Literature DB >> 27129672

Salivary protein levels as a predictor of perceived astringency in model systems and solid foods.

Erin E Fleming1, Gregory R Ziegler2, John E Hayes3.   

Abstract

Salivary protein difference value (SP D-value) is a quantitative measure of salivary protein replenishment, which reportedly relates to individual differences in perceived astringency. This in vitro measure is calculated as the difference in total salivary protein before (S1) and after (S2) stimulation with tannic acid, with a greater absolute value (S2-S1) indicating less protein replenishment. Others report that this measure predicts perceived astringency and liking of liquid model systems and beverages containing added polyphenols. Whether this relationship generalizes to astringent compounds other than polyphenols, or to solid foods is unknown. Here, the associations between SP D-values and perceived astringency and overall liking/disliking for alum and tannic acid (experiment 1) as well as solid chocolate-flavored compound coating with added tannic acid or grape seed extract (GSE) (experiment 2) were examined. In both experiments, participants (n=84 and 81, respectively) indicated perceived intensity of astringency, bitterness, sweetness, and sourness, and degree of liking of either aqueous solutions, or solid chocolate-flavored compound coating with added astringents. Data were analyzed via linear regression, and as discrete groups for comparison to prior work. Three discrete groups were formed based on first and third quartile splits of the SP D-value distribution: low (LR), medium (MR), and high responding (HR) individuals. In experiment 1, significantly higher mean astringency ratings were observed for the HR as compared to the LR/MR groups for alum and tannic acid, confirming and extending prior work. In experiment 2, significantly higher mean astringency ratings were also observed for HR as compared to LR groups in solid chocolate-flavored compound containing added tannic acid or GSE. Significant differences in liking were found between HR and LR groups for alum and tannic acid in water, but no significant differences in liking were observed for chocolate-flavored compound samples. A significant linear relationship between SP D-values and perceived astringency was observed for both alum and tannic acid (p's<0.001), although the variance explained was relatively low (R(2)=0.33 and 0.29, respectively). In the solid chocolate-flavored compound spiked with either tannic acid or GSE, the relationship was not significant (p=0.17 and 0.30; R(2)=0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Due to the weak associations overall, and the lack of significant differences in perception of astringency between the MR and LR groups, we conclude that SP D-values are not a strong predictor of astringency, especially in solid, high-fat foods. Additional research investigating alternative methods for quantifying individual differences in astringency, as well as exploring the underlying complexities of this percept appears warranted.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Astringency; In vitro methods; Individual differences; Salivary proteins

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27129672      PMCID: PMC4947416          DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.04.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Behav        ISSN: 0031-9384


  26 in total

1.  Turbidity as a measure of salivary protein reactions with astringent substances.

Authors:  John Horne; John Hayes; Harry T Lawless
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  Astringency of foods may not be directly related to salivary lubricity.

Authors:  Catherine A Lee; Zata M Vickers
Journal:  J Food Sci       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  The phenolics of ciders: oligomeric and polymeric procyanidins.

Authors:  A G Lea
Journal:  J Sci Food Agric       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 3.638

Review 4.  Polyphenols: factors influencing their sensory properties and their effects on food and beverage preferences.

Authors:  Isabelle Lesschaeve; Ann C Noble
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Personality factors predict spicy food liking and intake.

Authors:  Nadia K Byrnes; John E Hayes
Journal:  Food Qual Prefer       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 5.565

6.  Temporary modification of salivary protein profile and individual responses to repeated phenolic astringent stimuli.

Authors:  Caterina Dinnella; Annamaria Recchia; Simone Vincenzi; Hely Tuorila; Erminio Monteleone
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 3.160

7.  Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior?

Authors:  John E Hayes; Emma L Feeney; Alissa L Allen
Journal:  Food Qual Prefer       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.565

Review 8.  Interaction of plant polyphenols with salivary proteins.

Authors:  Anders Bennick
Journal:  Crit Rev Oral Biol Med       Date:  2002

9.  Direct comparison of the generalized Visual Analog Scale (gVAS) and general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS).

Authors:  John E Hayes; Alissa L Allen; Samantha M Bennett
Journal:  Food Qual Prefer       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 5.565

10.  Tolerance for high flavanol cocoa powder in semisweet chocolate.

Authors:  Meriel L Harwood; Gregory R Ziegler; John E Hayes
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 5.717

View more
  5 in total

1.  Repeated exposure to epigallocatechin gallate solution or water alters bitterness intensity and salivary protein profile.

Authors:  Lissa A Davis; Cordelia A Running
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2021-10-14

2.  Addition of chocolate milk to diet corresponds to protein concentration changes in human saliva.

Authors:  Ciera R Crawford; Cordelia A Running
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2020-07-15

3.  Investigating Mixture Interactions of Astringent Stimuli Using the Isobole Approach.

Authors:  Erin E Fleming; Gregory R Ziegler; John E Hayes
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.160

4.  Influence of biological, experiential and psychological factors in wine preference segmentation.

Authors:  Gary J Pickering; John E Hayes
Journal:  Aust J Grape Wine Res       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.688

5.  Discrimination of Isointense Bitter Stimuli in a Beer Model System.

Authors:  Molly J Higgins; John E Hayes
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 5.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.