Enhanced sucrose and Polycose preference in sweet sensitive (C57BL/6J) and subsensitive (129P3/J) mice after experience with these saccharides

Prior research with inbred mouse strains indicates that C57BL/6J (136) mice display stronger preference and acceptance for various sweeteners than do 129P3/J (129) mice. Experiment I examined the extent to which this strain difference Could be modified by repeated exposure to sucrose. Sucrose-naive 129 mice displayed weaker preferences than did B6 mice for 0.5% to 4% sucrose solutions during 23 h/day sugar vs. water tests. Sucrose preference did not differ at 8-32% concentrations. Yet, when retested with sucrose, the 129 and B6 mice showed identical robust preferences (> 90%) for 0.5-32% solutions. The strains also did not differ in Sucrose preference in tests with descending sucrose concentrations (0.5-0.0625%). Sucrose-experienced 129 mice also showed enhanced preference for dilute saccharin solutions suggesting that their sweet taste responsivity was enhanced. Experiment 2 revealed that preference for dilute saccharin solutions was enhanced by prior saccharin experience in B6 but not 129 mice. Experiment 3 tested the strains with Polycose which has a palatable taste different from that of sucrose. Polycose-naive 129 mice displayed weaker preferences for dilute (0.5-4%) but not concentrated (8-32%) Polycose solutions relative to B6 mice. In the second test series Polycose preferences were nearly identical in the two strains. In Experiments 1 and 3, prior sucrose or Polycose experience also reduced or eliminated strain differences in saccharide acceptance (absolute intake) at higher but not lower concentrations. Thus, exposure to the oral and postoral actions of sucrose and Polycose increased saccharide preference in 136 mice and even more in 129 mice so that the strain difference virtually disappeared. Whether the 129 mice responded to the taste or other properties (e.g., odor) of the dilute saccharide solutions is not certain but their gustatory sensitivity needs to be reconsidered. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.