Dataset Information

Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.

ABSTRACT: Consumption of foods can be suppressed by two feeding system defense mechanisms: conditioned taste aversion (CTA) or taste avoidance learning (TAL). There is a debate in the literature about which form of intake suppression is caused by various aversive stimuli. For instance, illness-inducing stimuli like lithium chloride are the gold standard for producing CTA and external (or peripheral) painful stimuli, such as footshock, are the traditional model of TAL. The distinction between CTA and TAL, which have identical effects on intake, is based on differential effects on palatability. That is, CTA involves a decrease in both intake and palatability, whereas TAL suppresses intake without influencing palatability. We evaluated whether lactose, which causes gastrointestinal pain in adult rats, produces CTA or TAL. Using lick pattern analysis to simultaneously measure intake and palatability (i.e., lick cluster size and initial lick rate), we found that pairing saccharin with intragastric infusions of lactose suppressed both the intake and palatability of saccharin. These results support the conclusion that gastrointestinal pain produced by lactose malabsorption produces a CTA, not TAL as had previously been suggested. Furthermore, these findings encourage the view that the CTA mechanism is broadly tuned to defend against the ingestion of foods with aversive post-ingestive effects.

SUBMITTER: Arthurs J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5597491 | biostudies-other | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.

Arthurs Joe J Lin Jian-You JY Ocampo Roberto R Reilly Steve S

Physiology & behavior 20170812

Consumption of foods can be suppressed by two feeding system defense mechanisms: conditioned taste aversion (CTA) or taste avoidance learning (TAL). There is a debate in the literature about which form of intake suppression is caused by various aversive stimuli. For instance, illness-inducing stimuli like lithium chloride are the gold standard for producing CTA and external (or peripheral) painful stimuli, such as footshock, are the traditional model of TAL. The distinction between CTA and TAL, ...[more]

PMID: 28807538

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdult lactase non-persistence (LNP) is due to low lactase expression, resulting in lactose malabsorption (LM). LNP is a genetic trait, but is typically determined by LM markers including breath H2, blood glucose, and urinary galactose after a lactose tolerance test. Known validity of these markers using milk is limited, despite being common practice. Compositional variation, such as β-casein variants, in milk may impact diagnostic efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy to detect LNP using these commonly measured LM markers after both lactose and milk challenges.MethodsFourty healthy young women were challenged with 50 g lactose then randomized for separate cross-over visits to ingest 750 mL milk (37.5 g lactose) as conventional (both A1 and A2 β-casein) and A1 β-casein-free (a2 Milk™) milk. Blood, breath and urine were collected prior to and up to 3 h following each challenge. The presence of C/T13910 and G/A22018 polymorphisms, determined by restriction fragment length polymorphism, was used as the diagnostic reference for LNP.ResultsGenetic testing identified 14 out of 40 subjects as having LNP (C/C13910 and G/G22018). All three LM markers (breath H2, plasma glucose and urinary galactose/creatinine) discriminated between lactase persistence (LP) and LNP following lactose challenge with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 1.00, 0.75 and 0.73, respectively. Plasma glucose and urinary galactose/creatinine were unreliable (AUC < 0.70) after milk ingestion. The specificity of breath H2 remained high (100%) when milk was used, but sensitivity was reduced with conventional (92.9%) and a2 Milk™ (78.6%) compared to lactose (sensitivities adjusted for lactose content). The breath H2 optimal cut-off value was lower with a2 Milk™ (13 ppm) than conventional milk (21 ppm). Using existing literature cut-off values the sensitivity and specificity of breath H2 was greater than plasma glucose to detect LNP following lactose challenge whereas values obtained for urinary galactose/creatinine were lower than the existing literature cut-offs.ConclusionThis study showed accurate diagnosis of LNP by breath H2 irrespective of the substrate used, although the diagnostic threshold may vary depending on the lactose substrate or the composition of the milk.Trial registrationACTRN12616001694404 . Registered prospectively on December 9, 2016.

Dataset Information

Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.

Publications

Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets