4.2 Article

Effects of non-caloric artificial sweeteners on naive and dextran sodium sulfate-exposed Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

FOOD FRONTIERS
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 728-735

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fft2.147

关键词

food and health; food science (general); nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of artificial sweeteners Saccharin and sucralose on fruit flies. It was found that Saccharin supplementation increased fruit fly lifespan, and DSS exposure resulted in up-regulation of antimicrobial peptide expression in the gut. The effects were more significant in the group supplemented with artificial sweeteners, indicating a potential improvement in intestinal immune reactions during an inflammatory metabolic state.
Saccharin and sucralose are worldwide used tabletop non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS), and although they are considered metabolically inert and safe for consumption, recent studies observed an NAS-mediated modulation of the intestinal microbiota, which may result in the development of intestinal inflammatory diseases. The present study investigated the effects of NAS alone and in combination with dextran sodium sulfate (DSS), a chemical known to induce gut inflammation, on parameters of overall fitness including longevity and climbing ability of female Drosophila melanogaster. DSS-exposed flies were subjected to saccharin or sucralose, and their effects on survival and the gene expression levels of different antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) were assessed. Saccharin supplementation significantly increased the lifespan of D. melanogaster, while DSS significantly decreased the survival in a dose-dependent manner. Additionally, DSS exposure of flies resulted in a trend toward an up-regulation of the mRNA levels of the AMPs, drosocin and metchnikowin. This effect was more pronounced in the NAS-supplemented group reaching significance. This may indicate that NAS supplementation improves intestinal immune reactions during an inflammatory metabolic state.

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

4.2
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