired with IG fat (Intralipid) over a CS− flavor paired with IG water. GHSR-null and WT mice also learned to prefer a CS+ flavor added to 8% fructose over a CS− added to water. Together, these results indicate that ghrelin receptor signaling is not required for flavor preferences conditioned by the oral or post-oral actions of sugar and fat. This contrasts with other findings implicating ghrelin signaling in food reward processing and food-conditioned place preferences.

Sensory stimulation from foods elicits cephalic phase responses, which facilitate digestion and nutrient assimilation. One such response, cephalic-phase insulin release (CPIR), enhances glucose tolerance. Little is known about the chemosensory mechanisms that activate CPIR. We studied the contribution of the sweet taste receptor (T1r2+T1r3) to sugar-induced CPIR in C57BL/6 (B6) and T1r3 knockout (KO) mice. First, we measured insulin release and glucose tolerance following oral (i.e., normal ingestion) or intragastric (IG) administration of 2.8 M glucose. Both groups of mice exhibited a CPIR following oral but not IG administration, and this CPIR improved glucose tolerance. Second, we examined the specificity of CPIR. Both mouse groups exhibited a CPIR following oral administration of 1 M glucose and 1 M sucrose but not 1 M fructose or water alone. Third, we studied behavioral attraction to the same three sugar solutions in short-term acceptability tests. B6 mice licked more avidly for the sugar solutions than for water, whereas T1r3 KO mice licked no more for the sugar solutions than for water. Finally, we examined chorda tympani (CT) nerve responses to each of the sugars. Both mouse groups exhibited CT nerve responses to the sugars, although those of B6 mice were stronger. We propose that mice possess two taste transduction pathways for sugars. One mediates behavioral attraction to sugars and requires an intact T1r2+T1r3. The other mediates CPIR but does not require an intact T1r2+T1r3. If the latter taste transduction pathway exists in humans, it should provide opportunities for the development of new treatments for controlling blood sugar.

Mice acquire strong preferences for flavors paired with intragastric (IG) fat infusions. This IG fat conditioning is attenuated in double knockout (DoKO) mice missing GPR40 and GPR120 fatty acid receptors. Here we determined if GPR40/120 DoKO mice are also impaired in IG fat self-administration in an operant lick task. In daily 1-h sessions the mice were trained with a sipper spout that contained dry food pellets; licks on the spout triggered infusions of IG fat (Intralipid). The training sessions were followed by test sessions with an empty spout. GPR40/120 DoKO mice self-infused more 20% fat than wild type (WT) C57BL/6 mice in training with a food-baited spout (2.4 vs. 2.0 kcal/h) but self-infused less 20% fat than WT mice in empty spout tests (1.2 vs. 1.7 kcal/h). The DoKO mice also self-infused less 5% fat than WT mice (0.6 vs. 1.3 kcal/h) although both groups emitted more licks for 5% fat than 20% fat. The DoKO and WT mice did not differ, however, in their self-infusion of 12.5% glucose (1.5 vs. 1.6 kcal/h), which is isocaloric to 5% fat. A second 5% IL test showed that the DoKO mice reverted to a reduced self-infusion compared to WT mice. When the infusion was shifted to water, WT mice reduced licking in the first extinction session, whereas DoKO mice were less sensitive to the absence of infused fat. Our results indicate that post-oral GPR40/120 signaling is not required to process IG fat infusions in food-baited spout training sessions but contributes to post-oral fat reinforcement in empty spout tests and flavor conditioning tests.

Knockout (KO) mice missing the taste signaling protein Trpm5 have greatly attenuated sweetener preferences but develop strong preferences for glucose in 24-h tests, which is attributed to post-oral sugar conditioning. Trpm5 KO mice express mild preferences for galactose but no preferences for fructose in 24-h tests, which suggests that these sugars differ in their post-oral reinforcing effects. Here we investigated sugar-conditioned flavor preferences in Trpm5 KO and C57BL/6J wildtype (B6) mice. The mice were trained to consume a flavored (CS+, e.g. grape) 8% sugar solution and flavored (CS-, e.g., cherry) water on alternating days followed by two-bottle choice tests with CS+ vs. CS- flavors in water and with unflavored sugar vs. water. The KO mice displayed strong preferences (>80%) for the CS+ glucose and CS+ galactose but not for the CS+ fructose flavor. They also preferred glucose and galactose, but not fructose to water. In contrast, the B6 mice preferred all three CS+ flavors to the CS- flavor, and all three sugars to water. In tests with the non-metabolizable sugar α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside (MDG), the KO and B6 mice preferred 8% MDG to water but did not prefer the CS+ 8% MDG to CS-. However, they preferred a CS+ flavor mixed with 4% MDG over the CS- flavor. Trpm5 KO mice also preferred galactose and MDG to fructose in direct choice tests. The Trpm5 KO data indicate that glucose and, to a lesser extent, galactose and MDG have post-oral reinforcing actions that stimulate intake and preference while fructose has a much weaker effect. The CS+ flavor and sugar preferences of B6 mice may be mediated by the sweet taste and/or post-oral actions of the various sugars. Glucose, galactose, and MDG, but not fructose, are ligands for the sodium-glucose transporter 1 (SGLT1) which is implicated in post-oral sugar conditioning in B6 mice.

Recent studies suggest that because of their energy value, sugars are more rewarding than non-caloric sweeteners. However, intragastric infusion data indicate that sugars differ in their postoral appetite-stimulating effects. We therefore compared the preference for isocaloric 8% sucrose, glucose, and fructose solutions with that of a non-caloric sweetener solution (0.8% sucralose) in C57BL/6J mice. Brief 2-bottle tests indicated that sucralose was isopreferred to sucrose but more preferred than glucose or fructose. Yet, in long-term tests, the mice preferred sucrose and glucose, but not fructose to sucralose. Additional experiments were conducted with a non-caloric 0.1% sucralose + 0.1% saccharin mixture (S + S), which does not have the postoral inhibitory effects of 0.8% sucralose. The S + S was preferred to fructose in brief and long-term choice tests. S + S was also preferred to glucose and sucrose in brief tests, but the sugars were preferred in long-term tests. In progressive ratio tests, non-deprived and food-deprived mice licked more for glucose but not fructose than for S + S. These findings demonstrate that the nutrient-specific postoral actions, not calories per se, determine the avidity for sugar versus non-caloric sweeteners. Furthermore, sweet taste intensity and potential postoral inhibitory actions must be considered in comparing non-caloric and caloric sweeteners.

Advantame is a new ultrahigh-intensity noncaloric sweetener derived from aspartame and approved for human use. Rats and mice are not attracted to the taste of aspartame and this study determined their preference for advantame. In 24-h choice tests with water, C57BL/6J mice and Sprague-Dawley rats were indifferent to advantame at concentrations of 0.01, 0.03, and 0.1mM but significantly preferred 0.3 and 1mM advantame to water. Both species also preferred 1mM advantame to 1mM saccharin in direct choice tests, but preferred 10mM saccharin to 1mM advantame, which is near the solubility limit for this sweetener. Mice also preferred 1mM advantame to 1mM sucralose or acesulfame K, but preferred both sweeteners at 10mM to 1mM advantame. In addition, mice preferred 1mM advantame to 1 and 10mM aspartame. Thus, advantame is a potent sweetener for rodents but, because of limited solubility, is not an effective alternative to saccharin, sucralose, or acesulfame K at higher concentrations.

A recent study indicated that CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J mice differ in their taste preferences for maltodextrin but display similar sucrose preferences. The present study revealed strain differences in preferences for the constituent sugars of sucrose. Whereas B6 mice preferred 8% glucose to 8% fructose in 2-day tests, the CAST mice preferred fructose to glucose. These preferences emerged with repeated testing which suggested post-oral influences. In a second experiment, 2-day choice tests were conducted with the sugars versus a sucralose + saccharin (SS) mixture which is highly preferred in brief access tests. B6 mice strongly preferred glucose but not fructose to the non-nutritive SS whereas CAST mice preferred SS to both glucose and fructose even when food restricted. This implied that CAST mice are insensitive to the postoral appetite stimulating actions of the 2 sugars. A third experiment revealed, however, that intragastric glucose and fructose infusions conditioned significant but mild flavor preferences in CAST mice, whereas in B6 mice glucose conditioned a robust preference but fructose was ineffective. Thus, unlike other mouse strains and rats, glucose is not more reinforcing than fructose in CAST mice. Their oral preference for fructose over glucose may be related to a subsensitive maltodextrin receptor or glucose-specific receptor which is stimulated by glucose but not fructose. The failure of CAST mice to prefer glucose to a non-nutritive sweetener distinguishes this strain from other mouse strains and rats.

Adenosine triphosphate is a critical neurotransmitter in the gustatory response to the 5 primary tastes in mice. Genetic deletion of the purinergic P2X2/P2X3 receptor greatly reduces the neural and behavioral response to prototypical primary taste stimuli. In this study, we examined the behavioral response of P2X double knockout mice to maltodextrin and fat stimuli, which appear to activate additional taste channels. P2X double knockout and wild-type mice were given 24-h choice tests (vs. water) with ascending concentrations of Polycose and Intralipid. In Experiment 1, naive double knockout mice, unlike wild-type mice, were indifferent to dilute (0.5–4%) Polycose solutions but preferred concentrated (8–32%) Polycose to water. In a retest, the Polycose-experienced double knockout mice, like wild-type mice, preferred all Polycose concentrations. In Experiment 2, naive double knockout mice, unlike wild-type mice, were indifferent to dilute (0.313–2.5%) Intralipid emulsions but preferred concentrated (5–20%) Intralipid to water. In a retest, the fat-experienced double knockout mice, like wild-type mice, strongly preferred 0.313–5% Intralipid to water. These results indicate that the inherent preferences of mice for maltodextrin and fat are dependent upon adenosine triphosphate taste cell signaling. With experience, however, P2X double knockout mice develop strong preferences for the nontaste flavor qualities of maltodextrin and fat conditioned by the postoral actions of these nutrients.

A conditioned flavor preference (CFP) can be produced by pairing a flavor (conditioned stimulus, CS +) with the sweet taste of fructose. Systemic dopamine (DA) D1, D2 and NMDA, but not opioid, receptor antagonists significantly reduce the acquisition of the fructose-CFP. A conditioned flavor avoidance (CFA) can be produced by pairing a CS + flavor with the bitter taste of quinine. To evaluate whether fructose-CFP and quinine-CFA share common neurochemical substrates, the present study determined the systemic effects of DA D1 (SCH23390: SCH), DA D2 (raclopride: RAC), NMDA (MK-801) or opioid (naltrexone: NTX) receptor antagonists on the acquisition of quinine-CFA. In Experiment 1, food-restricted male rats were trained over 8 alternating one-bottle sessions to drink an 8% fructose + 0.2% saccharin solution (FS) mixed with one flavor (CS −, e.g., grape) and a different flavor (CS +, e.g., cherry) mixed in a solution (FSQ) containing fructose + saccharin and quinine at 0.001–0.030% concentrations. In six subsequent two-bottle choice tests (1–3: two sessions each) with the CS − and CS + flavors presented in FS solutions, only rats trained with 0.03% quinine displayed a CS + avoidance in Test 1. In Experiment 2, rats received vehicle (Veh), SCH (200 nmol/kg), RAC (200 nmol/kg), MK-801 (100 μg/kg) or NTX (1 mg/kg) 30 min prior to the 8 one-bottle training sessions with CS −/FS and CS +/FSQ (0.03% quinine) solutions. An additional vehicle group (Veh 0.06%) was trained with a CS +/FSQ containing 0.06% quinine. In the two-bottle choice tests, the Veh and RAC groups avoided the CS + flavor in Test 1 only, whereas the SCH, MK801, and NTX groups significantly avoided the CS + in Tests 1–3. The Veh.06% group trained avoided the CS + in Tests 1 and 2, but not Test 3. In Experiment 3, Veh and SCH groups were trained as in Experiment 2, but were tested with CS flavors presented in 0.2% saccharin solutions. The SCH group avoided the CS + flavor in Tests 1–3 while the Veh group avoided the CS + in Test 1 only. Thus whereas DA D1, DA D2 and NMDA, but not opioid receptor antagonism blocked acquisition of sweet taste-based CFP, DA D1, NMDA and opioid, but not DA D2 receptor antagonism enhanced the CFA produced by the bitter taste of quinine.

The present study compared the ability of sweet ageusic T1r3 knockout (KO) and Calhm1 KO mice to acquire preferences for a sucrose-paired flavor as well as for unflavored sucrose. The KO and wildtype (WT) mice were given 24-h one-bottle access to 8% sucrose containing one flavor (CS+, e.g., grape) and to water containing a different flavor (CS-, e.g., cherry) over 4 training days. In subsequent two-bottle tests with the flavors in water only, the T1r3 KO and Calhm1 KO mice, like WT mice, preferred the CS+ to the CS-. After training with flavored solutions, both KO groups also preferred unflavored 8% sucrose to water although Calhm1 KO mice required more sugar experience to match the preference of the T1r3 KO mice. These findings demonstrate that Calhm1 KO mice, like T1r3 KO mice and WT mice, are sensitive to the post-oral preference conditioning actions of sucrose and can discriminate sugar from water. Yet, despite their acquired sucrose preferences, the Calhm1 KO and T1r3 KO mice consumed only half as much sugar per day as did WT mice. Thus, sweet taste signaling elements are not needed in the gut for sugar conditioning, but sweet taste signaling in the mouth is essential for the full expression of sugar appetite.

The attraction to sugar-rich foods is influenced by conditioned flavor preferences (CFP) produced by the sweet taste of sugar (flavor–flavor learning) and the sugar's post-oral actions (flavor–nutrient) learning. Brain dopamine (DA) circuits are involved in both types of flavor learning, but to different degrees. This study investigated the role of DA receptors in the lateral hypothalamus (LH) on the flavor–flavor learning produced the sweet taste of fructose. In an acquisition study, food-restricted rats received bilateral LH injections of a DA D 1 receptor antagonist (SCH23390), a D 2 antagonist (RAC, raclopride) or vehicle prior to 1-bottle training sessions with a flavored 8% fructose+0.2% saccharin solution (CS+/F) and a less-preferred flavored 0.2% saccharin solution (CS−). Drug-free 2-bottle tests were then conducted with the CS+ and CS− flavors presented in saccharin. The fructose-CFP did not differ among groups given vehicle (76%), 12 nmol SCH (78%), 24 nmol (82%) or 24 nmol RAC (90%) during training. In an expression study with rats trained drug-free, LH injections of 12 or 24 nmol SCH or 12–48 nmol RAC prior to 2-bottle tests did not alter CS+ preferences (77–90%) relative to vehicle injection (86%). Only a 48 nmol SCH dose suppressed the CS+ preference (61%). The minimal effect of LH DA receptor antagonism upon fructose flavor–flavor conditioning differs with the ability of LH SCH injections to block the acquisition of glucose flavor–nutrient learning.

The postoral actions of sugar and fat can rapidly stimulate the intake of and preference for flavors associated with these nutrients via a process known as appetition. Prior findings revealed that postoral glucose appetition is not attenuated following capsaicin-induced visceral deafferentation. The present experiment determined if capsaicin treatment altered fat appetition in C57BL/6 mice. Following capsaicin (Cap) or control (Con) treatment, mice were fitted with chronic intragastric (IG) catheters. They were then given 1-h sessions with a flavored saccharin solution (CS-) paired with IG water infusion or a different flavor (CS+) paired with IG 6.4% fat infusion. IG fat stimulated CS+ intakes in both Cap and Con mice, and the groups displayed similar preferences for CS+ over CS- in two-choice tests. These results confirm prior reports of normal fat conditioning in rats exposed to capsaicin or vagal deafferentation surgery. In contrast, other recent findings indicate that total or selective vagotomy alters the preference of mice for dilute vs. concentrated fat sources.

In addition to orosensory signals, postoral actions of fat stimulate appetite and condition flavor preferences, but the gut sensors mediating these responses are unknown. Here, we investigated the role of the fatty acid sensors GPR40 and GPR120 in postoral and oral preferences for a soybean oil emulsion (Intralipid). Mice were trained to drink a flavored solution (CS+) paired with intragastric (IG) oil infusions and another flavored solution (CS−) paired with water infusions. Knockout (KO) mice missing GPR40 or GPR120 sensors increased their CS+ intake in one-bottle tests (1 h/day) but less so than wild-type (WT) mice. The KO mice also preferred the CS+ to CS− in a two-bottle test, but the preference was attenuated in GPR40 KO mice. Double-knockout (DoKO) mice missing both GPR40 and GPR120 displayed attenuated stimulation of CS+ intake and only a marginal CS+ preference. The DoKO mice developed a more substantial CS+ preference when tested 24 h/day, although weaker than that of WT mice. The DoKO mice also consumed less of the CS+ paired with IG Intralipid, as well as less Intralipid in oral tests. However, DoKO mice, like GPR40 KO and GPR120 KO mice did not differ from WT mice in their preference for Intralipid over water at 0.001%-20% concentrations. In contrast to prior results obtained with mice missing the CD36 fatty acid sensor, these findings indicate that, together, GPR40 and GPR120 play a critical role in the postoral stimulation of appetite by fat but are not essential for oral fat preferences.

The role of amygdala (AMY) NMDA receptor signaling and its interaction with dopamine D1-like receptor signaling in glucose-mediated flavor preference learning was investigated. In Experiment 1, rats were trained with a flavor (CS+) paired with intragastric (IG) 8% glucose infusions and a different flavor (CS−) paired with IG water infusions. In the two-bottle tests (Expression), bilateral intra-AMY injections of the NMDA receptor antagonist, AP5 (0, 5 and 10 nmol/brain), did not block the CS+ preference. In Experiment 2, new rats received intra-AMY injections of either vehicle or AP5 (10 nmol), prior to training sessions with CS+/IG glucose and CS−/IG water. In the two-bottle tests without drug treatment, AP5 rats failed to prefer the CS+ flavor (50%). In Experiments 3, new rats were trained as in Experiment 2 except that, during training, half the rats received AP5 injections (5 nmol) in one side of the AMY and SCH23390 (D1-like receptor antagonist, 6 nmol), in the contralateral AMY (Drug/Drug group). The remaining rats received vehicle injections in one side of the AMY and either AP5 (5 nmol) or SCH23390 (6 nmol) in the contralateral AMY (Drug/Vehicle group). The two-bottle choice tests without drug treatment revealed that, unlike the Drug/Vehicle group (85%), the Drug/Drug group failed to prefer the CS+ flavor (50%). These results reveal an essential role for AMY NMDA receptor activation in the acquisition of flavor preference learning induced by the post-oral reinforcing properties of glucose and demonstrate that such learning is based on co-activation of NMDA and DA D1 receptors within this forebrain structure.

In a recent study, intragastric (IG) self-infusion of 16% glucose stimulated 1-h intake and conditioned a preference for a flavored saccharin solution in C57BL/6J mice (Zukerman et al., 2011). Experiment 1 of the present study presents a concentration-response analysis of IG glucose-induced intake stimulation monitored by recording licking response every min of the 1h/day sessions. Separate groups of food-restricted mice consumed a flavored saccharin solution (the CS-) paired with IG self-infusions of water (Test 0) followed by a different flavored solution (the CS+) paired with IG self-infusions of 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32% glucose (Tests 1-3). Following additional CS- and CS+ training sessions, a two-bottle CS+ vs. CS- choice test was conducted without infusions. Self-infusions of 8%, 16% or 32% glucose stimulated CS+ licking within 12 min of the first test session and even earlier in subsequent test sessions, and also conditioned significant CS+ preferences in the two-bottle test. The stimulation of early licking and CS+ preference increased as a function of glucose concentration. The amount of glucose solute self-infused increased with sugar concentration as did post-infusion blood glucose levels. The 2% glucose infusion did not stimulate CS+ intake and the 2% and 4% infusions failed to produce a CS+ preference in the 1-h test. Experiment 2 revealed that intraperitoneal self-infusions of 8% glucose, unlike IG glucose self-infusions, failed to stimulate CS+ licking or preference despite producing maximal increases in blood glucose levels. Taken together, these and other findings suggest that glucose rapidly produces concentration-dependent intestinal signals that stimulate intake and condition flavor preferences while post-oral satiation signals limit total amounts consumed.

Our understanding of the molecular basis of umami taste and its appetitive qualities has been greatly aided by studies in laboratory rodents. This review describes methods for testing responses to the prototypical umami substance monosodium glutamate (MSG) in rodents. Two techniques, forced exposure to MSG and 2-bottle choice tests with ascending concentrations, were used to evaluate the responses to the taste of umami itself, and 2 other methods used oral or postoral MSG to modify the responses to other flavors. Intake and preference for MSG are enhanced in mice by experience with MSG and with other nutrients with positive postoral effects. In addition, flavor preferences are enhanced in mice and rats by gastric or intestinal MSG infusions via an associative learning process. Even mice with an impaired or absent ability to taste MSG can learn to prefer a flavor added to an MSG solution, supporting the notion that glutamate acts postorally. The more complex flavor of dashi seasoning, which includes umami substances (inosinate, glutamate), is attractive to rodents, but dashi does not condition flavor preferences. Details of the postoral glutamate detection process and the nature of the signal involved in learned preferences are still uncertain but probably involve gastric or intestinal sensors or both and vagal transmission. Some findings suggest that postoral glutamate effects may enhance food preferences in humans, but this requires further study.

The post-oral actions of glucose stimulate intake and condition flavor preferences in rodents. Hypothalamic melanin-concentrating hormone (MCH) neurons are implicated in sugar reward, and this study investigated their involvement in glucose preference conditioning in mice. In Exp. 1 MCH receptor 1 knockout (KO) and C57BL/6 wildtype (WT) mice learned to prefer 8% glucose over an initially more-preferred non-nutritive 0.1% sucralose + saccharin (S+S) solution. In contrast, the KO and WT mice preferred S+S to 8% fructose, which is consistent with this sugar’s weak post-oral reinforcing action. In Exp. 2 KO and WT mice were trained to drink a flavored solution (CS+) paired with intragastric (IG) infusion of 16% glucose and a different flavored solution (CS−) paired with IG water. Both groups drank more CS+ than CS− in training and preferred the CS+ to CS− in a 2-bottle test. These results indicate that MCH receptor signaling is not required for flavor preferences conditioned by the post-oral actions of glucose. This contrasts with other findings implicating MCH signaling in other types of sugar reward processing.

The present study determined if mice, like rats, differ in their flavor conditioning responses to intragastric (IG) infusions of three common monosaccharide sugars. In Experiment 1, C57BL/6J mice were trained to drink a flavored saccharin solution (the CS+) paired with intragastric (IG) self-infusions of 16% glucose, fructose or galactose and a different flavored solution (the CS-) paired with IG water infusions during 22 h/day training sessions. The glucose infusions increased CS+ intakes during training and produced a strong CS+ preference (~87%) in two-bottle choice tests. In contrast, the fructose and galactose infusions reduced CS training intakes and did not condition a CS+ preference. Experiment 2 determined if reducing fructose and galactose concentration would enhance conditioning. However, IG infusions of 8% sugar also failed to condition CS+ preferences. The robust conditioning response to IG glucose confirms results obtained with rats, but the indifference of mice to IG fructose and galactose contrasts with preference and avoidance responses observed in rats. The effectiveness of glucose to condition preferences suggests an important role for glucose-specific sensors rather than gut "sweet" taste receptors in the postoral modulation of carbohydrate appetite.

Sugars and fats elicit innate and learned flavor preferences with the latter mediated by flavor–flavor (orosensory) and flavor–nutrient (post-ingestive) processes. Systemic dopamine (DA) D1 (SCH23390: SCH) and D2 (raclopride: RAC), but not opioid antagonists blocked the acquisition and expression of flavor–flavor preferences conditioned by sugars. In addition, systemic D1, but not D2 or opioid antagonists blocked the acquisition of flavor–nutrient preferences conditioned by intragastric (IG) sugar infusions. Given that DA antagonists reduce fat intake, the present study examined whether systemic D1 or D2 antagonists altered the acquisition and/or expression of conditioned flavor preferences (CFP) produced by pairing one novel flavor (CS+, e.g., cherry) with a 3.5% corn oil (CO: fat) solution relative to another flavor (CS−, e.g., grape) paired with a 0.9% CO solution. In an expression study, food-restricted rats were trained to drink either flavored 3.5% or 0.9% CO solutions on alternate days. Subsequent two-bottle tests with the CS+ and CS− flavors mixed in 0.9% CO solutions occurred 0.5 h after systemic administration of vehicle (VEH), SCH (50–800 nmol/kg) or RAC (50–800 nmol/kg). The rats displayed a robust CS+ preference following VEH treatment (87–88%) the expression of which was attenuated by treatment with moderate doses of RAC, and to a lesser degree, SCH. In an acquisition study, six groups of rats received VEH, SCH (25, 50, 200 nmol/kg) or RAC (50, 200 nmol/kg) 0.5 h prior to 1-bottle training trials with CS+ flavored 3.5% and CS− flavored 0.9% (CS−) CO solutions. A seventh Limited VEH group was trained with its training intakes limited to that of the SCH and RAC groups. Subsequent two-bottle tests were conducted with the CS+ and CS− flavors presented in 0.9% CO without injections. Significant and persistent CS+ preferences were observed in VEH (75–82%), Limited VEH (70–88%), SCH25 (75–84%), SCH50 (64–87%), SCH200 (78–91%) and RAC200 (74–91%) groups. In contrast, the group trained with RAC50 displayed a significant initial CS+ preference (76%) which declined over testing to 61%. These data indicate limited DA D1 and D2 receptor signaling involvement in the expression and acquisition of a fat-CFP relative to previous robust effects for sugar-CFP.

In January 2008 the Governor of Hawaii announced the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative; an initiative that aims to have at least 70 percent of Hawaii’s power come from clean energy by 2030 [4]. In July 2009, the Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services awarded NORESCO, an energy service company, a $33.9M contract to improve the energy efficiency of 10 government buildings. The avoided utility cost of the energy and water savings from the improvements is the project funding mechanism. The energy savings realized by the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with utility power generation. However, as renewable energy becomes a larger portion of the utility generation profile through the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, the carbon dioxide emissions reductions from specific energy efficiency measures may erode over time. This work presents a method of analysis to quantify the carbon dioxide emissions reduction over the life of a project generated by energy efficiency upgrades that accounts for both the impact of policy initiatives and climate change using DOE-2/eQUEST. The analysis is based on the fact that HVAC energy usage will vary with climate changes and that carbon dioxide emission reductions will vary with both energy savings and the corresponding utility’s power generation portfolio. The energy savings related to HVAC system energy efficiency improvements are calculated over the life of a 20 year performance contract using a calibrated DOE-2/eQUEST model of an existing building that utilizes weather data adjusted to match the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The carbon dioxide emissions reductions are calculated using the energy savings results and a projection of the implementation of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. The emissions reductions are compared with other analysis methods and discussed to establish more refined expectations of the impact of energy efficiency projects in context with climate changes and policy initiatives.Copyright © 2010 by ASME