Consumption of a Carbonated Beverage with High-Intensity Sweeteners Has No Effect on Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion in Nondiabetic Adults

Effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages versus water after a 12-week weight-loss program: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare non-nutritive sweetened (NNS) beverages versus water for weight loss after a 12-week behavioral weight-management program.

METHODS

This is an ongoing, 2-year, parallel-group, open-label, controlled equivalence trial; week-12 data are reported. Adults with BMI of 27 to 35 kg/m2 who regularly drank cold beverages were randomized 1:1 to intention-to-treat water or NNS beverages while undergoing a weekly 12-week group behavioral weight-management program. Weight change to week 12 was the primary end point (equivalence: two-sided p > 0.05); changes in waist and hip circumference, blood pressure, glycemic control markers, fasting lipid profiles, liver function tests, hunger (visual analog scale), sugar and sweetener consumption, and activity levels were secondary end points.

RESULTS

Overall, 493 participants were randomized (water: n = 246; NNS beverages: n = 247); 24.1% were NNS beverage naïve. Weight change was equivalent with water versus NNS beverages (-5.6 vs. -5.8 kg; difference [90% CI]: -0.2 kg [-0.7 to 0.4]). There were no significant differences between groups for secondary end points except reductions in waist circumference (greater with NNS beverages vs. water), glycated hemoglobin, and consumption of any type of sweetener (both greater with water vs. NNS beverages).

CONCLUSIONS

Weight loss was equivalent with NNS beverages and water following a 12-week behavioral weight-management program.

Assessing the impact of non-nutritive sweeteners on anthropometric indices and leptin levels in adults: A GRADE-assessed systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized clinical trials

In today's world, non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are recognized as substitutes for sugar or other high-calorie sweeteners, and their consumption is increasing dramatically. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the impact of NNSs on anthropometric indices. To fill this gap in knowledge, the current GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of artificial- and stevia-based sweeteners consumption on anthropometric indices and serum leptin level which is known as an appetite-regulating hormone. A comprehensive search was conducted on the Scopus, PubMed, and Embase databases up to November 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of NNSs on anthropometric indices and serum leptin levels. Data extraction from qualified studies was performed independently by two researchers. A random- or fixed-effects model was used to estimate weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for anthropometric indices such as body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM), waist circumference (WC) and serum leptin level. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and quantified using the I² statistic. From a pool of 3212 studies initially identified, 20 studies with a total sample size of 2158 subjects were included in the analysis. Results of the pooled analysis showed that NNSs consumption had a significant reducing effect on BW (WMD: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.57, -0.46 Kg), FM (WMD: -1.09, 95% CI: -1.90, -0.29), and FFM (WMD: -0.83, 95% CI: -1.42, -0.23), but did not have any significant effect on BMI (WMD: -0.16, 95% CI: -0.35, 0.02), WC (WMD: -1.03, 95% CI: -2.77, 0.72), or serum leptin level (WMD: -2.17, 95% CI: -4.98, 0.65). The findings of this study indicate that the consumption of artificial- and stevia-based sweeteners may lead to a reduction in body weight, fat mass, and free fat mass.

The effect of regular consumption of four low- or no-calorie sweeteners on glycemic response in healthy women: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of regular exposure to certain low- or no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) on glucose tolerance and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) release in healthy individuals.

METHODS

It was designed as a randomized, single-blinded, controlled study. Healthy and normoglycemic adults who did not have regular consumption of LNCS were recruited. Participants underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at baseline and were randomly assigned to consume 330 mL water sweetened with saccharine, sucralose, or aspartame + acesulfame-K (Asp+Ace-K), or plain water for the control group, daily for 4 wk. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and glycated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels and 1-h, 2-h, and 3-h plasma glucose and insulin levels during OGTT were obtained at baseline. The change in insulin sensitivity was assessed by both the Homeostatic Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) Index and the Matsuda Index. Anthropometric measurements and dietary intakes were determined at baseline. Baseline measurements were repeated at week 4.

RESULTS

Of the participants enrolled in the study, 42 (age, 21.24 ± 2.26 y; body mass index, 20.65 ± 2.88 kg/m²) completed the 4-wk intervention period. There were no differences for glucose, insulin, GLP-1, or HbA_1c levels or HOMA-IR scores at baseline or at week 4 when compared with the control group. The area under the curve of mean glucose and insulin values during OGTT were also found to be similar between groups at baseline and week 4. There were also no effects of LNCS intake on body weight, body composition, and waist circumference.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that regular consumption of LNCS-sweetened water similar to doses consumed in daily life over 4 wk had no significant effect on glycemic response, insulin sensitivity, GLP-1 release, and body weight in healthy individuals. This trial was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov as NCT04904133.

The Combined Effects of Aspartame and Acesulfame-K Blends on Appetite: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Aspartame (Asp) and acesulfame-K (Ace-K) are nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) commonly used in combination to replace added sugars in reduced- or low-calorie foods and beverages. Despite Asp/Ace-K blends having negligible calories, their effects on appetite have not been reviewed systematically. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the metabolic effects of Asp/Ace-K blends on energy intake (EI), subjective appetite scores, blood glucose, and the incretin hormones glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and glucagon-like peptide. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases (Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL) were searched (May 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Human RCTs using Asp/Ace-K blends compared with sugar and water controls were included, whereas isolated cell and animal studies were excluded. An overall 4829 publications were identified and 8 studies, including 274 participants, were retrieved for review. The Asp/Ace-K group's EI was significantly reduced compared with sugar [mean difference (MD): -196.56 kcal/meal; 95% CI: -332.01, -61.11 kcal/meal; P = 0.004] and water (MD: -213.42 kcal/meal; 95% CI: -345.4, -81.44 kcal/meal; P = 0.002). Meta-analysis of subjective appetite scores and incretins could not be undertaken due to inconsistencies in data reporting and insufficient data, respectively, but of the 4 studies identified, no differences were observed between Asp/Ace-K blends and controls. The Asp/Ace-K group's blood glucose was nonsignificantly reduced compared with sugar (MD: -1.48 mmol/L; 95% CI: -3.26, 0.3 mmol/L; P = 0.1) and water (MD: -0.08 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.62, 0.47 mmol/L; P = 0.78). Lower EI in participants who were predominantly healthy and assigned to Asp/Ace-K blends could not be reliably attributed to changes in subjective appetite scores. Blood glucose and incretins were also generally not affected by Asp/Ace-K blends when compared with controls. Additional short- and long-term RCTs using NNSs and sugars at dietarily relevant levels are needed. This trial was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42017061015).

The Effect of Artificial Sweeteners Use on Sweet Taste Perception and Weight Loss Efficacy: A Review

Excessive consumption of sugar-rich foods is currently one of the most important factors that has led to the development of the global pandemic of obesity. On the other hand, there is evidence that obesity contributes to reduced sensitivity to sweet taste and hormonal changes affecting appetite, leading to an increased craving for sweets. A high intake of sugars increases the caloric value of the diet and, consequently, leads to weight gain. Moreover, attention is drawn to the concept of the addictive properties of sugar and sugary foods. A potential method to reduce the energy value of diet while maintaining the sweet taste is using non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS). NNS are commonly used as table sugar substitutes. This wide group of chemical compounds features high sweetness almost without calories due to its high sweetening strength. NNS include aspartame, acesulfame-K, sucralose, saccharin, cyclamate, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone (neohesperidin DC), neotame, taumatin, and advantame. The available evidence suggests that replacing sugar with NNS may support weight control. However, the effect of NNS on the regulation of appetite and sweet taste perception is not clear. Therefore, the review aimed to summarize the current knowledge about the use of NNS as a potential strategy for weight loss and their impact on sweet taste perception. Most studies have demonstrated that consumption of NNS-sweetened foods does not increase sweetness preference orenergy intake. Nonetheless, further research is required to determine the long-term effects of NNS on weight management.

Association of Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages as a Replacement for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Body Weight and Cardiometabolic Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

There are concerns that low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages (LNCSBs) do not have established benefits, with major dietary guidelines recommending the use of water and not LNCSBs to replace sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Whether LNCSB as a substitute can yield similar improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors vs water in their intended substitution for SSBs is unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of LNCSBs (using 3 prespecified substitutions of LNCSBs for SSBs, water for SSBs, and LNCSBs for water) with body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with and without diabetes.

Data Sources

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through December 26, 2021.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 2 weeks of interventions comparing LNCSBs, SSBs, and/or water were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. A network meta-analysis was performed with data expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was body weight. Secondary outcomes were other measures of adiposity, glycemic control, blood lipids, blood pressure, measures of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and uric acid.

Results

A total of 17 RCTs with 24 trial comparisons were included, involving 1733 adults (mean [SD] age, 33.1 [6.6] years; 1341 women [77.4%]) with overweight or obesity who were at risk for or had diabetes. Overall, LNCSBs were a substitute for SSBs in 12 RCTs (n = 601 participants), water was a substitute for SSBs in 3 RCTs (n = 429), and LNCSBs were a substitute for water in 9 RCTs (n = 974). Substitution of LNCSBs for SSBs was associated with reduced body weight (MD, -1.06 kg; 95% CI, -1.71 to -0.41 kg), body mass index (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07), percentage of body fat (MD, -0.60%; 95% CI, -1.03% to -0.18%), and intrahepatocellular lipid (SMD, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.14). Substituting water for SSBs was not associated with any outcome. There was also no association found between substituting LNCSBs for water with any outcome except glycated hemoglobin A1c (MD, 0.21%; 95% CI, 0.02% to 0.40%) and systolic blood pressure (MD, -2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.71 to -0.55 mm Hg). The certainty of the evidence was moderate (substitution of LNCSBs for SSBs) and low (substitutions of water for SSBs and LNCSBs for water) for body weight and was generally moderate for all other outcomes across all substitutions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that using LNCSBs as an intended substitute for SSBs was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm and had a similar direction of benefit as water substitution. The evidence supports the use of LNCSBs as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs over the moderate term in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes.

Analysis of Caloric and Noncaloric Sweeteners Present in Dairy Products Aimed at the School Market and Their Possible Effects on Health

Over the past decades, Mexico has become one of the main sweetener-consuming countries in the world. Large amounts of these sweeteners are in dairy products aimed at the children’s market in various presentations such as yogurt, flavored milk, flan, and cheeses. Although numerous studies have shown the impact of sweeteners in adults, the current evidence for children is insufficient and discordant to determine if these substances have any risk or benefit on their well-being. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the sweeteners present in 15 dairy products belonging to the school-age children’s market in Mexico and their impact on health. These dairy products were selected through a couple of surveys directed at parents of school-age children. After that, the list of ingredients of each product was analyzed to identify their sweetener content. From there, exhaustive bibliographic research on sweeteners and their possible health effects was carried out, which included 109 articles and 18 studies. The results showed that at a neurological, endocrinological, cardiovascular, metabolic, osseous, renal, hepatic, dental, reticular, carcinogenic, and gut microbiota level; sucrose, fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrins, sucralose, and acesulfame K, have a negative effect. While maltodextrins, stevia, polydextrose, and modified starch have a positive one. For these reasons, it is necessary to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages that the consumption of each sweetener entails, as well as a determination of the appropriate acceptable daily intake (ADI).

Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners on Energy Intake, Body Weight and Postprandial Glycemia in Healthy and with Altered Glycemic Response Rats

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) consumption on energy intake, body weight and postprandial glycemia in healthy and with altered glycemic response rats. Animals on normal diet (ND) or high-fat diet (HFD) were divided to receive NNS (sucralose, aspartame, stevia, rebaudioside A) or nutritive sweeteners (glucose, sucrose) for 8 weeks. The NNS were administered at doses equivalent to the human acceptable daily intake (ADI). A test using rapidly digestible starch was performed before and after treatments to estimate glycemic response. No effects of NNS consumption were observed on energy intake or body weight. Sucrose provoked an increased fluid consumption, however, energy intake, and weight gain were not altered. In ND, no effects of NNS on glycemic response were observed. In HFD, the glycemic response was increased after sucralose and stevia when only the final tolerance test was considered, however, after including the baseline test, these results were no longer significant compared to glucose. These findings provide further evidence suggesting that at the recommended doses, NNS do not alter feeding behavior, body weight or glycemic tolerance in healthy and with altered glycemic rats.

Effect of sucralose and aspartame on glucose metabolism and gut hormones

Non-nutritive sweeteners are thought to be useful replacements for caloric sweeteners in sweet food and beverages, since the reduction in energy and carbohydrate intake may lead to health benefits stemming from weight management and glycemic control. However, the potential effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on glucose metabolism and gut hormones have not been determined definitively. Here, the available evidence of the effects of aspartame and sucralose consumption on glucose metabolism and gut hormones is reviewed. A majority of studies have found that consumption of aspartame or sucralose has no effect on concentrations of blood glucose, insulin, or gut hormones; however, 2 trials have shown that aspartame consumption affects glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations, while only a few trials have shown that sucralose consumption affects glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations. One study found higher glucose concentrations after sucralose consumption, while 3 studies found lower concentrations and 33 studies found no change in glucose concentrations. Moreover, only 4 studies reported increased concentrations of glucagon-like peptide 1. Three studies reported decreased insulin sensitivity following sucralose consumption, while 1 trial reported an increase in insulin sensitivity. In summary, the evidence from the clinical trials conducted to date is contradictory because of the different protocols used.

The effects of low-calorie sweeteners on energy intake and body weight: a systematic review and meta-analyses of sustained intervention studies

Previous meta-analyses of intervention studies have come to different conclusions about effects of consumption of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) on body weight. The present review included 60 articles reporting 88 parallel-groups and cross-over studies ≥1 week in duration that reported either body weight (BW), BMI and/or energy intake (EI) outcomes. Studies were analysed according to whether they compared (1) LCS with sugar, (2) LCS with water or nothing, or (3) LCS capsules with placebo capsules. Results showed an effect in favour of LCS vs sugar for BW (29 parallel-groups studies, 2267 participants: BW change, -1.06 kg, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.62, I2 = 51%), BMI and EI. Effect on BW change increased with 'dose' of sugar replaced by LCS, whereas there were no differences in study outcome as a function of duration of the intervention or participant blinding. Overall, results showed no difference in effects of LCS vs water/nothing for BW (11 parallel-groups studies, 1068 participants: BW change, 0.10 kg, 95% CI -0.87 to 1.07, I2 = 82%), BMI and EI; and inconsistent effects for LCS consumed in capsules (BW change: -0.28 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.25, I2 = 0%; BMI change: 0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.36, I2 = 0%). Occurrence of adverse events was not affected by the consumption of LCS. The studies available did not permit robust analysis of effects by LCS type. In summary, outcomes were not clearly affected when the treatments differed in sweetness, nor when LCS were consumed in capsules without tasting; however, when treatments differed in energy value (LCS vs sugar), there were consistent effects in favour of LCS. The evidence from human intervention studies supports the use of LCS in weight management, constrained primarily by the amount of added sugar that LCS can displace in the diet.

A rational review on the effects of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on appetite, food reward and metabolic/adiposity outcomes in adults

Numerous strategies have been investigated to overcome the excessive weight gain that accompanies a chronic positive energy balance. Most approaches focus on a reduction of energy intake and the improvement of lifestyle habits. The use of high intensity artificial sweeteners, also known as non-caloric sweeteners (NCS), as sugar substitutes in foods and beverages, is rapidly developing. NCS are commonly defined as molecules with a sweetness profile of 30 times higher or more that of sucrose, scarcely contributing to the individual's net energy intake as they are hardly metabolized. The purpose of this review is first, to assess the impact of NCS on eating behaviour, including subjective appetite, food intake, food reward and sensory stimulation; and secondly, to assess the metabolic impact of NCS on body weight regulation, glucose homeostasis and gut health. The evidence reviewed suggests that while some sweeteners have the potential to increase subjective appetite, these effects do not translate in changes in food intake. This is supported by a large body of empirical evidence advocating that the use of NCS facilitates weight management when used alongside other weight management strategies. On the other hand, although NCS are very unlikely to impair insulin metabolism and glycaemic control, some studies suggest that NCS could have putatively undesirable effects, through various indirect mechanisms, on body weight, glycemia, adipogenesis and the gut microbiota; however there is insufficient evidence to determine the degree of such effects. Overall, the available data suggests that NCS can be used to facilitate a reduction in dietary energy content without significant negative effects on food intake behaviour or body metabolism, which would support their potential role in the prevention of obesity as a complementary strategy to other weight management approaches. More research is needed to determine the impact of NCS on metabolic health, in particular gut microbiota.

Effects of Non-nutritive Sweeteners on Sweet Taste Processing and Neuroendocrine Regulation of Eating Behavior

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are increasingly used as a replacement for nutritive sugars as means to quench the desire for "sweets" while contributing few or no dietary calories. However, there is concern that NNS may uncouple the evolved relationship between sweet taste and post-ingestive neuroendocrine signaling. In this review, we examine the effects of NNS exposure on neural and peripheral systems in humans.

RECENT FINDINGS

NNS exposure during early development may influence sweet taste preferences, and NNS consumption might increase motivation for sweet foods. Neuroimaging studies provide evidence that NNS elicit differential neuronal responsivity in areas related to reward and satiation, compared with caloric sweeteners. Findings are heterogenous regarding whether NNS affect physiological responses. Additional studies are warranted regarding the consequences of NNS on metabolic outcomes and neuroendocrine pathways. Given the widespread popularity of NNS, future studies are essential to establish their role in long-term health.

The effect of the artificial sweeteners on glucose metabolism in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blinded, crossover clinical trial

This study aimed to determine the effect of pure forms of sucralose and aspartame, in doses reflective of common consumption, on glucose metabolism. Healthy participants consumed pure forms of a non-nutritive sweetener (NNS) that were mixed with water and standardized to doses of 14% (0.425 g) of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for aspartame and 20% (0.136 g) of the ADI for sucralose every day for 2 weeks. Blood samples were collected and analyzed for glucose, insulin, active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and leptin. Seventeen participants (10 females and 7 males; age, 24 ± 6.8 years; body mass index, 22.9 ± 2.5 kg/m²) participated in the study. The total area under the curve values of glucose, insulin, active GLP-1 and leptin were similar for the aspartame and sucralose treatment groups compared with the baseline values in healthy participants. There was no change in insulin sensitivity after NNS treatment compared with the baseline values. These findings suggest that daily repeated consumption of pure sucralose or aspartame for 2 weeks had no effect on glucose metabolism among normoglycaemic adults. However, these results need to be tested in studies with longer durations. Novelty Daily consumption of pure aspartame or sucralose for 2 weeks had no effect on glucose metabolism. Daily consumption of pure aspartame or sucralose for 2 weeks had no effect on insulin sensitivity among healthy adults.

Low-calorie sweeteners augment tissue-specific insulin sensitivity in a large animal model of obesity

PURPOSES

Whether low-calorie sweeteners (LCS), such as sucralose and acesulfame K, can alter glucose metabolism is uncertain, particularly given the inconsistent observations relating to insulin resistance in recent human trials. We hypothesized that these discrepancies are accounted for by the surrogate tools used to evaluate insulin resistance and that PET ¹⁸FDG, given its capacity to quantify insulin sensitivity in individual organs, would be more sensitive in identifying changes in glucose metabolism. Accordingly, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of LCS on whole-body and organ-specific glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity in a large animal model of morbid obesity.

METHODS

Twenty mini-pigs with morbid obesity were fed an obesogenic diet enriched with LCS (sucralose 1 mg/kg/day and acesulfame K 0.5 mg/kg/day, LCS diet group), or without LCS (control group), for 3 months. Glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity were determined for the duodenum, liver, skeletal muscle, adipose tissue and brain using dynamic PET ¹⁸FDG scanning together with direct measurement of arterial input function. Body composition was also measured using CT imaging and energy metabolism quantified with indirect calorimetry.

RESULTS

The LCS diet increased subcutaneous abdominal fat by ≈ 20% without causing weight gain, and reduced insulin clearance by ≈ 40%, while whole-body glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity were unchanged. In contrast, glucose uptake in the duodenum, liver and brain increased by 57, 66 and 29% relative to the control diet group (P < 0.05 for all), while insulin sensitivity increased by 53, 55 and 28% (P < 0.05 for all), respectively. In the brain, glucose uptake increased significantly only in the frontal cortex, associated with improved metabolic connectivity towards the hippocampus and the amygdala.

CONCLUSIONS

In miniature pigs, the combination of sucralose and acesulfame K is biologically active. While not affecting whole-body insulin resistance, it increases insulin sensitivity and glucose uptake in specific tissues, mimicking the effects of obesity in the adipose tissue and in the brain.

Recent evidence for the effects of nonnutritive sweeteners on glycaemic control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

By replacing sugar, nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are thought to aid in weight management and decrease insulin resistance. We reviewed the latest randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects NNSs on glycaemic control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Six RCTs addressed this topic between 2017 and 2018; the majority tested artificial NNS (sucralose or aspartame), with only one testing natural NNS (stevia and monk fruit extract). Most found no effect of NNS on blood glucose, insulin, gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels; however, two trials showed an effect of sucralose on the acute insulin response.

SUMMARY

We are still incapable of reaching a definite judgement on which types of NNS, if any, impact glycaemic control. There is a need for more research to overcome the limitations of recent RCTs, related to sample size, intervention duration, dose, form of NNSs used, and inclusion of males or female participants only. Future studies should also compare different NNS types with each other, and include the increasingly popular 'natural' NNS.

Chronic fructose renders pancreatic β-cells hyper-responsive to glucose-stimulated insulin secretion through extracellular ATP signaling

Fructose is widely used as a sweetener in processed food and is also associated with metabolic disorders, such as obesity. However, the underlying cellular mechanisms remain unclear, in particular, regarding the pancreatic β-cell. Here, we investigated the effects of chronic exposure to fructose on the function of insulinoma cells and isolated mouse and human pancreatic islets. Although fructose per se did not acutely stimulate insulin exocytosis, our data show that chronic fructose rendered rodent and human β-cells hyper-responsive to intermediate physiological glucose concentrations. Fructose exposure reduced intracellular ATP levels without affecting mitochondrial function, induced AMP-activated protein kinase activation, and favored ATP release from the β-cells upon acute glucose stimulation. The resulting increase in extracellular ATP, mediated by pannexin1 (Panx1) channels, activated the calcium-mobilizer P2Y purinergic receptors. Immunodetection revealed the presence of both Panx1 channels and P2Y1 receptors in β-cells. Addition of an ectonucleotidase inhibitor or P2Y1 agonists to naïve β-cells potentiated insulin secretion stimulated by intermediate glucose, mimicking the fructose treatment. Conversely, the P2Y1 antagonist and Panx1 inhibitor reversed the effects of fructose, as confirmed using Panx1-null islets and by the clearance of extracellular ATP by apyrase. These results reveal an important function of ATP signaling in pancreatic β-cells mediating fructose-induced hyper-responsiveness.