| Literature DB >> 28497839 |
Silvia V Melo1,2, Grasiela Agnes1, Márcia R Vitolo2, Vanessa S Mattevi1,2, Paula D B Campagnolo3, Silvana Almeida1,2.
Abstract
Taste perception plays a key role in determining individual food preferences and dietary habits and may influence nutritional status. This study aimed to investigate the association of TAS1R2 (Ile191Val - rs35874116) and TAS1R3 (-1266 C/T - rs35744813) variants with food intake and nutritional status in children followed from birth until 7.7 years old. The nutritional status and food intake data of 312 children were collected at three developmental stages (1, 3.9 and 7.7 years old). DNA was extracted from blood samples and the polymorphisms were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reactions (qPCR) using hydrolysis probes as the detection method. Food intake and nutritional status were compared among individuals with different single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes. At 3.9 years old, children homozygous (Val/Val) for the TAS1R2 Ile191Val polymorphism ingested less sugar and sugar-dense foods than children who were *Ile carriers. This finding demonstrated that a genetic variant of the T1R2 taste receptor is associated with the intake of different amounts of high sugar-content foods in childhood. This association may provide new perspectives for studying dietary patterns and nutritional status in childhood.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28497839 PMCID: PMC5488460 DOI: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2016-0205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Mol Biol ISSN: 1415-4757 Impact factor: 1.771
Allele and genotype frequencies for the SNPs TAS1R2 Ile191Val and TAS1R3 -1266 C/T.
| SNP | % (n) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Genotypes | |
|
| 51.4 (160) |
|
| 40.6 (126) |
|
| 8.0 (25) |
| Alleles % | |
|
| 72 |
|
| 28 |
|
| |
| Genotypes | |
| C/C | 74.3 (232) |
| C/T | 24.7 (77) |
| T/T | 1.0 (3) |
| Alleles % | |
| C | 87 |
| T | 13 |
n = number of carriers of each genotype
Food intake and nutritional status in relation to the TAS1R2 and TAS1R3 polymorphisms in Brazilian children.
| Food intake and nutritional status |
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| P | P | C/C (232) | C/T plus T/T (80) | P |
| Average daily energy intake (kcal/day) | 966.5 ± 395.10 | 904.4 ± 383.61 | 867.32 ± 386.17 | 0.277 | 0.242 | 924.8 ± 380.31 | 970.2 ± 421.0 | 0.422 |
| BMI Z-score | 0.65 ± 1.10 | 0.62 ± 1.05 | 0.28 ± 1.18 | 0.288 | 0.122 | 0.59 ± 1.10 | 0.69 ± 1.04 | 0.440 |
|
|
|
|
| C/C (232) | C/T plus T/T (80) | |||
| Average daily energy intake (kcal/day) | 1503.5 ± 386.72 | 1549.6 ± 420.38 | 1420.0 ± 331.35 | 0.232 | 0.233 | 1528.3 ± 400.23 | 1490.9 ± 392.41 | 0.391 |
| SDF (kcal/day) | 109.5 ± 84.63 | 114.7 ± 93.3 | 78.9 ± 59.6 | 0.084 | 0.027 | 111.2 ± 88.01 | 103.3 ± 88.83 | 0.771 |
| Sugar intake (kcal/day) | 64.7 ± 63.97 | 64.4 ± 67.67 | 44.6 ± 49.1 | 0.080 | 0.025 | 63.3 ± 66.14 | 63.8 ± 62.7 | 0.692 |
| BMI Z-score | 0.27 ± 1.12 | 0.22 ± 1.13 | 0.34 ± 1.05 | 0.800 | 0.638 | 0.21 ± 1.03 | 0.42 ± 1.34 | 0.118 |
| BMI variation 1 to 3.9 years (%) | -9.69 ± 8.83 | -9.82 ± 8.97 | -6.14 ± 9.13 | 0.148 | 0.052 | -9.67 ± 8.77 | -9.04 ± 9.49 | 0.528 |
|
|
|
|
| C/C (203) | C/T plus T/T (71) | |||
| Average daily energy intake (kcal/day) | 1544.3 ± 406.82 | 1593.5 ± 337.08 | 1510.8 ± 335.47 | 0.286 | 0.438 | 1563.8 ± 398.03 | 1561.0 ± 319.73 | 0.596 |
| SDF (kcal/day) | 80.5 ± 66.67 | 86.5 ± 86.74 | 86.5 ± 71.44 | 0.634 | 0.510 | 82.3 ± 75.48 | 88.35 ± 75.84 | 0.472 |
| BMI Z-score | 0.39 ± 1.44 | 0.25 ± 1.32 | 0.88 ± 1.21 | 0.137 | 0.068 | 0.36 ± 1.37 | 0.46 ± 1.41 | 0.492 |
| BMI variation 3.9 to 7.9 years
(%) | 5.87 ± 12.37 | 4.26 ± 9.62 | 10.16 ± 13.14 | 0.116 | 0.065 | 5.83 ± 11.83 | 4.96 ± 10.86 | 0.759 |
Values are the mean ± standard deviation; SDF – sugar-dense food.
General Linear Model: for average daily energy intake, SDF and sugar intake, the intervention or control group status, sex and exact age were used as covariates. For the BMI Z-score, only the variable intervention or control group status was included in the model. For BMI variations, the exact age difference between the child's evaluations, intervention or control group status and sex were included as covariates.
General Linear Model: the same covariates described above were included, but the comparisons were done between carriers of the *Ile allele vs. Val/Val homozygotes.
For statistical analyses, the variables were natural logarithmic transformed but the non-transformed values are shown in the table.