Literature DB >> 18453638

Measures of individual differences in taste and creaminess perception.

Juyun Lim1, Lenka Urban, Barry G Green.   

Abstract

Previous reports that the sensitivity to the bitter tasting substance 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) is related to the sensitivity to other tastes, to chemical irritants, and to fats and oils have led to adoption of PROP as a measure of general oral sensitivity and as a predictor of dietary habits that could impact health. The results, however, have not been consistent. It was recently discovered that the ability to perceive "thermal taste" (i.e., sweetness from thermal stimulation alone) was associated with higher responsiveness to 4 prototypical taste stimuli but not to PROP. This finding implied that individual differences in taste perception are determined in large part by factors other than those related to genetic expression of the PROP receptor. The present study followed up this observation by comparing individual differences in perception of 4 prototypical taste stimuli (sucrose, NaCl, citric acid, and quinine) and PROP under conditions that also enabled assessment of the reliability of individual intensity ratings of taste. Creaminess ratings of 3 milk products that had different fat contents were also collected to investigate further the relationship between taste and oral somatosensory perception. The results showed that intensity ratings across 2 trials were significantly correlated for all 5 taste stimuli and that averaging across replicates led to significant correlations among the 4 prototypical stimuli. In contrast, the bitterness of PROP was correlated only with the bitterness of quinine. None of the taste stimuli, including PROP, was significantly correlated with ratings of creaminess. These results imply 1) that with the exception of PROP, as few as 2 intensity ratings of common taste stimuli can reveal individual differences in overall taste perception and 2) that any relationship between taste and oral sensation is too weak to be detected under the same conditions. Accordingly, the results support other evidence that the genetic factors which determine the ability to perceive PROP do not play a major role in overall taste and oral somatosensory perception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18453638      PMCID: PMC2899842          DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjn016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Senses        ISSN: 0379-864X            Impact factor:   3.160


  46 in total

1.  Thermal stimulation of taste.

Authors:  A Cruz; B G Green
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  A complex relationship among chemical concentration, detection threshold, and suprathreshold intensity of bitter compounds.

Authors:  Russell S J Keast; Jessica Roper
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2007-01-13       Impact factor: 3.160

3.  Revisiting sugar-fat mixtures: sweetness and creaminess vary with phenotypic markers of oral sensation.

Authors:  John E Hayes; Valerie B Duffy
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2007-01-04       Impact factor: 3.160

4.  The molecular basis of individual differences in phenylthiocarbamide and propylthiouracil bitterness perception.

Authors:  Bernd Bufe; Paul A S Breslin; Christina Kuhn; Danielle R Reed; Christopher D Tharp; Jay P Slack; Un-Kyung Kim; Dennis Drayna; Wolfgang Meyerhof
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 5.  Genetic variation and inferences about perceived taste intensity in mice and men.

Authors:  J Prutkin; E M Fisher; L Etter; K Fast; E Gardner; L A Lucchina; D J Snyder; K Tie; J Weiffenbach; L M Bartoshuk
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2000 Apr 1-15

6.  Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene.

Authors:  John E Hayes; Linda M Bartoshuk; Judith R Kidd; Valerie B Duffy
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2008-01-21       Impact factor: 3.160

7.  Gustatory expression pattern of the human TAS2R bitter receptor gene family reveals a heterogenous population of bitter responsive taste receptor cells.

Authors:  Maik Behrens; Susann Foerster; Frauke Staehler; Jan-Dirk Raguse; Wolfgang Meyerhof
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Individual differences in perceived bitterness predict liking of sweeteners.

Authors:  Jennifer K Kamerud; Jeannine F Delwiche
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 3.160

9.  Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake.

Authors:  Valerie B Duffy; Andrew C Davidson; Judith R Kidd; Kenneth K Kidd; William C Speed; Andrew J Pakstis; Danielle R Reed; Derek J Snyder; Linda M Bartoshuk
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.455

10.  Genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil has no influence on dietary patterns, body mass indexes, or plasma lipid profiles of women.

Authors:  Adam Drewnowski; Susan A Henderson; Jennie E Cockroft
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2007-08
View more
  26 in total

1.  Preference for sucralose predicts behavioral responses to sweet and bittersweet tastants.

Authors:  Gregory C Loney; Ann-Marie Torregrossa; Chris Carballo; Lisa A Eckel
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  The associations between 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) intensity and taste intensities differ by TAS2R38 haplotype.

Authors:  Mary E Fischer; Karen J Cruickshanks; James S Pankow; Nathan Pankratz; Carla R Schubert; Guan-Hua Huang; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Alex Pinto
Journal:  J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics       Date:  2015-01-27

3.  In pursuit of taste phenotypes.

Authors:  Barry G Green
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 3.160

4.  Is the Association Between Sweet and Bitter Perception due to Genetic Variation?

Authors:  Liang-Dar Hwang; Paul A S Breslin; Danielle R Reed; Gu Zhu; Nicholas G Martin; Margaret J Wright
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 3.160

5.  Predominant Qualities Evoked by Quinine, Sucrose, and Capsaicin Associate With PROP Bitterness, but not TAS2R38 Genotype.

Authors:  Alissa A Nolden; John E McGeary; John E Hayes
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.160

6.  Taste Enhancement by Pulsatile Stimulation Is Receptor Based But Independent of Receptor Type.

Authors:  Kerstin Martha Mensien Burseg; Sara Marina Camacho; Johannes Hendrikus Franciscus Bult
Journal:  Chemosens Percept       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 1.833

Review 7.  Two decades of supertasting: where do we stand?

Authors:  John E Hayes; Russell S J Keast
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2011-08-07

8.  Examination of the perception of sweet- and bitter-like taste qualities in sucralose preferring and avoiding rats.

Authors:  A-M Torregrossa; G C Loney; J C Smith; L A Eckel
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2014-12-10

9.  Reliability of Threshold and Suprathreshold Methods for Taste Phenotyping: Characterization with PROP and Sodium Chloride.

Authors:  Veronica Galindo-Cuspinera; Thierry Waeber; Nicolas Antille; Christoph Hartmann; Nicola Stead; Nathalie Martin
Journal:  Chemosens Percept       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 1.833

10.  Thermal taster status: Evidence of cross-modal integration.

Authors:  Joanne Hort; Rebecca A Ford; Sally Eldeghaidy; Susan T Francis
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 5.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.