I think this meme really resonates with me during our drawing of the biomolecules portion of the course.
Scientific Literacy 2: Data Analysis
Non-nutritive sweeteners are natural sugar alternatives. These sweeteners can sweeten food but are chemically different from natural sugars. The non-nutritive sweeteners are made from biological materials, such as but not limited to plants, herbs, or sugars themselves (Sugar substitutes). The non-nutritive sugars usually do not possess the same caloric density as natural sugar, so they are a way to sweeten food without adding extra weight. While non-nutritive sugars have their pros and cons, they are considered safe for human consumption.
Alternative sugar chemical structures are as follows: Aspartame C14H18N2O5; Acesulfame C4H5NO4S; Neotame C20H30N2O5; Saccharin C7H5NO3S; Sucralose C12H19Cl3O8; Stevia C44H70O23; Advantame C24H30N2O7.
A microbiome is a very intricate microscopic environment that is composed of many different microorganisms. These environments can be found on many different organisms to include humans. Some microbiomes are important for that daily function of the human body. For example, microbiomes in the intestines help break down waste products and are essentially for the organ to remain healthy (The microbiome). These microbiomes are composed of bacteria and different fungi and parasites. This is a symbiotic relationship as the microbiome can receive nutrients from the host organism while the host organism remains healthy due to the microbiome consuming potentially toxic materials from infecting the host.
Glucose tolerance is the body’s ability to process sugar that has been ingested. This an important function of the body to make sure blood sugar remains at a normal level, establishing hemostasis. If the body has an inability to process sugar this could cause the formation of Diabetes. There are different types of diabetes some of which could be temporary others that could be a lifelong battle. There is test that can be completed to determine how well a person can process the sugar they consume. The higher the sugar imbalance the more likely there is a glucose intolerance.
The connection between microbiomes and glucose tolerance is unique. Typically, the glucose levels are regulated by pancreas. However, microbiomes can also play a big role in helping to breakdown sugars. The increase in glucose levels can promote more microbiomes to be developed as well as more micro biomes can reduce the amount of excess glucose left in the body. This can be extremely helpful for people that are compromised in their ability to breakdown sugars. The microbiomes can help the host organism while also growing thus promoting the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two sides.
As stated earlier the sugar substitutes can be a good alternative because they don’t have the same caloric footprint as their natural counterparts. However, these sugars can cause spikes in glucose levels. This can cause an imbalance in blood sugar and could cause a person to become glucose intolerable. This is where the microbiomes can really be the difference between high spike in glucose levels and maintaining homeostasis. The microbiomes can help breakdown the synthetic sugars and process them so that the blood sugar level remain normal. Therefore, the nonnutritive sugars while no linked to harming humans should still be consumed in moderation to prevent blood sugar spikes.
In the study of four artificial sweeteners: Saccharin, Sucralose, aspartame, and stevia; the scientist wanted to know which sugar would have the greatest effect on glucose tolerance. Based on the study Saccharin and Sucralose are the two that had the most adverse effects on human glucose tolerance. Based on the baseline NSC and Glucose models’ saccharin and sucralose showed the greatest increase over the course of the 28-day study. Both showed a steady increase once the sugar was ingested and did not return to at or below the initial measurement once the study was complete.
In the study of the four artificial sweeteners saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame all influenced bacterial diversity. Based on the scatter plot sucralose and saccharin once again had the greatest effect on bacteria diversity. Aspartame displayed the potential to affect bacterial diversity but also had more overlap than the aforementioned. For sucralose, the greatest affected pathway was the methylerythritol phosphate pathway II. The methyl erythritol phosphate pathway has a very influential role for bacteria. This is due to the facilitation of isoprenoid biosynthesis. Isoprenoid quinones carry electrons and protons through photosynthetic and respiratory electron chains (Guggisberg, 2014). This would play a vital role in promoting bacterial diversity if it were not compressed with sucralose sweeteners. For saccharin, glycolysis was the pathway that was affected the most. Glycolysis is a big part of glucose metabolism as it pivotal pillar in creating energy for cells. Glycolysis is an essential part of regulating insulin secretion as well which would be in response to higher blood sugar with the artificial sweetener (Guo, 2012). For Aspartame, the arginine biosynthesis pathway was the one affected the most. Arginine biosynthesis is an amino acid that is essential for the promotion of homeostasis in the body (Xu, 2000). Lastly, Stevia affected phospholipid biosynthesis. Phospholipid biosynthesis goes through the glycolytic pathway. This is constructed from a process known as fatty acid synthases which is the breakdown of carbohydrates and the formation of fatty acids (Han, 2013).
Based on the graphs with the germ-free mice, the glucose tolerance in the mice exposed to the fecal of people who showed the strongest response displayed a significant increase with all four types of acritical sweeteners. This is an expected result with the stronger responses having the highest reaction of blood sugar. The only sugar that showed a significant increase in the weaker group is saccharin. With the weakest response having less of a concentration of sugar this result was a little more unforeseen. The other sweeteners were in line almost symmetrically with the control group which identifies saccharin as being the artificial sugar that displays the highest response.
From the study, it can be concluded that using artificial sweeteners is not always a viable alternative to natural sugar. Based on the studies conducted on humans it was evident that the body’s response to some artificial sugars was greater than that to natural sugar. If someone was attempting to replace glucose with some artificial sugars for health reasons would be at a disadvantage with the consumption of some of the sugars. Once the study was moved to sterile mice it was even more evident that the artificial sugars could affect glucose tolerance. I recommend, based on the study conducted and the data collected, I would suggest the avoidance of saccharin from a person’s diet. It showed a greater response than all other artificial and natural sugar throughout the study.
Reference:
Anhê, F.F. et al. (2020) Glucose alters the symbiotic relationships between gut microbiota and host physiology, American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism. Available at: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00485.2019 (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
Glucose tolerance (no date) Glucose Tolerance – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/glucose-tolerance (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
Guggisberg AM, Park J, Edwards RL, Kelly ML, Hodge DM, Tolia NH, Odom AR. A sugar phosphatase regulates the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway in malaria parasites. Nat Commun. 2014 Jul 24;5:4467. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5467. PMID: 25058848; PMCID: PMC4112465.
Guo, X. et al. Glycolysis in the control of blood glucose homeostasis. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B (2012). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221138351200086X.
Han, G. S. & Carman, G. M. Phospholipid synthesis. Phospholipid Synthesis – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics (2013). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/phospholipid-synthesis.
Sugar substitutes (no date) Cleveland Clinic. Available at: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/15166-sugar-substitutes–non-nutritive-sweeteners (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
The microbiome (2022) The Nutrition Source. Available at: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/microbiome/ (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
Willingham, E. (2022) Some sugar substitutes affect blood glucose and gut bacteria, Scientific American. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-sugar-substitutes-affect-blood-glucose-and-gut-bacteria/ (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
Xu Y, Liang Z, Legrain C, Rüger HJ, Glansdorff N. Evolution of arginine biosynthesis in the bacterial domain: novel gene-enzyme relationships from psychrophilic Moritella strains (Vibrionaceae) and evolutionary significance of N-alpha-acetyl ornithinase. J Bacteriol. 2000 Mar;182(6):1609-15. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.6.1609-1615.2000. PMID: 10692366; PMCID: PMC94458.
Cell Biology Course Review
This course was very informative. I appreciate the hands on learning that was done during the course. Drawing cells and molecules made studying for test or understanding the components of the cells that much easier. One thing I was able to take from this course was a deeper understanding of translation and transcription. I have learned these steps prior to this course but having a deeper understanding is always beneficial. I am not sure how this course will help me in my future studies yet but I am sure having an understanding of cell dynamics will propel me in my future course.