4.7 Article

Brain functional magnetic resonance imaging response to glucose and fructose infusions in humans

Journal

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 229-234

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01340.x

Keywords

appetite control; glucose metabolism; neuropharmacology

Funding

  1. OHSU Advance Imaging Research Center
  2. NIH [R21 DK073729, R56 DK 88207]
  3. Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI)
  4. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [UL1 RR024140]
  5. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  6. USDA-ARS [5306-51530-016-00D]
  7. Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods: Nine healthy, normal weight subjects underwent blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI measurements during either intravenous (IV) glucose (0.3 mg/kg), fructose (0.3 mg/kg) or saline, administered over 2 min in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Blood was sampled every 5 min during a baseline period and following infusion for 60 min in total for glucose, fructose, lactate and insulin levels. Results: No significant brain BOLD signal changes were detected in response to IV saline. BOLD signal in the cortical control areas increased during glucose infusion (p = 0.002), corresponding with increased plasma glucose and insulin levels. In contrast, BOLD signal decreased in the cortical control areas during fructose infusion (p = 0.006), corresponding with increases of plasma fructose and lactate. Neither glucose nor fructose infusions significantly altered BOLD signal in the hypothalamus. Conclusion: In normal weight humans, cortical responses as assessed by BOLD fMRI to infused glucose are opposite to those of fructose. Differential brain responses to these sugars and their metabolites may provide insight into the neurologic basis for dysregulation of food intake during high dietary fructose intake.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available