Differential Cerebral Gustatory Responses to Sucrose, Aspartame, and Stevia Using Gustatory Evoked Potentials in Humans.
Gustatory evoked potentials
Stevia
aspartame
sucrose
sweeteners
Journal
Nutrients
ISSN: 2072-6643
Titre abrégé: Nutrients
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101521595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jan 2020
27 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
30
12
2019
revised:
23
01
2020
accepted:
24
01
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
21
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Aspartame and Stevia are widely substituted for sugar. Little is known about cerebral activation in response to low-caloric sweeteners in comparison with high-caloric sugar, whereas these molecules lead to different metabolic effects. We aimed to compare gustatory evoked potentials (GEPs) obtained in response to sucrose solution in young, healthy subjects, with GEPs obtained in response to aspartame and Stevia. Twenty healthy volunteers were randomly stimulated with three solutions of similar intensities of sweetness: Sucrose 10 g/100 mL of water, aspartame 0.05 g/100 mL, and Stevia 0.03 g/100 mL. GEPs were recorded with EEG (Electroencephalogram) electrodes. Hedonic values of each solution were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). The main result was that P1 latencies of GEPs were significantly shorter when subjects were stimulated by the sucrose solution than when they were stimulated by either the aspartame or the Stevia one. P1 latencies were also significantly shorter when subjects were stimulated by the aspartame solution than the Stevia one. No significant correlation was noted between GEP parameters and hedonic values marked by VAS. Although sucrose, aspartame, and Stevia lead to the same taste perception, cerebral activation by these three sweet solutions are different according to GEPs recording. Besides differences of taste receptors and cerebral areas activated by these substances, neural plasticity, and change in synaptic connections related to sweet innate preference and sweet conditioning, could be the best hypothesis to explain the differences in cerebral gustatory processing after sucrose and sweeteners activation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32012665
pii: nu12020322
doi: 10.3390/nu12020322
pmc: PMC7071252
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sweetening Agents
0
Sucrose
57-50-1
Aspartame
Z0H242BBR1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
ID : O
Organisme : Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
ID : 0
Organisme : Dijon Association for Neurosciences (ADSNB)
ID : 0
Organisme : Regional Council of Burgundy (PARI 2)
ID : 0
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
J Nutr. 2018 Jul 1;148(7):1186S-1205S
pubmed: 29982648
J Food Sci. 2012 Sep;77(9):S323-8
pubmed: 22908895
Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Sep;26(9):455-66
pubmed: 26163755
Neuron. 2003 Aug 14;39(4):701-11
pubmed: 12925283
Nutrients. 2019 May 31;11(6):
pubmed: 31159256
Chem Senses. 2008 Feb;33(2):173-9
pubmed: 18048370
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008 Aug 5;47(4-5):790-4
pubmed: 18456448
J Biol Chem. 2011 Oct 14;286(41):36032-41
pubmed: 21852241
J Lipid Res. 2019 Mar;60(3):661-670
pubmed: 30587521
Nutrients. 2019 Dec 12;11(12):
pubmed: 31842388
Int J Obes (Lond). 2009 Jun;33 Suppl 2:S34-43
pubmed: 19528978
Brain Cogn. 2004 Jun;55(1):11-29
pubmed: 15134840
J Physiol. 2009 Apr 15;587(Pt 8):1779-94
pubmed: 19237430
Cell. 2001 Aug 10;106(3):381-90
pubmed: 11509186
Pain. 2005 Dec 15;119(1-3):210-8
pubmed: 16298489
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007 May;292(5):G1206-12
pubmed: 17234892
Science. 1971 Mar 26;171(3977):1256-8
pubmed: 5545205
Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 15;54(2):1367-74
pubmed: 20804848
Front Neurosci. 2016 Jan 05;9:490
pubmed: 26778949
Adv Child Dev Behav. 1979;13:257-95
pubmed: 484324
Neuroscience. 1998 May;84(1):1-5
pubmed: 9522356
Appetite. 1984 Dec;5(4):291-305
pubmed: 6529258
Nature. 1976 Apr 15;260(5552):632-4
pubmed: 1264231
Chem Senses. 2019 Sep 7;44(7):435-447
pubmed: 31168584
Physiol Behav. 2012 Nov 5;107(4):560-7
pubmed: 22583859
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008 Apr;62(4):451-62
pubmed: 17684524
Chem Senses. 2001 May;26(4):371-83
pubmed: 11369672
Physiology (Bethesda). 2007 Aug;22:241-51
pubmed: 17699877
Curr Biol. 2015 Mar 30;25(7):890-6
pubmed: 25772445
Neuroreport. 1999 Jan 18;10(1):7-14
pubmed: 10094124
Nutr Rev. 2017 Sep 1;75(9):718-730
pubmed: 28938797
Chem Senses. 2013 Sep;38(7):585-94
pubmed: 23828907
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Apr 2;99(7):4692-6
pubmed: 11917125
Am J Clin Nutr. 1959 May-Jun;7(3):280-7
pubmed: 13649616
Neuroimage. 2008 Feb 15;39(4):1559-69
pubmed: 18096409
Front Syst Neurosci. 2011 Sep 16;5:78
pubmed: 21954379
Appetite. 2012 Apr;58(2):504-7
pubmed: 22178008
World Rev Nutr Diet. 1999;85:201-11
pubmed: 10647352
Nutr Rev. 2016 Nov;74(11):670-689
pubmed: 27753624
Nature. 2006 Nov 16;444(7117):288-94
pubmed: 17108952
Brain Res Bull. 1995;36(5):505-13
pubmed: 7712215
Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;42(1):37-43
pubmed: 16521574
Brain Res Bull. 2004 Jan 15;62(4):271-83
pubmed: 14709342
Br J Nutr. 2009 Nov;102(9):1375-85
pubmed: 19505346
J Neurosci. 2001 Jun 15;21(12):4478-89
pubmed: 11404435
Phytochemistry. 2016 May;125:106-11
pubmed: 26976334
Curr Obes Rep. 2015 Mar;4(1):106-10
pubmed: 26005598
Chem Senses. 2016 Sep;41(7):591-9
pubmed: 27235187
Nat Neurosci. 2016 Mar;19(3):465-70
pubmed: 26807950
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Feb 20;7:36
pubmed: 23430280
Chemosens Percept. 2012 Mar 1;5(1):87-99
pubmed: 23606923
J Neurosci Res. 2019 Mar;97(3):241-252
pubmed: 30080270
J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Jul 11;60(27):6782-93
pubmed: 22616809
Prog Neurobiol. 2015 Apr;127-128:64-90
pubmed: 25812933
Curr Biol. 2013 May 6;23(9):R401-8
pubmed: 23660363
Science. 2003 Aug 8;301(5634):850-3
pubmed: 12869700
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Sep;90(3):1865-76
pubmed: 12773496
J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1979 Jun;93(3):538-47
pubmed: 479396
J Integr Neurosci. 2013 Dec;12(4):427-39
pubmed: 24372063
Neuroimage. 2009 Feb 1;44(3):1008-21
pubmed: 19007893