Oral sucrose stimulation increases accumbens dopamine in the rat
Abstract
Although taste can influence meal size and body weight, the neural substrate for these effects remains obscure. Dopamine, particularly in the nucleus accumbens, has been implicated in both natural and nonnatural rewards. To isolate the orosensory effects of taste from possible postingestive consequences, we investigated the quantitative relationship between sham feeding of sucrose and extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens with microdialysis in rats. Sucrose intake linearly increased as a function of concentration (0.03 M, 18.07 ± 2.41 ml; 0.1 M, 30.92 ± 2.60 ml; 0.3 M, 43.28 ± 2.88 ml). Sham feeding also stimulated accumbens dopamine overflow as a function of sucrose solution concentration (0.03 M, 120.76 ± 2.6%; 0.1 M, 140.28 ± 7.8%; 0.3 M, 146.27 ± 5.05%). A second experiment used the same protocol but clamped the amount of sucrose ingested and revealed a similar, concentration-dependent dopamine activation in the nucleus accumbens. This is the first demonstration of a quantitative relationship between the concentration-dependent rewarding effect of orosensory stimulation by sucrose during eating and the overflow of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. This finding provides new and strong support for accumbens dopamine in the rewarding effect of sucrose.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When palatable foods such as sucrose are actually consumed, a sustained and sweetness-dependent increase occurs in nucleus accumbens dopamine levels and turnover.
“In addition, when palatable foods such as sucrose are actually consumed, a sustained and sweetness-dependent increase occurs in nucleus accumbens dopamine levels and turnover ([75](#B75), [80](#B80), [165](#B165)).”
From Food reward, hyperphagia, and obesity (2011) · cites this paper as [75]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 449
- Authors
- Hajnal, A., Smith, G. P., & Norgren, R.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 286
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- R31-R37
- ISSN
- 0363-6119 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1490
- OpenAlex
- W1979009659
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 7.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC004751, DC 04751, DC 00240, R01DC000240)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
- Keywords
- sucrose, nucleus accumbens, dopamine, taste, reward, sham feeding, dopamine overflow, sucrose concentration, feeding behavior, microdialysis
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Oral, Animals, Dopamine, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Osmolar Concentration, Reward, Sucrose, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Microdialysis, Feedback, Psychological, Extracellular Fluid, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review