4.5 Article

Family history of alcoholism and the human brain response to oral sucrose

期刊

NEUROIMAGE-CLINICAL
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 1036-1046

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.019

关键词

Alcohol; fMRI; Sweet; Taste; Gustatory

资金

  1. Indiana Alcohol Research Center [P60 AA07611]
  2. Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute Clinical Research Center [UL1TR001108]
  3. [R01 AA022476]
  4. [K99 AA023296]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [P60AA007611, R00AA023296, R01AA022476] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A heightened hedonic response to sweet tastes has been associated with increased alcohol preference and alcohol consumption in both humans and animals. The principal goal of this study was to examine blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activation to high-and low-concentration sweet solutions in subjects who are either positive (FHP) or negative (FHN) for a family history of alcoholism. Seventy-four non-treatment seeking, community-recruited, healthy volunteers (22.8 +/- 1.6 SD years; 43% men) rated a range of sucrose concentrations in a taste test and underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during oral delivery of water, 0.83 M, and 0.10 M sucrose. Sucrose compared to water produced robust activation in primary gustatory cortex, ventral insula, amygdala, and ventral striatum. FHP subjects displayed greater bilateral amygdala activation than FHN subjects in the low sucrose concentration (0.10 M). In secondary analyses, the right amygdala response to the 0.10 M sucrose was greatest in FHP women. When accounting for group differences in drinks per week, the family history groups remained significantly different in their right amygdala response to 0.10 M sucrose. Our findings suggest that the brain response to oral sucrose differs with a family history of alcoholism, and that this response to a mildly reinforcing primary reward might be an endophenotypic marker of alcoholism risk.

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

4.5
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