| Literature DB >> 35052758 |
Rebeca Fernández-Carrión1,2, Jose V Sorlí1,2, Oscar Coltell2,3, Eva C Pascual1, Carolina Ortega-Azorín1,2, Rocío Barragán1,2,4,5, Ignacio M Giménez-Alba1, Andrea Alvarez-Sala1, Montserrat Fitó2,6, Jose M Ordovas7,8, Dolores Corella1,2.
Abstract
Taste perception and its association with nutrition and related diseases (type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular, etc.) are emerging fields of biomedicine. There is currently great interest in investigating the environmental and genetic factors that influence sweet taste and sugary food preferences for personalized nutrition. Our aims were: (1) to carry out an integrated analysis of the influence of sweet taste preference (both in isolation and in the context of other tastes) on the preference for sugary foods and its modulation by type 2 diabetes status; (2) as well as to explore new genetic factors associated with sweet taste preference. We studied 425 elderly white European subjects with metabolic syndrome and analyzed taste preference, taste perception, sugary-foods liking, biochemical and genetic markers. We found that type 2 diabetic subjects (38%) have a small, but statistically higher preference for sweet taste (p = 0.021) than non-diabetic subjects. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) in preferences for the other tastes (bitter, salty, sour or umami) were detected. For taste perception, type 2 diabetic subjects have a slightly lower perception of all tastes (p = 0.026 for the combined "total taste score"), bitter taste being statistically lower (p = 0.023). We also carried out a principal component analysis (PCA), to identify latent variables related to preferences for the five tastes. We identified two factors with eigenvalues >1. Factor 2 was the one with the highest correlation with sweet taste preference. Sweet taste preference was strongly associated with a liking for sugary foods. In the exploratory SNP-based genome-wide association study (GWAS), we identified some SNPs associated with sweet taste preference, both at the suggestive and at the genome-wide level, especially a lead SNP in the PTPRN2 (Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase Receptor Type N2) gene, whose minor allele was associated with a lower sweet taste preference. The PTPRN2 gene was also a top-ranked gene obtained in the gene-based exploratory GWAS analysis. In conclusion, sweet taste preference was strongly associated with sugary food liking in this population. Our exploratory GWAS identified an interesting candidate gene related with sweet taste preference, but more studies in other populations are required for personalized nutrition.Entities:
Keywords: GWAS; biomedicine; genetic markers; personalized nutrition; sugary foods; sweet taste preference; taste perception; type 2 diabetes
Year: 2021 PMID: 35052758 PMCID: PMC8772854 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10010079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Demographic, clinical, and genetic characteristics of the study population according to sex.
| Characteristics | Total | Men | Women |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 65.2 ± 4.7 | 64.0 ± 5.3 | 66.1 ± 4.1 | <0.001 |
| Weight (Kg) | 83.9 ± 13.7 | 92.5 ± 13.2 | 77.3 ± 9.8 | <0.001 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 32.2 ± 3.6 | 32.2 ± 3.4 | 32.2 ± 3.7 | 0.961 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 105.6 ± 10.1 | 111.1 ± 8.7 | 101.4 ± 9.0 | <0.001 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 141.3 ± 18.1 | 143.8 ± 18.6 | 139.5 ± 17.6 | 0.015 |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 80.9 ± 9.9 | 82.7 ± 10.4 | 79.5 ± 9.4 | 0.001 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 196.8 ± 37.8 | 188.3 ± 39.0 | 203.3 ± 35.6 | <0.001 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 130.9 ± 33.2 | 131.5 ± 33.7 | 130.7 ± 32.8 | 0.681 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 59.9 ± 14.3 | 52.4 ± 11.3 | 64.8 ± 13.9 | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 103.3 ± 58.3 | 117.7 ± 69.9 | 93.9 ± 47.1 | <0.001 |
| Fasting glucose (mg/dL) | 92.1 ± 16.9 | 94.0 ± 17.9 | 90.8 ± 16.2 | 0.001 |
| Physical Activity (MET.min/wk) | 1679 ± 1526 | 1947 ± 1797 | 1476 ± 1250 | 0.002 |
| Hours of sleep per night (h/day) 1 | 6.8 ± 1.1 | 6.9 ± 1.0 | 6.7 ± 1.1 | 0.014 |
| Adherence to MedDiet 2 | 8.0 ± 2.8 | 7.9 ± 2.8 | 8.1 ± 2.7 | 0.404 |
| Type 2 diabetes: | 163 (38.4) | 71 (38.8) | 92 (38.0) | 0.870 |
| Obesity: | 239 (56.2) | 110 (60.1) | 129 (53.3) | 0.422 |
| Current smokers: | 48 (11.3) | 30 (16.4) | 18 (7.4) | <0.001 |
Values are mean ± SD for continuous variables and number (%) for categorical variables. BMI: body mass index; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; LDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MET: Metabolic Equivalent. 1 MET is equivalent to kcal·kg−1·h−1, the oxygen cost of sitting still measured as 3.5 mL/kg/min; p: p-value for the comparisons (means or %) between men and women. Student’s t test was used to compare means and Chi squared tests were used to compare categories. 1: Hours of sleep per night on weekdays. 2: Quantitative 17-item questionnaire for adherence to Mediterranean diet.
Taste preferences (sweet, salty, sour, umami and bitter) in the whole population and stratified by sex and type 2 diabetes.
| Taste Preference | Total | Sex | Diabetes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women |
| No | Yes |
| ||
| Sweet | 7.16 ± 0.09 | 7.03 ± 0.14 | 7.25 ± 0.12 | 0.245 | 6.99 ± 0.12 | 7.42 ± 0.14 | 0.021 |
| Salty | 7.56 ± 0.08 | 7.45 ± 0.13 | 7.65 ± 0.10 | 0.196 | 7.54 ± 0.10 | 7.60 ± 0.12 | 0.690 |
| Sour | 4.62 ± 0.10 | 4.71 ± 0.16 | 4.55 ± 0.14 | 0.445 | 4.66 ± 0.13 | 4.55 ± 0.17 | 0.614 |
| Umami | 5.95 ± 0.09 | 6.44 ± 0.13 | 5.58 ± 0.12 | <0.001 | 6.00 ± 0.11 | 5.87 ± 0.14 | 0.482 |
| Bitter | 4.31 ± 0.10 | 4.47 ± 0.16 | 4.19 ± 0.14 | 0.184 | 4.33 ± 0.13 | 4.28 ± 0.17 | 0.830 |
Values are mean ± SE; Taste preferences scores have been obtained by a 9-point hedonic scale for each taste. p 1: p-values for sex differences (Student’s t-tests). p 2: p-values for diabetes status differences (Student’s t-tests).
Taste perception (sweet, salty, sour, umami and bitter) in the whole population and stratified by type 2 diabetes.
| Taste (Tastant) 1 | Total | Diabetes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes |
|
|
| ||
| Sweet (Sucrose) (400 mM) | 2.27 ± 0.07 | 2.34 ± 0.08 | 2.16 ± 0.11 | 0.182 | 0.173 | 0.171 |
| Salty (NaCl) (200 mM) | 2.58 ± 0.07 | 2.65 ± 0.09 | 2.44 ± 0.13 | 0.182 | 0.168 | 0.118 |
| Sour (Citric acid) (34 mM) | 2.51 ± 0.07 | 2.58 ± 0.08 | 2.39 ± 0.12 | 0.197 | 0.191 | 0.132 |
| Umami ((MPG) (200 mM) | 1.99 ± 0.07 | 1.99 ± 0.09 | 1.99 ± 0.12 | 0.969 | 0.979 | 0.898 |
| Bitter (PTC) (5.6 mM) | 1.38 ± 0.07 | 1.51 ± 0.09 | 1.16 ± 0.11 | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Total taste score 5 | 10.71 ± 0.23 | 11.10 ± 0.29 | 10.05 ± 0.39 | 0.034 | 0.026 | 0.019 |
Values are mean ± SE; p-values for diabetes status difference were obtained by Student’s t-test. PTC: phenylthiocarbamide. MPG: L-glutamic acid monopotassium salt monohydrate. 1: Five representative tastants for the five tastes (PTC for bitter, sucrose for sweet, NaCl for salty, citric acid for sour and MPG for umami) were tested (Concentration V). 2: p-value was obtained in an unadjusted general linear model. 3: p-value was obtained in a general linear model adjusted for sex, age and BMI. 4: p-value was obtained in a general linear model adjusted for sex, age, BMI, physical activity, adherence to the Mediterranean diet (17 item score), sleeping hours and tobacco smoking. 5: Total taste score: the sum of the scores for the five tastes, at the higher concentration used (concentration V).
Association between the preference for different tastes.
| Taste 1 | Sweet | Salty | Sour | Umami | Bitter | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salty | r | 0.119 | 1 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| Sour | r | −0.110 | 0.296 | 1 | ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Umami | r | 0.017 | 0.122 | 0.041 | 1 | |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Bitter | r | 0.032 | 0.196 | 0.371 | 0.018 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1: Taste preferences scores have been obtained by a 9-point hedonic scale for each taste in the whole population (n = 425). r: the Spearman correlation coefficient. p: the p-value for the Spearman correlation coefficient (r).
Figure 1Principal component analysis loading plots for the rotated (varimax rotation) components. Taste preference analysis for sweet, salty, sour, umami and bitter. PC1 (principal component 1), PC2 (principal component 2). Data obtained from a factor analysis including the five taste preference variables (n = 425 subjects).
Association between sweet taste preference (low/high) and liking for sugary foods (low/high) in the whole population and by type 2 diabetes status.
| Sweet Taste Preference 1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole Population | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Breakfast cereals | High | 24.3% | 34.4% | 1.63 (1.04–2.55) | 0.031 | 0.055 |
| Sweets-pastries and ice creams | High | 64.5% | 96.3% | 14.48 (7.10–29.58) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chocolates | High | 76.3% | 93.8% | 4.67 (2.52–8.66) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Sugar | High | 50.7% | 70.7% | 2.35 (1.55–3.55) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| |||||
| Breakfast cereals | High | 30.8% | 43.0% | 1.70 (1.01–2.67) | 0.045 | 0.074 |
| Sweets-pastries and ice creams | High | 63.5% | 96.8% | 17.62 (6.64–46.76) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chocolates | High | 74.0% | 92.4% | 4.27 (2.05–8.89) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Sugar | High | 51.9% | 71.5% | 2.32 (1.39–3.90) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| |||||
| Breakfast cereals | High | 10.4% | 22.6% | 2.51 (0.90–6.99) | 0.071 | 0.108 |
| Sweets-pastries and ice creams | High | 66.7% | 95.7% | 11.00 (3.74–32.35) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chocolates | High | 81.3% | 95.7% | 5.08 (1.60–16.80) | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Sugar | High | 49.9% | 69.9% | 2.48 (1.24–4.96) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
1: Sweet taste preference was measured in the whole population (n = 425) including non-diabetic (n = 262) and diabetic subjects (n = 163). A dichotomic variable for sweet taste preference was derived consisting of two categories, low preference and high preference, depending on the mean obtained in the 9-point hedonic scale for sweet taste. 2: Low and high liking for sugary foods was obtained from a 4-point Likert scale in the food preference questionnaire. Here, a dichotomic (low and high) variable was derived by collapsing the two corresponding categories (1 and 2 vs. 3 and 4). 3: OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval. OR were calculated expressing the probability of a high liking for the corresponding foods depending on a high preference for the sweet taste. 4: p-value obtained in the unadjusted model. 5: p-value obtained in the multivariable logistic model adjusted for sex, age, BMI, physical activity, adherence to the Mediterranean diet, sleeping hours and tobacco smoking.
Association between sweet taste preference (low and high) and intake of sugary foods included in the Mediterranean diet scale. Analysis in the whole population and by type 2 diabetes status.
| Sweet Taste Preference 1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole Population | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |||||
| Sugary beverages (I-6) | <1/week | 58.6% | 56.8% | 0.93 (0.62–1.39) | 0.723 | 0.476 |
| Pastries (I-9) | <3/week | 47.4% | 42.1% | 0.81 (0.54–1.21) | 0.297 | 0.385 |
| Added sugar (I-13) | No or NCS | 63.2% | 71.8% | 1.48 (0.97–2.26) | 0.066 | 0.105 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| |||||
| Sugary beverages (I-6) | <1/week | 54.8% | 61.4% | 1.31 (0.79–2.17) | 0.289 | 0.299 |
| Pastries (I-9) | <3/week | 43.3% | 44.9% | 1.07 (0.65–1.76) | 0.790 | 0.418 |
| Added sugar (I-13) | No or NCS | 56.7% | 59.5% | 1.12 (0.68–1.85) | 0.657 | 0.694 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| |||||
| Sugary beverages (I-6) | <1/week | 66.7% | 50.4% | 0.51 (0.25–1.03) | 0.057 |
|
| Pastries (I-9) | <3/week | 56.3% | 38.3% | 0.48 (0.24–0.95) |
|
|
| Added sugar (I-13) | No or NCS | 77.1% | 88.7% | 2.33 (0.96–5.66) | 0.057 | 0.125 |
1: Sweet taste preference was measured in the whole population (n = 425) including non-diabetic (n = 262) and diabetic subjects (n = 163). A dichotomic variable for sweet taste preference was derived consisting of two categories, low and high preference, depending on the mean obtained in the 9-point hedonic scale for sweet taste. In this analysis, a dichotomic variable for sweet taste preference was derived consisting of two categories (low preference for sweet taste and high preference), depending on the mean. 2: Intake of the sugary foods included in the 17-item Mediterranean diet scale was considered for analyzing consumption. These items are as follows: sugary beverages (Item-6), sweets-pastries (Item-9), and added sugar (Item-13) (see Table S1 for details). The corresponding food intake was scored into two categories depending on the criteria for adherence to the Mediterranean diet. 3: Low intake of these sugary foods was considered for the following frequencies: <1 time/week for sweetened beverages; <3 time/week for pastries, and No consumption or use of non-caloric sweeteners (NCS). 4: OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval. OR were calculated expressing the probability of having an intake according to the Mediterranean diet adherence (labeled as low intake) for the corresponding sugary food depending on a high preference for the sweet taste. 5: p-value obtained in the unadjusted model. 6: p-value obtained in the multivariable logistic model adjusted for sex, age, BMI, physical activity, total adherence to the Mediterranean diet, sleeping hours and tobacco smoking.
Figure 2Manhattan plot for the GWAS analysis on sweet taste preference (as a dichotomous variable) in the whole population using PLINK and a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based GWAS analysis. A genetic additive model and logistic regression were used to estimate p-values, and the top-ranked SNPs were annotated. The blue line represents the threshold 1 (−log10(5 × 10−8)) for the GWAS statistical significance. The red line represents the threshold 2 (−log10(1 × 10−5)).
Figure 3Regional plot for the lead-SNP rs2091718, located in the protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type N2 (PTPRN2) gene, on chromosome 7, for sweet taste preference (as a dichotomous variable). p-values obtained in the logistic regression model adjusted for sex and age.
Top-ranked SNPs in the GWAS for sweet taste preference (categorical variable) in the whole population. Model adjusted for sex and age.
| Chr | SNP | BP | OR | P | Alleles | MAF | Strand | Gene |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | rs2091718 | 158304646 | 0.347 | 7.460 × 10−9 | G | 0.245 | − | PTPRN2 |
| 7 | rs10256091 | 158299094 | 0.352 | 1.054 × 10−8 | G | 0.342 | + | PTPRN2 |
| 7 | rs5016019 | 158279412 | 0.364 | 2.773 × 10−8 | G | 0.251 | + | PTPRN2 |
| 7 | rs10275533 | 158376086 | 0.399 | 1.111 × 10−7 | A | 0.281 | + | PTPRN2 |
| 7 | rs2335160 | 158350293 | 0.445 | 2.683 × 10−6 | G | 0.260 | − | PTPRN2 |
| 7 | rs6463205 | 5022223 | 4.078 | 3.347 × 10−6 | T | 0.105 | + | RNF216P1 |
| 9 | rs10963760 | 18787794 | 0.480 | 9.748 × 10−6 | G | 0.259 | + | ADAMTSL1 |
| 2 | rs354728 | 143944775 | 0.513 | 1.461 × 10−5 | T | 0.206 | − | ARHGAP15 |
| 17 | rs2694130 | 38747318 | 0.251 | 1.560 × 10−5 | T | 0.046 | + | __ |
| 13 | rs971604 | 97068019 | 3.888 | 1.710 × 10−5 | T | 0.186 | + | HS6ST3 |
| 2 | rs10178148 | 144000004 | 0.505 | 2.759 × 10−5 | G | 0.144 | + | ARHGAP15 |
| 1 | rs319978 | 49067379 | 0.430 | 2.796 × 10−5 | T | 0.168 | − | AGBL4 |
| 17 | rs8082554 | 78039867 | 0.510 | 3.642 × 10−5 | T | 0.181 | + | CCDC40 |
| 7 | rs12667108 | 5133936 | 0.419 | 3.661 × 10−5 | T | 0.144 | + | __ |
| 9 | rs10811261 | 19882156 | 2.258 | 4.086 × 10−5 | G | 0.384 | + | SLC24A2 |
| 11 | rs3763872 | 9593427 | 0.531 | 4.329 × 10−5 | T | 0.406 | − | WEE1 |
| 21 | rs2835220 | 37367098 | 1.954 | 4.769 × 10−5 | C | 0.283 | + | LOC101928269 |
| 14 | rs1286470 | 91059658 | 0.479 | 4.955 × 10−5 | C | 0.213 | − | TTC7B |
| 2 | rs10187143 | 34022970 | 0.500 | 5.180 × 10−5 | A | 0.326 | + | LINC01317 |
Chr: Chromosome. SNP: Single nucleotide polymorphism. BP: Base position in the chromosome (Homo Sapiens GRCh37.p13 genome build used in Illumina HumanOmniExpress-24 BeadChip). OR: odds ratio, indicates the effect for the minor allele on taste preference. P: p-value obtained in the multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for sex and age for each SNP using a genetic additive model. MAF: minor allele frequency.
Figure 4Gene expression heat map based on the data set GTE × V8 (54 tissue types), showing the average expression per label for the expression of the PTPRN2 gene and the regional overlapping genes MIR5707, MIR595, AC078942.1 and LINC01022.
Figure 5Manhattan plot for the GWAS analysis for sweet taste preference (as a dichotomous variable) in the whole population using a gene-based approach (adjusted for sex and age). We used MAGMA for computations in the FUMA platform. The top-ranked genes were annotated. The red line at 5.56 represents the threshold 1 (−log10(2.7 × 10−6)) for the gene-set analysis considering the strict Bonferroni correction. Likewise, the green line at 4.00 represents the threshold 2 (−log10(1 × 10−4)).
Figure 6Adjusted means for sweet taste preference (Panel (A): using the sweet taste preference variable as continuous; and Panel (B): using the factor 2 scores) depending on the lead SNP rs2091718, located in the protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type N2 (PTPRN2) gene in the whole population. Adjusted means and p-values (p1) have been obtained in a general linear regression model adjusted for sex, age, type 2 diabetes, BMI, smoking, physical activity, hours of sleep per night and adherence to Mediterranean diet. Minor allele frequency (MAF) is 0.24 for the G allele in this population. Genotype prevalence: AA (58.1%); AG (38.8%); and GG (5.1%).