4.7 Article

Acute Intake of Sucrose but Not of the Intense Sweetener Sucralose Is Associated with Post-Prandial Endotoxemia in Healthy Young Adults-A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15184038

关键词

sucrose; sucralose; intense sweetener; intestinal permeability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sugar-rich diets and intense sweeteners can alter intestinal barrier function. Sucrose intake may lead to post-prandial endotoxemia, while sucralose does not affect plasma endotoxin levels.
Sugar-rich diets, but also the use of intense sweeteners, may alter intestinal barrier function. Here, we assessed the effect of sucrose and sucralose on post-prandial endotoxemia in a randomized placebo-controlled single-blinded crossover-designed study. Following a 2-day standardization of their diet, healthy men and women received a beverage containing either sucrose, sucralose (iso-sweet) or an isocaloric combination of sucralose + maltodextrin. Plasma endotoxin levels were measured after consumption of the respective beverages. Moreover, the effect of sucrose and sucralose on intestinal permeability was assessed in Caco-2 cells and ex vivo in an everted gut sac model. The nutritional standardization recommended by nutrition societies was associated with a significant decrease in plasma endotoxin levels. The intake of the sucrose-sweetened beverage resulted in a significant increase in plasma endotoxin levels while being unchanged after the intake of sucralose-sweetened beverages. In Caco-2 cells, the challenge with sucrose but not with sucralose significantly increased the permeation of the bacterial endotoxin across the cell monolayer. Xylose permeation in small intestinal everted tissue sacs was significantly higher upon the challenge with sucrose while remaining unchanged in sucralose-challenged sacs. Our data suggest that an acute intake of physiologically relevant amounts of sucrose but not of sucralose can result in post-prandial endotoxemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据