Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

Vladimir O Murovets; Ekaterina A Lukina; Egor A Sozontov; Julia V Andreeva; Raisa P Khropycheva; Vasiliy A Zolotarev

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235913

. 2020 Jul 16;15(7):e0235913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F₁ mouse hybrids

Vladimir O Murovets ^1,^#, Ekaterina A Lukina ^1,^#, Egor A Sozontov ^1,^#, Julia V Andreeva ^1,^#, Raisa P Khropycheva ^1,^#, Vasiliy A Zolotarev ^1,^*,^#

Editor: Keiko Abe²

PMCID: PMC7365461 PMID: 32673349

Abstract

In mammals, inter- and intraspecies differences in consumption of sweeteners largely depend on allelic variation of the Tas1r3 gene (locus Sac) encoding the T1R3 protein, a sweet taste receptor subunit. To assess the influence of Tas1r3 polymorphisms on feeding behavior and metabolism, we examined the phenotype of F₁ male hybrids obtained from crosses between the following inbred mouse strains: females from 129SvPasCrl (129S2) bearing the recessive Tas1r3 allele and males from either C57BL/6J (B6), carrying the dominant allele, or the Tas1r3-gene knockout strain C57BL/6J-Tas1r3^tm1Rfm (B6-Tas1r3-/-). The hybrids 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 had identical background genotypes and different sets of Tas1r3 alleles. The effect of Tas1r3 hemizygosity was analyzed by comparing the parental strain B6 (Tas1r3 homozygote) and hemizygous F₁ hybrids B6 × B6-Tas1r3-/-. Data showed that, in 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids, the reduction of glucose tolerance, along with lower consumption of and lower preference for sweeteners during the initial licking responses, is due to expression of the recessive Tas1r3 allele. Hemizygosity of Tas1r3 did not influence these behavioral and metabolic traits. However, the loss of the functional Tas1r3 allele was associated with a small decline in the long-term intake and preference for sweeteners and reduction of plasma insulin and body, liver, and fat mass.

Introduction

Perception of sweet taste of natural sugars, certain amino acids, and artificial sweeteners acts as a major determinant for strong preference and overconsumption of sweet [1], leading to risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular complications [2, 3]. Investigations of the last decade suggest an involvement of the sweet taste receptor in the hormonal regulation of metabolism, in addition to its role in sweet taste sensing for detection of calorie-rich products.

There is good evidence that the sweet taste receptor proteins, along with several signal-transducing molecules, are expressed not only in taste buds on the tongue but also in organs regulating metabolism [4]. Sweet taste receptor subunits T1R2 and T1R3 are coexpressed in enteroendocrine cells of the small intestine [5, 6]. Their activation by natural sugars and artificial sweeteners leads to secretion of gut hormones such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), GLP-2, and the gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP), acting as incretins to enhance insulin secretion [5, 7]. In the intestine, T1R3 upregulates through GLP-1 and GIP expression of sodium-dependent glucose transporter isoform 1 (SGLT1) important for the provision of glucose to the body and avoidance of intestinal malabsorption [6]. Coupling of T1R3 with T1R1 produces a heterodimer that serves as an intestinal L-amino acid sensor modulating cholecystokinin release [8].

The T1R3 protein is detected in mouse pancreatic β-cells, where its expression level is greater than that of T1R2, suggesting that most likely T1R3 is present in homodimeric form or in more sensitive to glucose heteromers when coupled with a calcium-sensing receptor [9–11]. In pancreatic β-cells, stimulation of the sweet taste receptor elicits insulin release by elevating intracellular Ca²⁺ and/or cAMP [12] synergetic to the major universal mechanism of metabolic detection of glucose, which includes the glucose transporter GLUT2, glucokinase, and the ATP-sensitive K⁺ (K_ATP) channel [13]. In β-cells, T1R3 can be also dimerized with the T1R1 subunit, forming the receptor detecting amino acids, which stimulates insulin synthesis and reduces cell apoptosis, affecting the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) through activation of phospholipase C and extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase 1 (ERK1) and ERK2 [14]. Importantly, the knockout of T1R3 in mice resulted in substantial impairment of metabolism and cell proliferation. The Tas1r3-/- deletion decreased glucose tolerance [15, 16] and increased insulin resistance [17]. T1R3-knockout animals are resistant to sucrose-induced obesity and have smaller fat depots when fed a high-sucrose diet [15]. Deletion of Tas1r3-/- reduces activation of mTORC1 [14] and decreases density of pancreatic islets and expression of caspase 3 [18].

The considerable variation in perception and consumption of sweet taste compounds within mammalian species is mainly genetically determined. The analysis of heritable differences in sweet taste responses revealed that inbred strains of mice with higher preference for a large number of chemically diverse sweeteners had the so-called taster allele and that strains with relatively lower sensitivity had the nontaster allele [19, 20]. These differences are associated mainly with the autosomal locus named Sac (saccharin preference). The dominant allele of this locus (Sac^b) found in the C57BL/6 strain is associated with higher saccharin preference, while the recessive allele (Sac^d) is linked to lower saccharin preference [21, 22]. Positional cloning of the Sac locus in the subtelomeric region of mouse chromosome 4 has shown its correspondence to the Tas1r3 gene, which encodes the T1R3 receptor protein [19].

Loss of T1R genes or their pseudogenization in several vertebrate species, as well as artificial gene deletion, results in sharp decreases in perception and intake of sweeteners [23]. One analysis found that about 78% of differences among mouse strains in preference for saccharin are explained by amino acid sequence variation in the T1R3 protein. Allelic variants of the Tas1r3 gene correspond mainly to three nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which do not act by blocking gene expression, changing alternative splicing, or interfering with protein translation in taste tissue. Among the polymorphisms, T179C, which causes a substitution of isoleucine to threonine at position 60 in the extracellular N domain of the T1R3 protein, influence the ability of the protein to form dimers or bind sweeteners [24]. This substitution reduces in vitro binding of T1R3 to caloric or noncaloric sweeteners, increasing, for instance, effective dose for sucrose up to 1000% [25]. Synonymous or nonsynonymous SNPs were also found in human TAS1R genes, as well as haplotypes of separate populations [26, 27]. These polymorphisms may be associated with sweet taste sensitivity and carbohydrate consumption [28, 29].

Evidence for interactions of Tas1r3 polymorphisms with preference and consumption of nutritive or nonnutritive sweeteners was obtained using a congenic 129.B6-Tas1r3 strain [30] or sequencing Tas1r3-containing fragments of DNA in strains with marked differences in sweetener preference [24]. The genetic architecture of postoral detection of glucose and artificial sweeteners is more complicated than inborn determinants affecting oral taste responses; thus, contributions of Tas1r3 polymorphisms likely are masked by background genotype variability. For example, in F₂ crosses between C57BL/6 and 129P3 strains, variation in sweetener intake depended less on Tas1r3 genotype (10–35%) than did variation in preference (64–96%) [31, 32].

The goal of the current study was to define in vivo influences of Tas1r3/Sac allelic variation, against the mixed 129S2B6F1 genetic background, on carbohydrate metabolism and body composition, which to our knowledge has not yet been assessed. For this purpose, we undertook the investigation using mouse F₁ hybrids between 129SvPasCrl (129S2) and C57BL/6J (B6) inbred strains, or between 129S2 and Tas1r3-knockout C57BL/6J-Tas1r3^tm1Rfm (B6-Tas1r3-/-) strains. The inbred B6 strain is homozygous for the Sac^b “taster” (T) allele associated with high avidity for sweeteners [23], while the 129S was among the first strains described as sweet “nontasters” (NT) [22, 33] carrying the recessive Sac^d allele with nucleotide sequence identical to other nontaster strains [34].

Studies have shown that plasma glucose level was considerably higher in the B6 strain (phenome.jax.org/projects/Eumorphia3/strains) than in 129 [35, 36]. Mice from the B6 strain show mild glucose intolerance and impaired insulin secretion despite normal insulin sensitivity [37]. In contrast, the 129 substrains (phenome.jax.org/projects/Eumorphia3/strains) exhibited higher glucose tolerance [35]. Likewise, the B6 mice were more insulin resistant during the insulin tolerance test, whereas 129SVE mice were relatively insulin sensitive [35]. Unexpectedly, we found no reliable data on glucose tolerance for the 129P3/J strain, which is why we selected 129S2 mice as the parental strain. The Tas1r3-knockout (B6-Tas1r3-/-) strain lacking the entire T1R3 coding region does not demonstrate behavioral or nerve responses to sweet substances [11, 22, 38]. Furthermore, the B6-Tas1r3-/- mice have decreased glucose tolerance compared to the parental strain [15, 16].

By mating females from the 129S2 strain with males from B6 or B6-Tas1r3-/- strain, we obtained F₁ hybrids with identical background genotypes but carrying different Tas1r3 alleles: either both recessive NT and dominant T alleles, Sac^b and Sac^d (129S2B6F1), or the single recessive NT allele Sac^d (129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1). Taking into account dominance of the Sac^b allele [21], we hypothesized differences between hybrids in oral and postoral detection of sweet compounds leading to variations in carbohydrate metabolism. Additionally, we examined the effect of Sac hemizygosity, comparing phenotypes of the B6 parental strain (Sac^b homozygote) with the crosses B6 × B6-Tas1r3-/-. Earlier it was shown that T1R3-mediated increase in insulin secretion from pancreatic islets required an optimal concentration of glucose in the media matching the postprandial level in blood [9, 39]. Therefore, in our experiments we used nonfasted animals having free access to the normocaloric lab chow during the light period.

Materials and methods

All experimental procedures have been approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the Pavlov Institute of Physiology (Animal Welfare Assurance #A5952-01). The protocols were designed in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Animals, housing, and diet

Subjects were adult mice of inbred strains and their intercrosses. C57BL/6J (B6) and 129SvPasCrl (129S2) mice were derived from the parental stocks obtained from the Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME, USA) and Charles River Laboratory (Sulzfeld, Germany), respectively. The C57BL/6J-Tas1r3^tm1Rfm Tas1r3-knockout mice were offspring of the breeding group kindly provided by Dr. R. F. Margolskee (Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA). Insulin and triglyceride measurements were made in hybrids between C57BL/6ByJ (B6By) and 129P3/J (129P) mice.

Experiments were performed with male mice at 3–7 months of age maintained at the vivarium of the Pavlov Institute. Animals were housed individually during taste tests, or otherwise in groups of 4–5 in standard polycarbonate cages in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room on a 12/12-h light/dark cycle. Laboratory chow (PK-120, MEST Ltd., Moscow, Russia) containing 67% carbohydrate, 5% lipids, and 19% protein, with an energy value of 13000 kJ/kg, and tap water were available ad libitum, unless otherwise specified.

Taste tests

Behavioral taste responses to sucrose or noncaloric sweeteners were examined in separate groups of mice using the brief-access licking test (Group 1: 129S2B6F1, n = 6; 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1, n = 5; B6, n = 19; B6-Tas1r3+/-, n = 29) or the long-term two-bottle choice test (Group 2: 129S2B6F1, n = 11; 129S2B6-Tas1 r3-/-F1, n = 13; B6, n = 22; B6-Tas1r3+/-, n = 23). The brief-access licking test (BALT) was conducted in the middle of the light period (1–3 p.m.) using procedures described by J. Glendinning et al. [40], with minor modifications. During the experimental session, an animal was exposed in a Davis MS-160 gustometer (DiLog Instruments, Tallahassee, FL, USA), in which a sipper tube containing test solution was presented for 5 s, with 20-s interpresentation interval. Animals first had two training sessions with water at 1-day intervals. On training day 1, the animal could drink water freely for 30 min from a single spout. On training day 2, the mouse had 24 trials with water, each lasting for 5 seconds. After each training day, animals had free access to water for 60 min in their home cages. To motivate licking from the sipper tube, animals were deprived of water for 22–23 h before training. To encourage drinking of sweet solutions, we limited the mice to 1.5 mL of water for 22–23 h prior the test session.

In the BALT, animals had access to solutions of sucrose (0.5–4%; Vecton Ltd., St. Petersburg, Russia), sodium saccharinate (0.2–60 mmol/L; Tiaujin Chaugjie Chem. Co., Ltd., China), sucralose or potassium acesulfame (both 0.3–10 mmol/L; Sigma Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, MO, USA) dissolved in deionized water and presented at room temperature. Sweet taste substances were tested at day intervals. The sequence of testing of substances was the same for all animals.

In the 48-h two-bottle choice test (2-BT), individually housed mice from Group 2 had unlimited access to two tubes, one containing solution of sucrose (1–16%) or saccharin (0.2–60 mmol/L), and the other filled with deionized water [41]. Each concentration of solution was given for 48 h. Every 24 h tubes were weighed to the nearest 0.02 g and their position in the cage was changed. Average daily intakes were calculated for each concentration. Preference score was determined as the ratio (in percent) of daily intake of test solution to daily intake of fluid (solution + water). Solutions of sucrose and saccharin were tested in separate groups in ascending order of concentrations.

Glucose and insulin tolerance tests

Glucose and insulin tolerance tests were performed in the middle of the light period in a separate group of nonfasted awake male mice, including 129S2B6F1 (n = 21), 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 (n = 22), B6 (n = 42), and B6-Tas1r3+/- (n = 36). These animals were kept in their home cages. In the glucose tolerance test (GTT), matching specific recommendations of the National Institutes of Health Mouse Metabolic Phenotyping Center [42], 2 g/kg glucose (Sigma Aldrich Corp.) was administered in aqueous solution either by intragastric gavage (IG) or intraperitoneally (IP). In the insulin tolerance test (ITT), animals were injected IP with 2 U/kg insulin (insulin aspart, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Blood was sampled by tail cut, and two measurements of glucose concentration were made at 0, 10, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after injection of glucose or at 0, 15, 60, and 120 minutes after administration of insulin, using the OneTouch® UltraEasy® glucometer (LifeScan Europe Ltd., Division of the Cilag Gmbh Int., Zug, Switzerland) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips (LifeScan Scotland Ltd., Inverness, Great Britain).

Biochemical assay and morphometry

Blood sampling for estimation of hormone and metabolite levels was done immediately after sedation with gas mixture of CO₂ and O₂ (50/50 volume %) in a separate group of nonfasted awake male mice, including 129PB6ByF1 (n = 18), 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1 (n = 17), B6 (n = 19), and B6-Tas1r3+/- (n = 21). These animals were kept in their home cages. Blood was withdrawn from the orbital sinus into tubes containing EDTA and then centrifuged for plasma separation. Concentrations of triglycerides and glycerol were assessed in fresh plasma using the TR0100 assay kit (Sigma Aldrich Corp.); other samples were kept at -30°C. Plasma insulin level was measured with Elisa kit EZRMI-13K (Millipore Corp., Burlington, MA, USA).

Body composition was assessed in a group of naïve mice, as well as mice used in the BALT 3 weeks earlier. After euthanasia by decapitation, liver and fat were removed and weighed to the nearest 0.001 g. The anterior subcutaneous (interscapular), posterior subcutaneous (dorsolumbar, inguinal, and gluteal), visceral perirenal visceral mesenteric, and retroperitoneal visceral epididymal (gonadal) bilateral depots were excised.

Data analysis

Plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule. Data from behavioral taste tests and glucose levels in GTT and ITT were compared using two-way ANOVA (Statistica, version 7.0). Concentration (for taste tests) and time (for GTT or ITT) were considered as within-subject factors, and genotype as a between-subject factor. Post hoc paired comparisons were made using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test. Differences between AUCs or water consumption in training sessions for the BALT were determined with one-way ANOVA. Other comparisons were made with unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test. All data are presented as mean ± SEM; p-values < 0.05 are considered significant. ANOVA results are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. ANOVA results for Figs 1–4.

Fig #	ANOVA Effect	F(DFn, DFd)	P Value	Fig #	ANOVA Effect	F(DFn, DFd)	P Value
Fig 1A	Strain	F(1, 18) = 7.24	P < 0.015	Fig 2F	Strain	F(1, 22) = 6.78	P < 0.02
	Concentration	F(4, 72) = 36.80	P < 0.00001		Concentration	F(4, 88) = 109.40	P < 0.00001
	Interactions	F(4, 72) = 12.20	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(4, 88) = 1.48	P > 0.21, N.S.
Fig 1B	Strain	F(1, 8) = 13.18	P < 0.01	Fig 2G	Strain	F(1, 19) = 5.56	P < 0.03
	Concentration	F(6, 48) = 7.90	P < 0.00001		Concentration	F(5, 95) = 83.58	P < 0.00001
	Interactions	F(4, 72) = 9.78	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(5, 95) = 1.95	P > 0.09
Fig 1C	Strain	F(1,7) = 9.92	P < 0.02	Fig 2H	Strain	F(1, 19) = 17.47	P < 0.001
	Concentration	F(4, 28) = 22.16	P < 0.00001		Concentration	F(5, 95) = 121.83	P < 0.00001
	Interactions	F(4, 28) = 10.94	P < 0.00005		Interactions	F(5, 95) = 1.82	P > 0.11, N.S.
Fig 1D	Strain	F(1, 9) = 17.84	P < 0.003	Fig 3	Strain	F(4, 70) = 45.85	P < 0.0001
	Concentration	F(4, 36) = 12.34	P < 0.00001		Time	F(7, 490) = 172.39	P < 0.0001
	Interactions	F(4, 36) = 12.85	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(28, 490) = 11.40	P < 0.001
Fig 1E	Strain	F(1, 46) = 0.11	P > 0.74, N.S.		AUC	F(4, 70) = 42.23	P < 0.0001
	Concentration	F(4, 184) = 128.76	P < 0.00001	Fig 4A	Strain	F(1, 16) = 11.42	P < 0.005
	Interactions	F(4, 184) = 0.82	P > 0.52, N.S.		Time	F(7, 112) = 47.08	P < 0.00001
Fig 1F	Strain	F(1,28) = 2.00	P > 0.16, N.S.		Interactions	F(7, 112) = 1.70	P > 0.11, N.S.
	Concentration	F(6, 168) = 31.74	P < 0.00001		AUC	F(1, 16) = 14.11	P < 0.002
	Interactions	F(6, 168) = 1.23	P > 0.29 N.S.	Fig 4B	Strain	F(1, 18) = 3.48	P > 0.08, N.S.
Fig 1G	Strain	F(1,33) = 0.67	P > 0.41, N.S.		Time	F(7, 126) = 36.02	P < 0.00001
	Concentration	F(4, 132) = 122.67	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(7, 126) = 4.70	P < 0.0001
	Interactions	F(4, 132) = 1.86	P > 0.12, N.S.		AUC	F(1, 18) = 5.52	P < 0.03
Fig 2A	Strain	F(1, 13) = 56.74	P < 0.0001	Fig 4C	Strain	F(1, 26) = 0.85	P > 0.36, N.S.
	Concentration	F(4, 52) = 124.67	P < 0.00001		Time	F(7, 182) = 105.50	P < 0.00001
	Interactions	F(4, 52) = 13.60	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(7, 182) = 0.72	P > 0.65, N.S.
Fig 2B	Strain	F(1, 13) = 60.27	P < 0.0001		AUC	F(1, 27) = 1.17	P > 0.28, N.S.
	Concentration	F(4, 52) = 110.68	P < 0.00001	Fig 4D	Strain	F(1, 30) = 6.02	P < 0.02
	Interactions	F(4, 52) = 13.45	P < 0.00001		Time	F(7, 210) = 60.81	P < 0.00001
Fig 2C	Strain	F(1, 19) = 31.16	P < 0.0005		Interactions	F(7, 210) = 2.69	P < 0.011
	Concentration	F(5, 45) = 12.76	P < 0.00001		AUC	F(1, 30) = 5.88	P < 0.025
	Interactions	F(5, 45) = 9.61	P < 0.00001	Fig 4E	Strain	F(1, 12) = 0.16	P > 0.69, N.S.
Fig 2D	Strain	F(1, 19) = 10.41	P < 0.01		Time	F(3, 36) = 306.15	P < 0.00001
	Concentration	F(5, 45) = 7.98	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(3, 36) = 0.78	P > 0.51, N.S.
	Interactions	F(5, 45) = 5.77	P < 0.0005	Fig 4F	Strain	F(1, 15) = 0.22	P > 0.64, N.S.
Fig 2E	Strain	F(1, 22) = 13.7	P < 0.0015		Time	F(3, 45) = 156.15	P < 0.00001
	Concentration	F(4, 88) = 108.90	P < 0.00001		Interactions	F(3, 45) = 0.87	P > 0.46, N.S.
	Interactions	F(4, 88) = 2.57	P < 0.05

Open in a new tab

Results

Licking response

In the training sessions of the BALT, we found no differences in water intake between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids. Interestingly, mice from the 129S2 parental strain showed water consumption similar to hybrid groups. The B6-Tas1r3+/- hemizygotes drank less water during the first training session than animals from the B6 strain, but both genotypes showed a similar lick rate the next day (Table 1). These results justify the following comparison of raw lick rates between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 or between B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/-mice without converting licking number per trial into a standardized lick ratio [43].

Table 1. Water consumption and licking rates of mice with different Tas1r3/Sac genotypes during training sessions in the gustometer.

Genotype	n	First training session		Second training session
Genotype	n	Water intake (g)	Licks/30 min	Water intake (g)	Licks/trial
129S2B6F1	11	0.86±0.07	475±37	0.99±0.15	28.7±2.06
*129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1*	10	0.82±0.08	477±59	0.87±0.05	25.8±1.6
129S2	5	0.79±0.07	459±41	0.78±0.12	28.2±3.3
B6	19	0.82±0.08 ^a	536±53 ^b	0.89±0.04	23.5±1.0
B6-Tas1r3+/-	28	0.64±0.05 ^a	403±33 ^b	0.90±0.06	25.1±1.1

Open in a new tab

Differences between genotypes were assessed with One-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s LSD post hoc test. Values with the same letters are significantly different at p<0.05.

Mice from all groups exhibited robust concentration-dependent increases in licking rate for all four tested sweet compounds (ANOVA results are shown in the Table 2). Compared with the 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids, mice from 129S2B6F1 group showed enhanced lick responsiveness to certain concentrations (Fig 1A–1D). The 129S2B6F1 hybrids licked 2–4% sucrose solutions more vigorously than did 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 mice (Fig 1A; p<0.01, Fisher’s LSD test). When animals were offered solutions of saccharin, sucralose, or acesulfame, 129S2B6F1 mice displayed more active licking of higher concentrations than did 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 mice (Fig 1B–1D). An influence of Tas1r3 hemizygosity was assessed by matching reactions of the B6 strain (Tas1r3 homozygote) and B6-Tas1r3+/- mice, carrying a single Tas1r3 allele. We did not detect significant signs of haplo-insufficiency at any tested concentration of either caloric (sucrose) or noncaloric (saccharin and sucralose) sweeteners (Fig 1E–1G).

Fig 1 — Initial licking responses to solutions with a range of concentrations of sucrose and artificial sweeteners in the brief-access testing of 4- to 7-month-old male mice with different *Tas1r3* genotypes: 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-*Tas1r3-/-*F1 (*a–d*), or B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/- (*e–g*). Post hoc comparisons with Fisher’s LSD test: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Long-term two-bottle sweetener preference

The 2-BT was used to examine preference and intake of sucrose and saccharin. For both sweeteners, the 129S2B6F1 hybrids demonstrated overall higher intakes and preference scores than did 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 mice (Fig 2A–2D; Table 2). Paired post hoc comparisons confirmed that 129S2B6F1 mice consumed larger amounts of intermediate and high concentrations of sucrose (4–8%) and showed higher preference for sucrose solutions at a relatively lower (1–4%) concentration range (Fig 2A and 2B; p<0.05). 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids sharply increased consumption of sucrose when they were given 8–16% solutions (p<0.01) and did not differ from 129S2B6F1 mice in preference for 8–16% solutions (Fig 2A and 2B). The 129S2B6F1 hybrids preferred and consumed saccharin more vigorously than did 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 at higher tested concentrations (6–60 mM; Fig 2C and 2D). Assessment of the effect of the Tas1r3 hemizygosity revealed that the loss of a Tas1r3 allele led to reduced intake of 4–8% sucrose solution and slightly reduced preference score for the lowest tested concentrations (1–2%; Fig 2E and 2F). Additionally, Tas1r3 hemizygosity was associated with a decrease in preference for lower concentrations of saccharin in the range of 0.2–2 mmol/L but did not affect saccharin consumption (Fig 2G and 2H).

Fig 2 — Sucrose and noncaloric sweetener intakes and preferences in the two-bottle preference test in 2- to 7-month-old male mice with different *Tas1r3* genotypes: 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-*Tas1r3-/-*F1 (*a–d*), or B6 and B6-*Tas1r3+/-* (*e–h*). Post hoc comparisons with Fisher’s LSD test: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Together, these findings indicate that initial lick responses to nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners depend mainly on polymorphisms of the Tas1r3 gene and that the effect of haplo-insufficiency of Tas1r3 is negligible. Presence of the dominant Tas1r3 allele confers higher lick responsiveness to lower concentrations of sucrose and higher concentrations of saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame. The preference for sucrose in the 2-BT is also affected by the Tas1r3 polymorphisms; however, between-genotype differences in long-term consumption of sucrose may partially depend on Tas1r3 hemizygosity.

The relationship between Sac genotype and glucose and insulin tolerance

Initial analysis of IP glucose tolerance was performed in parental strains: 129P, 129S2, B6, B6By, and B6-Tas1r3-/-. In the nonfasting state, parental strains differed in baseline glucose level, which was higher in the B6 strain, including the knockout substrain, than in 129 (Fig 3; p<0.05). However, there was significant overlap between responses of B6 and B6By, as well as between 129P and 129S2. The IP glucose tolerance was substantially reduced in the B6 strain compared to 129 (p<0.005), but no significant differences were found within strains excluding B6-Tas1r3-/-. The Tas1r3 gene deficiency markedly worsens glucose tolerance (Fig 3) compared both to B6 and to B6By (p<0.01).

Fig 3 — Plasma glucose concentrations and glucose area under the curve (AUC) were determined after intraperitoneal (IP) administration of 2 g/kg glucose. Post hoc comparisons with Fisher’s LSD test: **p<0.01.

Comparison of Figs 3 and 4A demonstrates that hybrid groups had intermediate glucose tolerance between parental strains. After both IP and IG glucose load, nonfasted 129S2B6F1 hybrids exhibited higher glucose tolerance than did 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 (Fig 4A and 4B). Interestingly, in B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/- mice, plasma glucose concentration was nearly identical after IP injection; however, after IG administration, glucose levels in B6-Tas1r3+/- were significantly reduced (Fig 4C and 4D). IP injection of insulin elicited a rapid (<15 min) fall of plasma glucose concentration, which barely recovered during the subsequent 2 h. We found no significant differences in tolerance to insulin between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids or between B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/- mice (Fig 4E and 4F).

Fig 4 — Glucose tolerance test (IP and IG GTT; *a–d*) in 3–4-month-old nonfasted male mice and insulin tolerance test (ITT; e, f) in 5–6-month-old nonfasted male mice with different *Tas1r3* genotypes: 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-*Tas1r3-/-*F1, or B6 and B6-*Tas1r3+/-*. Plasma glucose concentrations and glucose area under the curve (AUC) were determined after the intraperitoneal (IP) or intragastric (IG) glucose administration of 2 g/kg glucose. Post hoc comparisons with Fisher’s LSD test: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Baseline plasma glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and glycerol levels and body composition

Baseline glucose and body composition were assessed in the B6 strain and hybrids 129S2B6F1, 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1, and B6-Tas1r3+/- in the nonfasting state in the middle of the light period (Fig 5). Concentration of plasma glucose was not affected by Tas1r3 polymorphisms or hemizygosity for the Tas1r3 allele (Fig 5A and 5E). We found no differences in body, fat, or liver mass between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 mice (Fig 4B–4D). However, the lack of a single functional Tas1r3 allele in B6-Tas1r3+/- was associated with significant increase of the body, fat, and liver mass (Fig 4F–4H).

Insulin and metabolite concentrations were measured in plasma of the B6 strain and hybrids 129PB6ByF1, 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1, and B6-Tas1r3+/- in the nonfasting state in the middle of the light period. 129PB6ByF1 hybrids exhibited substantially higher baseline insulin levels compared with 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1 (Fig 6A). A marked reduction of plasma insulin was found in the B6-Tas1r3+/- hemizygotes, unlike B6 homozygotes (Fig 6D). There was no significant difference between all compared genotypes in plasma triglyceride concentration (Fig 6B and 6E). In contrast, the nonfasted plasma level of glycerol depended on the Tas1r3 genotype: 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids demonstrated higher concentration of glycerol compared with 129PB6ByF1 mice (Fig 6C). Hemizygous B6-Tas1r3+/- mice and Tas1r3-homozygous B6 mice showed similar plasma glycerol levels (Fig 6F).

Fig 6 — *p<0.05, **p<0.01, Student’s t-test.

Discussion

In this study, we confirmed that our experimental model reproduces polymorphic influences of the mouse Tas1r3 genotype on the appetitive responses to sweeteners described in the earlier investigations with 129.B6-Tas1r3 congenic mice [30]. Using the F₁ hybrids between C57BL/6J and 129SvPasCrl strains, which had identical background genotypes but carried different Tas1r3 alleles, we demonstrated that the presence of the dominant T allele in 129S2B6F1 hybrids is associated with the stronger preference for sweet solutions compared with 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 mice expressing only the recessive NT allele. The effect of the Tas1r3 genotype depended on concentrations of sweet taste compound that were specific to each sweetener. In the BALT, lick rate for sucrose was influenced by the Tas1r3 genotype when lower (2–4%) concentrations were tested (Fig 1A). As shown in our previous study in crosses between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J strains, responses to higher concentrations of sucrose (8–32%) were not linked to the Tas1r3 polymorphisms [44]. At the same time, when animals were exposed to nonmetabolized sweeteners (saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame), the impact of Tas1r3 polymorphisms tended to be strongest at the higher concentration range (Fig 1B–1D).

The Tas1r3 gene polymorphisms also affected long-term intake and preference scores for sweeteners in the 48-h 2-BT. 129S2B6F1 hybrids carrying the dominant Tas1r3 allele demonstrated a marked increase in consumption of low to intermediate concentrations (4–8%) and preference for lower (1–4%) concentrations of sucrose, compared with hybrids having the recessive allele. However, allelic variation of the Tas1r3 gene did not influence the preference for higher concentrations (8–16%) of sucrose (Fig 2A and 2B). The 129S2B6F1 mice consumed larger amounts and showed greater preference scores for higher concentrations of saccharin compared to 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 (Fig 2C and 2D).

These data are generally consistent with results of earlier studies of responsiveness to different concentrations of sweeteners, determined by Tas1r3 allelic variations, which were performed with inbred mouse strains bearing T or NT Tas1r3 alleles [40] or the 129.B6-Tas1r3 segregating congenic strain [30]. The lack of Tas1r3/Sac polymorphic effects on the preference of high concentrations of sucrose probably is not related to taste perception, because impulse discharge of the chorda tympani nerve to lingual application of sweeteners progressively increased across the whole range of tested concentrations of stimuli [30]. Potentially, the influence of Tas1r3 polymorphisms can be masked by responses to the calorie content of test solutions, which does not depend on T1R2/T1R3-mediated perception, such as enhancement of the cephalic phase of insulin release [45], or by conditional reflexes to nongustatory stimuli, such as smell and texture [46]. Intake of nonnutritive sweeteners likely does not induce strong responses such as these. Although excitations induced by nutritive or nonnutritive sweeteners are relayed to the brain through common primary pathways, they interact with different brain regions [47].

In the experimental model used here, an influence of Tas1r3 hemizygosity should also be considered. Hemizygosity can lead to haplo-insufficiency, wherein a single functional copy of a gene is insufficient to maintain the standard phenotype [48]. In this connection, we estimated the effect of absence of a single Tas1r3 allele. In the BALT, the impact of the Tas1r3 gene hemizygosity was not detected, as we showed comparing responses between the B6 strain and B6-Tas1r3+/- hybrids (Fig 1E–1G). Moderate signs of Tas1r3 haplo-insufficiency were found in the long-term 2-BT. Lack of the T allele in B6-Tas1r3+/- mice was associated with reduced consumption of intermediate (4–8%) and preference for lower concentrations of sucrose (1–2%) and saccharin (0.2–2 mmol/L) relative to the B6 strain. However, the difference between Tas1r3 homozygous and hemizygous mice was notably smaller than that between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids (Fig 2).

The central finding of our study showed that the dominant Tas1r3 allele reduces plasma glucose concentration after enteral or parenteral glucose administration. Conversely, 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids, carrying the recessive allele, exhibited lower glucose tolerance (Fig 4A and 4B). To distinguish between effects of Tas1r3 functional polymorphisms and haplo-insufficiency, we additionally compared responses of the B6 parental strain (Tas1r3 homozygote) and B6-Tas1r3+/- hemizygote and found no difference between the groups in the IP GTT (Fig 4C). Surprisingly, after IG load with glucose, B6-Tas1r3+/- hemizygotes exhibited lower plasma glucose concentrations, which can reflect reduced expression of SGLT1 because of decreased GLP1 and GIP production in the small intestine mucosa [6, 49] rather than a consequence of impaired utilization of glucose in tissues. Altogether, the analyses we performed suggest that the reduction of glucose tolerance in 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids is due to expression of the recessive NT allele. At the same time, Tas1r3 genotype did not influence baseline glucose level in nonfasting mice (Fig 5A). As we reported earlier, insulin sensitivity was reduced in the Tas1r3-knockout mice [16]; however, in the present assay, there was no relationship between tissue sensitivity to insulin and Tas1r3 genotype (Fig 4E and 4F).

Potentiation of insulin secretion in islet cells of the pancreas and incretin secretion in the small intestine, dependent on the T1R3 receptor protein, are supposed to be important mechanisms of the influence of postoral sweet taste receptors on glucose tolerance [26, 50, 51]. In the present study, plasma insulin level was assessed in F1 crosses between 129P and B6By substrains, which did not differ in glucose tolerance from 129S2 and B6 substrains, respectively (Fig 3). Plasma insulin level declined in 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids carrying the recessive allele relative to 129PB6ByF1 mice (Fig 6A), which corresponds to the attenuation of glucose tolerance in 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids. However, reduction of insulin level was due to haplo-insufficiency, as confirmed by comparison between the B6 strain and B6-Tas1r3+/- mice (Fig 6D).

Ablation of the T1R3 receptor affects anabolism, including lipid biosynthesis. Although deletion of the T1R2 or T1R3 protein did not influence body weight in B6 mice maintained on the normocaloric diet [52, 53], there was an increase in epididymal fat weight and signs of dyslipidemia, including elevation of plasma triglycerides and increased glycerol levels [53]. In contrast, when mice were fed the high-calorie diet, impaired sweet taste perception slowed down body and adipose tissue weight gain [54, 55]. This result is consistent with data obtained in experiments with adipocyte cell cultures, which have confirmed that the T1R3 protein mediates a stimulative influence of artificial sweeteners on adipogenesis [51, 56]. Comparison between 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1 hybrids performed in this study did not reveal a relation between Tas1r3 polymorphisms and body, fat, and liver mass (Fig 5B–5D) or triglyceride levels (Fig 6B). However, Tas1r3 hemizygosity caused an increase of body, fat, and liver mass (Fig 5F–5H), allowing us to speculate that, in the experimental model used here, the recessive Tas1r3 allele confers reduction of body, liver, and fat mass, which is masked by haplo-insufficiency.

Concluding remarks

On the whole, the obtained data provide new in vivo evidence that polymorphisms of the Tas1r3 gene (Sac locus) influence carbohydrate metabolism, as well as sweetener intake and preference. In particular, presence of the dominant Tas1r3 allele (Sac^b locus) on the 129S2B6F1 background genotype results in higher glucose tolerance, along with increased consumption and preference for sugars and artificial sweeteners during initial licking. Hemizygosity of Tas1r3 does not affect these behavioral and metabolic traits. However, the loss of one functional Tas1r3 allele was linked to decline in intake and preference for sweeteners in the long-term 2-BT, as well as reduction of plasma insulin, body mass, liver mass, and fat mass. Our results suggest that further investigation of postoral sweet detection with the T1R3 protein may lead to new understanding of carbohydrate homeostasis disorders.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs. Irina E. Bogatyrova, D.V.M., for maintaining of the mouse colony.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

Supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant 19-015-00121.

References

1.Hladik CM., Pasquet P, Simmen B. 2002. New perspectives on taste and primate evolution: the dichotomy in gustatory coding for perception of beneficent versus noxious substances as supported by correlations among human thresholds. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 4: 342–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Garcia-Bailo B, Toguri C, Eny M, Sohemy (El-) A. 2009. Genetic variation in taste and its influence on food selection. OMICS J. Integr. Biol. 1: 69–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Liu S, Manson JE. 2001. Dietary carbohydrates, physical inactivity, obesity, and the 'metabolic syndrome' as predictors of coronary heart disease. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 4: 395–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Laffitte A, Neiers F, Briand L. 2014. Functional roles of the sweet taste receptor in oral and extraoral tissues. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care. 4: 379–385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Jang HJ, Kokrashvili Z, Theodorakis MJ, Carlson OD, Kim BJ, Zhou J, et al. 2007. Gut-expressed gustducin and taste receptors regulate secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 104(38):15069–74. 10.1073/pnas.0706890104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Margolskee RF, Dyer J, Kokrashvili Z, Salmon KS, Ilegems E, Daly K, et al. 2007. T1R3 and gustducin in gut sense sugars to regulate expression of Na⁺-glucose cotransporter 1. PNAS. 38: 15075–15080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Kokrashvili Z, Mosinger B, Margolskee RF. 2009. Taste signaling elements expressed in gut enteroendocrine cells regulate nutrient-responsive secretion of gut hormones. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 3: 822–825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Daly K, Al-Rammahi M, Moran A, Marcello M, Ninomiya Y, Shirazi-Beechey SP. 2013. Sensing of amino acids by the gut-expressed taste receptor T1R1-T1R3 stimulates CCK secretion. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest Liver. Physiol. 304(3): G271–82. 10.1152/ajpgi.00074.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Kyriazis GA, Soundarapandian MM, Tyrberg B. 2012. Sweet taste receptor signaling in beta cells mediates fructose-induced potentiation of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. PNAS. 8: E524–532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Maitrepierre E, Sigoillot M, Le Pessot L, Briand L. 2012. Recombinant expression, in vitro refolding, and biophysical characterization of the N-terminal domain of T1R3 taste receptor. Protein Expr. Purif. 1: 75–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Damak S, Rong M, Yasumatsu K, Kokrashvili Z, Varadarajan V, Zou S, et al. 2003. Detection of sweet and umami taste in the absence of taste receptor T1r3. Science 5634: 850–853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Kojima I, Nakagawa Y. 2011. The Role of the sweet taste receptor in enteroendocrine cells and pancreatic β-cells. Diabetes Metab. J. 35(5):451–7. 10.4093/dmj.2011.35.5.451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Craig TJ, Ashcroft FM, Proks P. 2008. How ATP inhibits the open K(ATP) channel. J. Gen. Physiol. 1: 131–144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Wauson EM, Zaganjor E, Lee AY, Guerra ML, Ghosh AB, Bookout AL, et al. 2012. The G protein-coupled taste receptor T1R1/T1R3 regulates mTORC1 and autophagy. Mol. Cell. 47(6):851–62. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Simon BR, Learman BS, Parlee SD, Scheller EL, Mori H, Cawthorn WP, et al. 2014. Sweet taste receptor deficient mice have decreased adiposity and increased bone mass. PLoS One 9(1):e86454 10.1371/journal.pone.0086454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Murovets VO, Bachmanov AA, Zolotarev VA. 2015. Impaired glucose metabolism in mice lacking the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene. PLoS One. 6: e0130997 10.1371/journal.pone.0130997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Murovets VO, Bachmanov AA, Travnikov SV, Churikova AA, Zolotarev VA. 2014. The involvement of the T1R3 receptor protein in the control of glucose metabolism in mice at different levels of glycemia. J. Evol. Biochem. Physiol. 4: 334–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Murovets VO, Sozontov EA, Zachepilo TG. 2019. The effect of the taste receptor protein T1R3 on the development of islet tissue of the murine pancreas. Dokl. Biol. Sci. May;484(1):1–4. 10.1134/S0012496619010010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Bachmanov AA, Li X, Reed DR, Ohmen JD, Li S, Chen Z, et al. , Beauchamp GK. 2001. Positional cloning of the mouse saccharin preference (Sac) locus. Chem. Senses 7: 925–933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Frank ME, Blizard DA. 1999. Chorda tympani responses in two inbred strains of mice with different taste preferences. Physiol. Behav. 2: 287–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Fuller JL. 1974. Single-locus control of saccharin preference in mice. J. Hered. 1: 33–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Nelson G, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Zhang Y, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS. 2001. Mammalian sweet taste receptors. Cell. 3: 381–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Bachmanov AA, Bosak NP, Floriano WB, Inoue M, Li X, Lin C, et al. 2011. Genetics of sweet taste preferences. Flavour. Fragr. J. 4: 286–294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Reed DR, Li S, Li X, Huang L, Tordoff MG, Starling-Roney R, et al. 2004. Polymorphisms in the taste receptor gene (Tas1r3) region are associated with saccharin preference in 30 mouse strains. J. Neurosci. 4: 938–946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Nie Y, Vigues S, Hobbs JR, Conn GL, Munger SD. 2005. Distinct contributions of T1R2 and T1R3 taste receptor subunits to the detection of sweet stimuli. Curr. Biol. 21: 1948–1952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kim UK, Wooding S, Riaz N, Jorde LB, Drayna D. 2006. Variation in the Human TAS1R Taste Receptor Genes. Chem. Senses 7: 599–611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Raliou M, Grauso M, Hoffmann B, Schlegel–Le-Poupon C, Nespoulous C, Debat H, et al. 2011. Human genetic polymorphisms in T1R1 and T1R3 taste receptor subunits affect their function Chem. Senses 36: 527–537, 10.1093/chemse/bjr014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Fushan AA, Simons CT, Slack JP, Manichaikul A, Drayna D. 2009. Allelic polymorphism within the TAS1R3 promoter is associated with human taste sensitivity to sucrose. Curr. Biol. 19(15):1288–93. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Han P, Keast RSJ, Roura E. 2017. Salivary leptin and TAS1R2/TAS1R3 polymorphisms are related to sweet taste sensitivity and carbohydrate intake from a buffet meal in healthy young adults. Br. J. Nutr. Nov;118(10):763–770. 10.1017/S0007114517002872 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Inoue M, Glendinning JI, Theodorides ML, Harkness S, Li X, Bosak N, et al. 2007. Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects taste responses to sweeteners: evidence from 129.B6-Tas1r3 congenic mice. Physiol. Genomics 1: 82–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Bachmanov AA, Reed DR, Ninomiya Y, Inoue M, Tordoff MG, Price RA, et al. 1997. Sucrose consumption in mice: major influence of two genetic loci affecting peripheral sensory responses. Mamm. Genome 8: 545–548. 10.1007/s003359900500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Inoue M, Reed DR, Li X, Tordoff MG, Beauchamp GK, Bachmanov AA. 2004. Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects behavioral and neural taste responses to sweeteners in the F2 hybrids between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice. J. Neurosci. 9: 2296–2303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Lush IE. 1989. The genetics of tasting in mice. VI. Saccharin, acesulfame, dulcin and sucrose. Genet. Res. 53(2):95–9. 10.1017/s0016672300027968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Max M, Shanker YG, Huang L, Rong M, Liu Z, Campagne F, et al. 2001. Tas1r3, encoding a new candidate taste receptor, is allelic to the sweet responsiveness locus Sac. Nat. Genet. 28(1):58–63. 10.1038/ng0501-58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Almind K, Kahn CR. 2004. Genetic determinants of energy expenditure and insulin resistance in diet-induced obesity in mice. Diabetes 53(12):3274–85. 10.2337/diabetes.53.12.3274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Berglund ED, Li CY, Poffenberger G, Ayala JE, Fueger PT, Willis SE, et al. 2008. Glucose metabolism in vivo in four commonly used inbred mouse strains. Diabetes 57(7):1790–9. 10.2337/db07-1615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Toye AA, Lippiat JD, Proks P, Shimomura K, Bentley L, Hugill A, et al. 2005. A genetic and physiological study of impaired glucose homeostasis control in C57BL/6J mice. Diabetologia, 48(4), 675–686. 10.1007/s00125-005-1680-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Zhao GQ, Zhang Y, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Erlenbach I, Ryba NJ, et al. 2003. The receptors for mammalian sweet and umami taste. Cell. 3: 255–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Nakagawa Y, Nagasawa M, Yamada S, Hara A, Mogami H, Nikolaev VO, et al. 2009. Sweet taste receptor expressed in pancreatic beta-cells activates the calcium and cyclic AMP signaling systems and stimulates insulin secretion. PLoS One. 4: e51062009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Glendinning JI, Chyou S, Lin I, Onishi M, Patel P, Zheng KH. 2005. Initial licking responses of mice to sweeteners: effects of tas1r3 polymorphisms. Chem. Senses 7: 601–614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Spector A. C. 2003. Psychophysical evaluation of taste function in non-human mammals. Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation Ed. R. L. Doty. New York. 869–879.
42.McGuinness OP, Ayala JE, Laughlin MR, Wasserman DH. 2009. NIH experiment in centralized mouse phenotyping: the Vanderbilt experience and recommendations for evaluating glucose homeostasis in the mouse. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 4: E849–855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Glendinning JI, Gresack J, Spector AC. 2002. A high-throughput screening procedure for identifying mice with aberrant taste and oromotor function. Chem. Senses 5: 461–474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Murovets VO, Lukina EA, Zolotarev VA. 2018. The Effect of Tas1r3 Gene Polymorphism on Preference and Consumption of Sucrose and Low-Calorie Sweeteners in Interstrain Hybrid Mice of the First Filial Generation. J. Evol. Biochem. Phys. 54: 221–233. [Google Scholar]
45.Glendinning JI, Stano S, Holter M, Azenkot T, Goldman O, Margolskee RF, et al. 2015. Sugar-induced cephalic-phase insulin release is mediated by a T1r2+T1r3-independent taste transduction pathway in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 5: R552–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Sclafani A. 2013. Gut-brain nutrient signaling. Appetition vs. satiation. Appetite. 71: 454–458. 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.024 Epub 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Frank GK, Oberndorfer TA, Simmons AN, Paulus MP, Fudge JL, Yang TT, et al. 2008. Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener. Neuroimage 4: 1559–69. Epub 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Huang N, Lee I, Marcotte EM., Hurles ME. 2010. Characterizing and predicting haploinsufficiency in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 10: e1001154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Sigoillot M, Brockhoff A, Meyerhof W, Briand L. 2012. Sweet-taste-suppressing compounds: current knowledge and perspectives of application. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 3: 619–630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Jiang P, Josue J, Li X, Glaser D, Li W, Brand JG, et al. 2012. Major taste loss in carnivorous mammals. PNAS. 13: 4956–4961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Masubuchi Y, Nakagawa Y, Ma J, Sasaki T, Kitamura T, Yamamoto Y, et al. 2013. A novel regulatory function of sweet taste-sensing receptor in adipogenic differentiation of 3T3-L1 cells. PLoS One. 1: e54500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Treesukosol Y, Smith KR, Spector AC. 2011. The functional role of the T1R family of receptors in sweet taste and feeding. Physiol. Behav. 1: 14–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Murovets VO, Sozontov EA, Andreeva JV, Khropycheva RP, Zolotarev VA. 2016. Effect of T1R3 receptor protein deletion on gluconeogenesis and lipid metabolism in mice. Ross. Fiziol. Zh. Im. IM Sechenova. 6: 668–679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Glendinning JI, Gillman J, Zamer H, Margolskee RF, Sclafani A. 2012. The role of T1r3 and Trpm5 in carbohydrate-induced obesity in mice. Physiol. Behav. 1: 50–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Larsson MH., Håkansson P, Jansen FP, Magnell K, Brodin P. 2015. Ablation of TRPM5 in mice results in reduced body weight gain and improved glucose tolerance and protects from excessive consumption of sweet palatable food when wed high caloric diets. PLoS One 9: e0138373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Masubuchi Y, Nakagawa Y, Medina J, Nagasawa M, Kojima I, Rasenick MM, et al. 2017. Correction: T1R3 homomeric sweet taste receptor regulates adipogenesis through Gαs-mediated microtubules disassembly and Rho activation in 3T3-L1 cells. PLoS One 7: e0181293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r001

Decision Letter 0

Keiko Abe

17 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-05222

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vasiliy Zolotarev,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As the reviewer suggests, basic information is needed regarding the sugar metabolism of the mouse F1 hybrids, strain of 129SV, B6, B6-Tas1r3(-/-). The paper should totally be rewritten.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 01 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keiko Abe, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Support section of your manuscript:

"Supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant 19-015-00121."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "No"

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, authors appeared the difference of sweet taste preference and sugar metabolism among the crossed mouse strains: F1 male hybrids obtained from 129SvPasCrl, B6 and/or B6-Tas1r3(-/-). This manuscript lacks the basic information about the sugar metabolism about 129Sv, B6, B6-Tas1r3(-/-). Moreover, there is a major problem with the description of discussion. Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript should be rewritten entirely.

1. Authors should appear the difference about the sugar metabolism between 129SvPasCrl and B6. The data of 129S, 129SB6F1, 129SB6-Tas1r3-/-F1, B6, B6-Tas1r3+/-, and B6-Tas1r3-/-should be shown in one graph.

2. Discussion contains a lot of results. I think it is a place to discuss the cause of the difference among 129SB6F1, 129SB6-Tas1r3-/-F1, and B6-Tas1r3+/-.

Reviewer #2: In the present report, the authors used the mouse F1 hybrids between 129S2 and B6, or between 129S and B6-Tas1r3-KO strains, and examined the effects of the allelic variation of the Tas1r3 gene on the sweet taste perception and metabolism of glucose. I have a few comments on the manuscript which should be addressed to strength their conclusions.

1. Introduction on p4: In 35th line, I think the B6 strain is “Sacb homozygote” not “Sacd homozygote”.

2. The authors used the hybrids between B6By and 129 mice for Fig. 5a-c. The hybrid between 129S2 and B6 should be used here.

3. T1R3 is also the important component of the umami taste receptor (T1R1+T1R3). The authors need to consider the effect on the umami taste receptor especially when they discuss the postoral events.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 16;15(7):e0235913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-05222

Revision 1

Responses to Reviewers #1 and #2

Response to Reviewer #1.

Response:

Reviewer #1 insists on additional information but does not dispute the relevance of the main goal and provides no critique of experimental results, their evaluation, and our conclusions. We also consider the recommendation of Reviewer #1 “that this manuscript should be rewritten entirely” to be excessive.

The main goal of the current study was to define whether variations in a single taste receptor gene (Tas1r3) play a role in the regulation of glucose tolerance, insulin resistance, and some other parameters of metabolism. Developing the experimental model, we considered that the maintenance of glucose homeostasis involves a complex interplay of many genes and their actions in response to exogenous stimuli. Thus, the use of inbred mouse strains seems nonrelevant for definition of the role of the selected gene under physiological conditions. That is why the current study is based on comparisons between hybrids bearing different sets of Tas1r3 dominant and recessive alleles but having identical background genotypes. We believe that the constant background genotype of hybrid F1 groups is an indispensable condition to rigorously characterize effects of Tas1r3 polymorphisms on glucose homeostasis.

In this paradigm, “basic information about the sugar metabolism” (maybe glucose metabolism?) of the parental strains B6, B6-Tas1r3-/-, and 129 seems unnecessary to draw correct conclusions. Due to the polygenic nature of regulation of glucose homeostasis, parental strains would not be appropriate controls for polymorphic effects of the Tas1r3 gene.

Furthermore, differences in glucose homeostasis (including glucose and insulin tolerance) between B6 and 129 inbred mouse strains and substrains are well characterized elsewhere (e.g., Almind and Kahn, 2004; Berglund et al., 2008; Toye et al., 2005; Goren et al., 2004; Kadota et al., 2016). One may also find the information in the Mouse Phenome Database of Jackson Laboratory (phenome.jax.org/projects/Eumorphia3/strains). In the literature, there are several examples of the effect of Tas1r3 deletion on glucose metabolism regulation (e.g., Simon et al., 2014; Murovets et al., 2015).

At the same time, addressing comment 1 of Reviewer #1, we have added a supplementary graph (S1_Fig.) demonstrating glucose tolerance in C57BL/6J, C57BL/6ByJ, 129P3/J, 129Sv, and knockout B6-Tas1r3-/- mouse strains. The graph shows significant differences in responses between 129 and B6 inbred strains and overlap within substrains. Additionally, S1Fig. shows a significant impact of Tas1r3 gene deletion.

Moreover, to address comment 1 and to make the paper clearer to nonspecialists, we have revised the Introduction section, by adding the following at line 119 of the Revised Manuscript with tracked changes: “Studies have shown that plasma glucose level was considerably higher in the B6 strain than in 129 (Almind and Kahn, 2004; Berglund et al., 2008; phenome.jax.org/ projects/Eumorphia3/strains). Mice from the B6 strain show mild glucose intolerance and impaired insulin secretion despite normal insulin sensitivity (Toye et al., 2005). In contrast, the 129 substrains exhibited higher glucose tolerance (Almind and Kahn, 2004; phenome.jax.org/projects/Eumorphia 3strains). Likewise, the B6 mice were more insulin resistant during the insulin tolerance test, whereas 129SVE mice were relatively insulin sensitive (Almind and Kahn, 2004)”.

To emphasize importance of the influences of the animals’ genetic background on the impact of genetic manipulation with a particular gene (Sittig et al., 2016), we also edited the conclusions by specifying the background genotype: at line 421: “In particular, presence of the dominant Tas1r3 allele (Sacb locus) on the 129S2B6F1 background genotype results in higher glucose tolerance, along with increased consumption and preference for sugars and artificial sweeteners during initial licking”.

Reviewer #1 wrote: “2. Discussion contains a lot of results. I think it is a place to discuss the cause of the difference among 129SB6F1, 129SB6-Tas1r3-/-F1, and B6-Tas1r3+/-.”

Response:

The guidelines for authors for PLOS ONE do not give specific recommendations on how to prepare the Discussion section. That is why we followed the Springer Nature author and reviewer tutorials (available at https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writing-a-journal-manuscript/discussion-and-conclusions/10285528). Following this guide, we did not duplicate raw data but discussed their genetic nature in connection with taste receptor gene Tas1r3 allelic variations or effects of Tas1r3 haplo-insufficiency. In the Discussion we also compared our results and conclusions with those from other investigations in this field and analyzed limitations of the study.

To address “the cause of the difference” between the assessed genotypes, we substantially expanded the Introduction section to include the following starting at line 50 of the marked-up manuscript:

“There is good evidence that the sweet taste receptor proteins, along with several signal-transducing molecules, are expressed not only in taste buds on the tongue but also in organs regulating metabolism (Laffitte et al. 2014). Sweet taste receptor subunits T1R2 and T1R3 are coexpressed in enteroendocrine cells of the small intestine (Jang et al., 2007; Margolskee et al., 2007). Their activation by natural sugars and artificial sweeteners leads to secretion of gut hormones such as glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1), GLP-2, and the gastric inhibitory peptide, acting as incretins to enhance insulin secretion (Jang et al., 2007; Kokrashvili et al., 2009). In the intestine, T1R3 is also involved in regulation of expression of sodium-dependent glucose transporter isoform 1 (Margolskee et al., 2007). Coupling of T1R3 with T1R1 produces a heterodimer that serves as an intestinal L-amino acid sensor modulating cholecystokinin release (Daly et al., 2013).

The T1R3 protein is detected in mouse pancreatic β-cells, where its expression level is greater than T1R2, suggesting that most likely T1R3 is present in homodimeric form or is more sensitive to glucose heteromers when coupled with a calcium-sensing receptor (Kyriazis et al. 2012; Maitrepierre et al. 2012; Damak et al. 2003). In pancreatic β-cells, stimulation of the sweet taste receptor elicits insulin release by elevating intracellular Ca2+ and/or cAMP (Kojima and Nakagawa, 2011) synergetic to the major universal mechanism of metabolic detection of glucose, which includes the glucose transporter GLUT2, glucokinase, and the ATP-sensitive K+ (KATP) channel (Craig et al. 2008). In β-cells, T1R3 can be also dimerized with the T1R1 subunit, forming the receptor detecting amino acids, which stimulates insulin synthesis and reduces cell apoptosis, affecting the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) through activation of phospholipase C and extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase 1 (ERK1) and ERK2 (Wauson et al., 2012). Importantly, the knockout of T1R3 in mice resulted in substantial impairment of metabolism and cell proliferation. The Tas1r3-/- deletion decreased glucose tolerance (Simon et al., 2014; Murovets et al. 2015) and increased insulin resistance (Murovets et al. 2014). T1R3 knockout animals are resistant to sucrose-induced obesity and have smaller fat depots when fed a high-sucrose diet (Simon et al., 2014). Deletion of Tas1r3-/- reduces activation of mTORC1 (Wauson et al., 2012) and decreases density of pancreatic islets and expression of caspase 3 (Murovets et al., 2019)”.

Responding to question 2, Reviewer #1 evaluated the performed statistical analysis as inappropriate and non-rigorous.

We regret that the Reviewer gave no examples to support this statement. In performing the analysis of data from GTTs and ITTs we addressed the guidelines for mouse metabolic phenotyping in diabetes research, which specify that changes in glucose levels over time during a GTT or ITT are usually analyzed using two-way ANOVA, and AUCs are presented for GTT to draw reliable conclusions (Alquier and Poitout 2018). That is why we applied the ANOVA test in the current research, like we did in our similar paper published in PLOS ONE (Murovets et al., 2015).

Question 4

We are surprised at the negative answer of the Reviewer #1 to question 4, regarding quality of standard English. Of course, there are no native English speakers among the authors. That is why our papers are always checked by a native English speaker with appropriate background and experience, and the current manuscript is no exception. With Revision 1, we attach a supplementary file with a letter attesting to appropriate editing for the initial submission and the revision 1 (S2_Murovets_proofreading).

We believe that our answers to the comments will facilitate further impartial evaluation of the manuscript.

On behalf of the authors,

Vasiliy A. Zolotarev, Ph.D.

Selected references

Almind K, Kahn CR. Genetic determinants of energy expenditure and insulin resistance in diet-induced obesity in mice. Diabetes. 2004 Dec;53(12):3274-85.

Alquier T, Poitout V. Considerations and guidelines for mouse metabolic phenotyping in diabetes research. Diabetologia. 2018 Mar;61(3):526-538. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4495-9.

Berglund ED, Li CY, Poffenberger G, Ayala JE, Fueger PT, Willis SE, Jewell MM, Powers AC, Wasserman DH. Glucose metabolism in vivo in four commonly used inbred mouse strains. Diabetes. 2008 Jul;57(7):1790-9.

Goren HJ, Kulkarni RN, Kahn CR. Glucose homeostasis and tissue transcript content of insulin signaling intermediates in four inbred strains of mice: C57BL/6, C57BLKS/6, DBA/2, and 129X1. Endocrinology. 2004 Jul;145(7):3307-23.

Kadota Y, Kawakami T, Takasaki S, Sato M, Suzuki S. Gene expression related to lipid and glucose metabolism in white adipose tissue. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Jan-Feb;10(1):85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.04.009.

Sittig LJ, Carbonetto P, Engel KA, Krauss KS, Barrios-Camacho CM, Palmer AA. Genetic background limits generalizability of genotype-phenotype relationships. Neuron. 2016; 91:1253–1259.

Toye AA, Lippiat JD, Proks P, Shimomura K, Bentley L, Hugill A, Mijat V, Goldsworthy M, Moir L, Haynes A, Quarterman J, Freeman HC, Ashcroft FM, Cox RD. A genetic and physiological study of impaired glucose homeostasis control in C57BL/6J mice. Diabetologia 2005, 48(4), 675–686.

Response to Reviewer #2.

1. Introduction on p4: In 35th line, I think the B6 strain is “Sacb homozygote” not “Sacd homozygote”.

Response: Corrected, thank you.

2. The authors used the hybrids between B6By and 129 mice for Fig. 5a-c. The hybrid between 129S2 and B6 should be used here.

Response: The goal of the study was to elucidate whether polymorphisms of the single taste receptor gene affect carbohydrate metabolism.

The maintenance of glucose homeostasis involves a complex interplay of many genes and their actions in response to exogenous stimuli. To exclude polygenic effect on the phenotype and focus on effects of allelic variations of the single gene, we chose a hybrid F1 model with different sets of Tas1r3 dominant and recessive alleles or that lacked the Tas1r3 gene but had identical background genotypes.

Parental B6 substrains (C57BL/6J (B6) and C57BL/6ByJ (B6By)) carry the same Tas1r3 dominant gene, while 129 substrains (129SvPasCrl (129S2) and 129P3/J (129P)) are Tas1r3 recessive homozygotes. For this reason we consider it acceptable to use different parental substrains to illustrate the possibility of polymorphic effects. Please note that, in analyzing a particular trait, we used hybrids obtained from the same substrains, fully matching in background genotype.

On the other hand, an animal’s genetic background influences the impact of genetic manipulation with a particular gene. That is why, additionally, we compared glucose tolerance between parental substrains. Supplementary graph S1Fig. demonstrates that there are no differences in IP glucose tolerance between 129P and 129S2 substrains, or between B6 and B6By.

Line 297 of the Revised Manuscript with tracked changes now has the following addition:

“Additional analysis of IP glucose tolerance was performed in parental strains: 129P, 129S2, B6, B6By, and B6-Tas1r3-/-. In the nonfasting state, parental strains differed in baseline glucose level, which was higher in the B6 strain, including the knockout substrain, than in 129 (S1Fig.). However, there was significant overlap between responses of B6 and B6By, as well as between 129P and 129S2. The IP glucose tolerance was substantially reduced in the B6 strain compared to 129, but no significant differences were found within strains excluding B6-Tas1r3-/-. The Tas1r3 gene deficiency markedly worsens glucose tolerance compared both to B6 and to B6By (S1Fig). Comparison of Fig. 3a and S1Fig. demonstrates that hybrid groups had intermediate glucose tolerance between parental strains.”

3. T1R3 is also the important component of the umami taste receptor (T1R1+T1R3). The authors need to consider the effect on the umami taste receptor especially when they discuss the postoral events.

Response:

In the manuscript, we do not address mechanisms of metabolic control involving the T1R3 receptor protein. However, we fully agree with the Reviewer #2 that coupling of T1R3 with T1R1 in the small intestine or pancreas can specifically activate intracellular signaling cascades regulating hormone secretion and cell proliferation. To emphasize it, we included the following references in the revised manuscript.

Line 58 of the marked-up manuscript: “Coupling of T1R3 with T1R1 produces heterodimer that serves as an intestinal L-amino acid sensor modulating cholecystokinin release (Daly et al., 2013)”.

Line 67 of the marked-up manuscript: “In β-cells, T1R3 can be also dimerized with the T1R1 subunit, forming the receptor detecting amino acids, which stimulates insulin synthesis and reduces cell apoptosis affecting the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) through activation of phospholipase C and extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase 1 (ERK1) and ERK2 (Wauson et al., 2012). ... Deletion of Tas1r3-/- reduces activation of mTORC1 (Wauson et al., 2012) and decreases density of pancreatic islets and expression of caspase 3 (Murovets et al., 2019)”.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the authors,

Vasiliy A. Zolotarev, Ph.D.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(32.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r003

Decision Letter 1

Keiko Abe

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05222R1

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vasiliy Zolotarev,

One of the reviewers has evaluated the revised manuscript, but further revision will be needed at the following points, she/he says."discussion about the validity of comparison between the data from 129B6 vs 129B6-T1r3KO and the data from B6 vs B6-T1r3KO are still insufficient"Considering these comments, the authors are expected to prepare a revised manuscript one again.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keiko Abe, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the explanation. I understand authors’ purpose to clarify the metabolic effects of T1r3 by polymorphisms by comparing 129B6 and 129B6/129B6-T1r3KO.

However, I still wonder if the structure of this manuscript should be as it is.

1. I was able to understand that the glucose tolerance of 129 and B6 is completely different since authors provided Figure S1. I would like Figure S1 to be included in the main text for general readers of PLOS ONE. Is it correct to assume that the glucose metabolism of 129B6 and B6 is also different? I recommend that authors discuss about the validity of comparison between the data from 129B6 and 129B6-T1r3KO and the data form B6 and B6/B6-T1r3KO, even though the physiological background of 129B6 and B6/B6 are not equivalent.

2. As authors mentioned, the results are not written twice. However, I think that some sentences should be written in results (L.337-352, L404-410). In addition, more discussion of the function of the polymorphisms in T1r3 should be needed. As for the additional information in introduction (L.50-L.76), I think it is necessary to discuss how these molecules are affected by polymorphisms in T1r3. I would like authors to explain the sentences of L.383 to L.387 to correspond the introduction (L.50-L.76).

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 16;15(7):e0235913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

15 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-05222R1

Revision 2

Responses to Reviewers

Response to Reviewer #1.

Reviewer #1 wrote: “I was able to understand that the glucose tolerance of 129 and B6 is completely different since authors provided Figure S1. I would like Figure S1 to be included in the main text for general readers of PLOS ONE”.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that addition of figure demonstrating glucose tolerance in parent strains could be useful for general readers. For this purpose, we inserted Fig. 3 and edited Table 2 (L. 295 of the Revised manuscript with tracked changes): “Initial analysis of IP glucose tolerance was performed in parental strains: 129P, 129S2, B6, B6By, and B6-Tas1r3-/-. In the nonfasting state, parental strains differed in baseline glucose level, which was higher in the B6 strain, including the knockout substrain, than in 129 (Fig. 3; p<0,05). However, there was significant overlap between responses of B6 and B6By, as well as between 129P and 129S2. The IP glucose tolerance was substantially reduced in the B6 strain compared to 129 (p<0.005), but no significant differences were found within strains excluding B6-Tas1r3-/-. The Tas1r3 gene deficiency markedly worsens glucose tolerance (Fig. 3) compared both to B6 and to B6By (p<0.01).

Comparison of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4a demonstrates that hybrid groups had intermediate glucose tolerance between parental strains.”

The Reviewer #1:” Is it correct to assume that the glucose metabolism of 129B6 and B6 is also different? I recommend that authors discuss about the validity of comparison between the data from 129B6 and 129B6-T1r3KO and the data form B6 and B6/B6-T1r3KO, even though the physiological background of 129B6 and B6/B6 are not equivalent”.

Response: Yes, it is correct. For this reason, we did not compare 129B6-Tas1r3KO with B6-T1r3+/-. Distinctions between 129B6 and 129B6-Tas1r3KO hybrids were analyzed to assess effects of dominant and recessive alleles of the Tas1r3 gene. B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/- mice differed in number of dominant Tas1r3 genes. Using B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/- groups, we primarily evaluated the effect of the Tas1r3 gene dosage (hemizygosity). In the available literature, there are no data on interaction between Tas1r3 and other genes that supports validity of comparison between groups with identical B6 genetic background and, to some extent, allows to transfer results to 129B6 hybrids.

Reviewer #1: “As authors mentioned, the results are not written twice. However, I think that some sentences should be written in results (L.337-352, L404-410)”.

Response: In the manuscript, we tried to keep the following scheme: the Results section describes responses of hybrids, whereas in the Discussion section we analyze effects of the Tas1r3 genotype and compare the obtained data with literature. That is why we would like to leave mentioned phrases in place.

Reviewer #1: In addition, more discussion of the function of the polymorphisms in T1r3 should be needed. As for the additional information in introduction (L.50-L.76), I think it is necessary to discuss how these molecules are affected by polymorphisms in T1r3.

Response: To our knowledge, almost all publications discussing effects of the mouse gene Tas1r3 polymorphisms address to the detailed analysis performed by Danielle Reed et al. (2004), which we cited in the current manuscript. We edited new revision by adding the following (L. 95): “Allelic variants of the Tas1r3 gene correspond mainly to three nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which do not act by blocking gene expression, changing alternative splicing, or interfering with protein translation in taste tissue. Among the polymorphisms, T179C, which causes a substitution of isoleucine to threonine at position 60 in the extracellular N domain of the T1R3 protein, influence the ability of the protein to form dimers or bind sweeteners (Reed et al. 2004)”. Further we wrote (L. 100): “This substitution reduces in vitro binding of T1R3 to caloric or noncaloric sweeteners, increasing, for instance, effective dose for sucrose up to 1000% (Nie et al. 2005).”

Reviewer #1: I would like authors to explain the sentences of L.383 to L.387 to correspond the introduction (L.50-L.76).

Response: When glucose is applied intragastrically in the GTT, sweet taste receptors in the small intestine are involved in reinforcement of secretion of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, which in turn facilitate insulin output in the pancreas and up-regulate expression of the intestinal glucose transporter SGLT1. To clarify it, we edited the Introduction section (L. 57): “In the intestine, T1R3 upregulates through GLP-1 and GIP expression of sodium-dependent glucose transporter isoform 1 (SGLT1) important for the provision of glucose to the body and avoidance of intestinal malabsorption (Margolskee et al., 2007)”. When glucose is applied intraperitoneally, it affects sweet taste receptors in the pancreas stimulating insulin production but does not interact with intestinal receptors. We believe that impairment of T1R3-mediated sensitivity in B6-Tasr3+/- can both elevate plasma glucose level due to reduction of insulin output and suppress glucose absorptive capacity of the intestine. Thus, in hemizygotes after intraperitoneal load with glucose, reduced intestinal absorption can be discussed as a reason of lower plasma glucose level found in our experiments (L. 386): “B6-Tas1r3+/- hemizygotes exhibited lower plasma glucose concentrations, which can reflect reduced expression of SGLT1 because of decreased GLP1 and GIP production in the small intestine mucosa (Margolskee et al. 2007; Sigoillot et al. 2012), rather than a consequence of impaired utilization of glucose in tissues”. However, additional studies of this phenomenon are needed beyond the scope of this article.

We believe that translational value of our findings is that they show for the first time that allele variant of the Tas1r3 gene alter in vivo glucose metabolism in mice, and that similar relationships may exist in humans.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the authors,

Vasiliy Zolotarev, Ph.D.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r005

Decision Letter 2

Keiko Abe

25 Jun 2020

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

PONE-D-20-05222R2

Dear Dr. Vasiliy Zolotarev,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Keiko Abe, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235913.r006

Acceptance letter

Keiko Abe

6 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-05222R2

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

Dear Dr. Zolotarev:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Keiko Abe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(32.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper.

[pone.0235913.ref001] 1.Hladik CM., Pasquet P, Simmen B. 2002. New perspectives on taste and primate evolution: the dichotomy in gustatory coding for perception of beneficent versus noxious substances as supported by correlations among human thresholds. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 4: 342–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref002] 2.Garcia-Bailo B, Toguri C, Eny M, Sohemy (El-) A. 2009. Genetic variation in taste and its influence on food selection. OMICS J. Integr. Biol. 1: 69–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref003] 3.Liu S, Manson JE. 2001. Dietary carbohydrates, physical inactivity, obesity, and the 'metabolic syndrome' as predictors of coronary heart disease. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 4: 395–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref004] 4.Laffitte A, Neiers F, Briand L. 2014. Functional roles of the sweet taste receptor in oral and extraoral tissues. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care. 4: 379–385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref005] 5.Jang HJ, Kokrashvili Z, Theodorakis MJ, Carlson OD, Kim BJ, Zhou J, et al. 2007. Gut-expressed gustducin and taste receptors regulate secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 104(38):15069–74. 10.1073/pnas.0706890104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref006] 6.Margolskee RF, Dyer J, Kokrashvili Z, Salmon KS, Ilegems E, Daly K, et al. 2007. T1R3 and gustducin in gut sense sugars to regulate expression of Na⁺-glucose cotransporter 1. PNAS. 38: 15075–15080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref007] 7.Kokrashvili Z, Mosinger B, Margolskee RF. 2009. Taste signaling elements expressed in gut enteroendocrine cells regulate nutrient-responsive secretion of gut hormones. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 3: 822–825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref008] 8.Daly K, Al-Rammahi M, Moran A, Marcello M, Ninomiya Y, Shirazi-Beechey SP. 2013. Sensing of amino acids by the gut-expressed taste receptor T1R1-T1R3 stimulates CCK secretion. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest Liver. Physiol. 304(3): G271–82. 10.1152/ajpgi.00074.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref009] 9.Kyriazis GA, Soundarapandian MM, Tyrberg B. 2012. Sweet taste receptor signaling in beta cells mediates fructose-induced potentiation of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. PNAS. 8: E524–532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref010] 10.Maitrepierre E, Sigoillot M, Le Pessot L, Briand L. 2012. Recombinant expression, in vitro refolding, and biophysical characterization of the N-terminal domain of T1R3 taste receptor. Protein Expr. Purif. 1: 75–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref011] 11.Damak S, Rong M, Yasumatsu K, Kokrashvili Z, Varadarajan V, Zou S, et al. 2003. Detection of sweet and umami taste in the absence of taste receptor T1r3. Science 5634: 850–853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref012] 12.Kojima I, Nakagawa Y. 2011. The Role of the sweet taste receptor in enteroendocrine cells and pancreatic β-cells. Diabetes Metab. J. 35(5):451–7. 10.4093/dmj.2011.35.5.451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref013] 13.Craig TJ, Ashcroft FM, Proks P. 2008. How ATP inhibits the open K(ATP) channel. J. Gen. Physiol. 1: 131–144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref014] 14.Wauson EM, Zaganjor E, Lee AY, Guerra ML, Ghosh AB, Bookout AL, et al. 2012. The G protein-coupled taste receptor T1R1/T1R3 regulates mTORC1 and autophagy. Mol. Cell. 47(6):851–62. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref015] 15.Simon BR, Learman BS, Parlee SD, Scheller EL, Mori H, Cawthorn WP, et al. 2014. Sweet taste receptor deficient mice have decreased adiposity and increased bone mass. PLoS One 9(1):e86454 10.1371/journal.pone.0086454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref016] 16.Murovets VO, Bachmanov AA, Zolotarev VA. 2015. Impaired glucose metabolism in mice lacking the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene. PLoS One. 6: e0130997 10.1371/journal.pone.0130997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref017] 17.Murovets VO, Bachmanov AA, Travnikov SV, Churikova AA, Zolotarev VA. 2014. The involvement of the T1R3 receptor protein in the control of glucose metabolism in mice at different levels of glycemia. J. Evol. Biochem. Physiol. 4: 334–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref018] 18.Murovets VO, Sozontov EA, Zachepilo TG. 2019. The effect of the taste receptor protein T1R3 on the development of islet tissue of the murine pancreas. Dokl. Biol. Sci. May;484(1):1–4. 10.1134/S0012496619010010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref019] 19.Bachmanov AA, Li X, Reed DR, Ohmen JD, Li S, Chen Z, et al. , Beauchamp GK. 2001. Positional cloning of the mouse saccharin preference (Sac) locus. Chem. Senses 7: 925–933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref020] 20.Frank ME, Blizard DA. 1999. Chorda tympani responses in two inbred strains of mice with different taste preferences. Physiol. Behav. 2: 287–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref021] 21.Fuller JL. 1974. Single-locus control of saccharin preference in mice. J. Hered. 1: 33–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref022] 22.Nelson G, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Zhang Y, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS. 2001. Mammalian sweet taste receptors. Cell. 3: 381–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref023] 23.Bachmanov AA, Bosak NP, Floriano WB, Inoue M, Li X, Lin C, et al. 2011. Genetics of sweet taste preferences. Flavour. Fragr. J. 4: 286–294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref024] 24.Reed DR, Li S, Li X, Huang L, Tordoff MG, Starling-Roney R, et al. 2004. Polymorphisms in the taste receptor gene (Tas1r3) region are associated with saccharin preference in 30 mouse strains. J. Neurosci. 4: 938–946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref025] 25.Nie Y, Vigues S, Hobbs JR, Conn GL, Munger SD. 2005. Distinct contributions of T1R2 and T1R3 taste receptor subunits to the detection of sweet stimuli. Curr. Biol. 21: 1948–1952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref026] 26.Kim UK, Wooding S, Riaz N, Jorde LB, Drayna D. 2006. Variation in the Human TAS1R Taste Receptor Genes. Chem. Senses 7: 599–611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref027] 27.Raliou M, Grauso M, Hoffmann B, Schlegel–Le-Poupon C, Nespoulous C, Debat H, et al. 2011. Human genetic polymorphisms in T1R1 and T1R3 taste receptor subunits affect their function Chem. Senses 36: 527–537, 10.1093/chemse/bjr014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref028] 28.Fushan AA, Simons CT, Slack JP, Manichaikul A, Drayna D. 2009. Allelic polymorphism within the TAS1R3 promoter is associated with human taste sensitivity to sucrose. Curr. Biol. 19(15):1288–93. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref029] 29.Han P, Keast RSJ, Roura E. 2017. Salivary leptin and TAS1R2/TAS1R3 polymorphisms are related to sweet taste sensitivity and carbohydrate intake from a buffet meal in healthy young adults. Br. J. Nutr. Nov;118(10):763–770. 10.1017/S0007114517002872 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref030] 30.Inoue M, Glendinning JI, Theodorides ML, Harkness S, Li X, Bosak N, et al. 2007. Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects taste responses to sweeteners: evidence from 129.B6-Tas1r3 congenic mice. Physiol. Genomics 1: 82–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref031] 31.Bachmanov AA, Reed DR, Ninomiya Y, Inoue M, Tordoff MG, Price RA, et al. 1997. Sucrose consumption in mice: major influence of two genetic loci affecting peripheral sensory responses. Mamm. Genome 8: 545–548. 10.1007/s003359900500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref032] 32.Inoue M, Reed DR, Li X, Tordoff MG, Beauchamp GK, Bachmanov AA. 2004. Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene selectively affects behavioral and neural taste responses to sweeteners in the F2 hybrids between C57BL/6ByJ and 129P3/J mice. J. Neurosci. 9: 2296–2303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref033] 33.Lush IE. 1989. The genetics of tasting in mice. VI. Saccharin, acesulfame, dulcin and sucrose. Genet. Res. 53(2):95–9. 10.1017/s0016672300027968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref034] 34.Max M, Shanker YG, Huang L, Rong M, Liu Z, Campagne F, et al. 2001. Tas1r3, encoding a new candidate taste receptor, is allelic to the sweet responsiveness locus Sac. Nat. Genet. 28(1):58–63. 10.1038/ng0501-58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref035] 35.Almind K, Kahn CR. 2004. Genetic determinants of energy expenditure and insulin resistance in diet-induced obesity in mice. Diabetes 53(12):3274–85. 10.2337/diabetes.53.12.3274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref036] 36.Berglund ED, Li CY, Poffenberger G, Ayala JE, Fueger PT, Willis SE, et al. 2008. Glucose metabolism in vivo in four commonly used inbred mouse strains. Diabetes 57(7):1790–9. 10.2337/db07-1615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref037] 37.Toye AA, Lippiat JD, Proks P, Shimomura K, Bentley L, Hugill A, et al. 2005. A genetic and physiological study of impaired glucose homeostasis control in C57BL/6J mice. Diabetologia, 48(4), 675–686. 10.1007/s00125-005-1680-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref038] 38.Zhao GQ, Zhang Y, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Erlenbach I, Ryba NJ, et al. 2003. The receptors for mammalian sweet and umami taste. Cell. 3: 255–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref039] 39.Nakagawa Y, Nagasawa M, Yamada S, Hara A, Mogami H, Nikolaev VO, et al. 2009. Sweet taste receptor expressed in pancreatic beta-cells activates the calcium and cyclic AMP signaling systems and stimulates insulin secretion. PLoS One. 4: e51062009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref040] 40.Glendinning JI, Chyou S, Lin I, Onishi M, Patel P, Zheng KH. 2005. Initial licking responses of mice to sweeteners: effects of tas1r3 polymorphisms. Chem. Senses 7: 601–614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref041] 41.Spector A. C. 2003. Psychophysical evaluation of taste function in non-human mammals. Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation Ed. R. L. Doty. New York. 869–879.

[pone.0235913.ref042] 42.McGuinness OP, Ayala JE, Laughlin MR, Wasserman DH. 2009. NIH experiment in centralized mouse phenotyping: the Vanderbilt experience and recommendations for evaluating glucose homeostasis in the mouse. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 4: E849–855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref043] 43.Glendinning JI, Gresack J, Spector AC. 2002. A high-throughput screening procedure for identifying mice with aberrant taste and oromotor function. Chem. Senses 5: 461–474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref044] 44.Murovets VO, Lukina EA, Zolotarev VA. 2018. The Effect of Tas1r3 Gene Polymorphism on Preference and Consumption of Sucrose and Low-Calorie Sweeteners in Interstrain Hybrid Mice of the First Filial Generation. J. Evol. Biochem. Phys. 54: 221–233. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref045] 45.Glendinning JI, Stano S, Holter M, Azenkot T, Goldman O, Margolskee RF, et al. 2015. Sugar-induced cephalic-phase insulin release is mediated by a T1r2+T1r3-independent taste transduction pathway in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 5: R552–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref046] 46.Sclafani A. 2013. Gut-brain nutrient signaling. Appetition vs. satiation. Appetite. 71: 454–458. 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.024 Epub 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref047] 47.Frank GK, Oberndorfer TA, Simmons AN, Paulus MP, Fudge JL, Yang TT, et al. 2008. Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener. Neuroimage 4: 1559–69. Epub 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref048] 48.Huang N, Lee I, Marcotte EM., Hurles ME. 2010. Characterizing and predicting haploinsufficiency in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 10: e1001154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref049] 49.Sigoillot M, Brockhoff A, Meyerhof W, Briand L. 2012. Sweet-taste-suppressing compounds: current knowledge and perspectives of application. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 3: 619–630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref050] 50.Jiang P, Josue J, Li X, Glaser D, Li W, Brand JG, et al. 2012. Major taste loss in carnivorous mammals. PNAS. 13: 4956–4961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref051] 51.Masubuchi Y, Nakagawa Y, Ma J, Sasaki T, Kitamura T, Yamamoto Y, et al. 2013. A novel regulatory function of sweet taste-sensing receptor in adipogenic differentiation of 3T3-L1 cells. PLoS One. 1: e54500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref052] 52.Treesukosol Y, Smith KR, Spector AC. 2011. The functional role of the T1R family of receptors in sweet taste and feeding. Physiol. Behav. 1: 14–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref053] 53.Murovets VO, Sozontov EA, Andreeva JV, Khropycheva RP, Zolotarev VA. 2016. Effect of T1R3 receptor protein deletion on gluconeogenesis and lipid metabolism in mice. Ross. Fiziol. Zh. Im. IM Sechenova. 6: 668–679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref054] 54.Glendinning JI, Gillman J, Zamer H, Margolskee RF, Sclafani A. 2012. The role of T1r3 and Trpm5 in carbohydrate-induced obesity in mice. Physiol. Behav. 1: 50–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref055] 55.Larsson MH., Håkansson P, Jansen FP, Magnell K, Brodin P. 2015. Ablation of TRPM5 in mice results in reduced body weight gain and improved glucose tolerance and protects from excessive consumption of sweet palatable food when wed high caloric diets. PLoS One 9: e0138373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0235913.ref056] 56.Masubuchi Y, Nakagawa Y, Medina J, Nagasawa M, Kojima I, Rasenick MM, et al. 2017. Correction: T1R3 homomeric sweet taste receptor regulates adipogenesis through Gαs-mediated microtubules disassembly and Rho activation in 3T3-L1 cells. PLoS One 7: e0181293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F1 mouse hybrids

Vladimir O Murovets

Ekaterina A Lukina

Egor A Sozontov

Julia V Andreeva

Raisa P Khropycheva

Vasiliy A Zolotarev

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Animals, housing, and diet

Taste tests

Glucose and insulin tolerance tests

Biochemical assay and morphometry

Data analysis

Table 2. ANOVA results for Figs 1–4.

Results

Licking response

Table 1. Water consumption and licking rates of mice with different Tas1r3/Sac genotypes during training sessions in the gustometer.

Fig 1.

Long-term two-bottle sweetener preference

Fig 2.

The relationship between Sac genotype and glucose and insulin tolerance

Fig 3. Glucose tolerance test in 3- to 5-month-old nonfasted male mice of parental strains: B6, B6By, B6-Tas1r3-/-, 129S2, and 129P.

Fig 4.

Baseline plasma glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and glycerol levels and body composition

Fig 5. Plasma glucose concentration and body, fat, and liver mass in nonfasted inbred and hybrid 5- to 6-month-old nonfasted male mice with different Tas1r3 genotypes: 129S2B6F1 and 129S2B6-Tas1r3-/-F1, or B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/-.

Fig 6. Plasma insulin, triglyceride, and glycerol concentrations in 4- to 7-month-old nonfasted inbred and hybrid male mice with different Tas1r3 genotypes: 129PB6ByF1 and 129PB6-Tas1r3-/-F1, or B6 and B6-Tas1r3+/-.

Discussion

Concluding remarks

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Keiko Abe

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Keiko Abe

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Keiko Abe

Roles

Acceptance letter

Keiko Abe

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Allelic variation of the Tas1r3 taste receptor gene affects sweet taste responsiveness and metabolism of glucose in F₁ mouse hybrids