| Literature DB >> 36231300 |
Neeta Y Yousaf1, Beverly J Tepper1.
Abstract
This study investigated whether PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) taster status and other individual factors (gender, ethnicity, BMI, and age) are markers of variation in perceptions of astringency and other flavor attributes. Participants (n = 125) evaluated cranberry juice cocktail samples (CJC) supplemented with cranberry-derived polyphenol extract (CPE, added at 0, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.75 g/L), as well as control samples, unsweetened cranberry juice (CJ) and an aqueous solution of 0.75 g/L CPE. Subjects evaluated samples for key sensory attributes and overall liking using a 15 cm line scale. The data were analyzed using ANCOVA and machine learning tools (regression trees and random forest modeling) to examine if the latter approach would extract more meaningful insights about the roles of personal factors in sensory perceptions of cranberry-derived stimuli. ANCOVA revealed robust stimulus effects, but no effect of PROP taster status on astringency perception was observed. Several effects of PROP×gender, ethnicity, and other factors were observed on other sensory attributes and liking. ANCOVA and machine learning tools yielded similar findings, but regression trees provided a more visualized framework. These data show that PROP taster status has a limited role in astringency perception in complex samples and that other personal factors deserve greater focus in future research on astringency perception.Entities:
Keywords: PROP phenotype; astringency; cranberry; machine learning; polyphenols; taste
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231300 PMCID: PMC9565834 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Sample formulations.
| Sample | Details |
|---|---|
| CJ | Cranberry Juice, unsweetened |
| CPE | 0.75 g/L Cranberry Polyphenol Extract in spring water |
| CJC | Cranberry Juice Cocktail, CJ with 8.75% |
| Low | 0.30 g/L CPE in CJC |
| Med | 0.50 g/L CPE in CJC |
| High | 0.75 g/L CPE in CJC |
Figure 1Experimental Procedure.
Subject Characteristics.
| Gender | PROP Classification | Ethnicity ( | Age | BMI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caucasian | Asian | (Years) | (kg/m2) | |||
| Female | NT | 30 | 22 | 8 | 22.1 ± 1.0 | 25.2 ± 0.9 |
| ST | 33 | 23 | 10 | 22.2 ± 0.9 | 24.5 ± 1.0 | |
| Male | NT | 30 | 13 | 17 | 21.1 ± 0.4 | 24.8 ± 0.8 |
| ST | 32 | 19 | 13 | 21.7 ± 0.7 | 25.0 ± 0.6 | |
ANCOVA model results. Effects of main factors (Sample Type, PROP Taster Status, Gender and Ethnicity) on sensory attribute intensity and overall liking ratings of cranberry juice cocktail samples when adjusted for covariates (Age, BMI). * Only significant interactions are shown 1,2.
| Sweetness | Sourness | Bitterness | Astringency | Thickness | Cranberry Flavor | Overall Flavor | Liking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pr > F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age | 0.116 | 0.445 | 1.886 | 0.769 | 0.010 | 0.594 |
|
|
| 0.733 | 0.505 | 0.170 | 0.381 | 0.920 | 0.441 |
|
| |
| BMI | 3.180 | 1.217 | 1.750 | 0.464 | 0.391 | 0.033 |
| 2.990 |
| 0.075 | 0.270 | 0.186 | 0.496 | 0.532 | 0.856 |
| 0.084 | |
| PROP Taster Status | 0.926 | 2.947 | 1.055 | 0.392 | 0.001 |
| 1.117 |
|
| 0.336 | 0.086 | 0.305 | 0.531 | 0.974 |
| 0.291 |
| |
| Gender | 0.145 | 2.925 | 1.593 | 0.472 | 2.966 | 0.118 | 2.536 | 1.794 |
| 0.703 | 0.088 | 0.207 | 0.492 | 0.085 | 0.731 | 0.112 | 0.181 | |
| Sample Type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Ethnicity | 1.118 | 1.795 |
|
| 0.344 | 1.189 | 0.073 |
|
| 0.291 | 0.181 |
|
| 0.558 | 0.276 | 0.787 |
| |
| Taster*Gender | 0.413 |
| 0.191 | 1.955 | 0.463 |
| 3.147 | 0.335 |
| 0.520 |
| 0.662 | 0.162 | 0.496 |
| 0.076 | 0.563 | |
| Gender*Sample | 0.486 |
| 1.123 | 0.464 | 0.228 | 0.492 | 0.327 | 0.728 |
| 0.787 |
| 0.346 | 0.803 | 0.950 | 0.782 | 0.897 | 0.602 |
1 For each independent variable, the first row shows the F-value, while the second row shows the associated p-value. 2 Values in the table in boldface indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Effect of sample type on attribute intensity ratings (Mean ± SEM) of the CJ, CJC, Low, Med, High and CPE samples. Different superscripts (a, b, etc.) denote statistically significant differences within an attribute based on post-hoc analyses (p < 0.05).
Figure 3(3a): Regression tree for sweetness intensity ratings. Node refers to a split based on a significant test (p < 0.05). Size refers to number of subjects in a given split while % refers to the corresponding percentage of the total subjects in a given split. ‘Pred’ shows predicted values of intensity ratings on the 15-cm line scale. (3b): Regression tree for sourness intensity ratings. (3c): Regression tree for bitterness intensity ratings. (3d): Regression tree for astringency intensity ratings. (3e): Regression tree for thickness intensity ratings. (3f): Regression tree for cranberry flavor intensity ratings. (3g): Regression tree for overall flavor intensity ratings. (3h): Regression tree for overall liking ratings.
Feature importance heatmap based on random forest modeling 1.
| Features | Sweetness | Sourness | Bitterness | Astringency | Thickness | Cranberry Flavor | Overall Flavor | Liking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | 154.39 | 143.60 | 28.73 | 45.69 | 52.99 | 145.55 | 95.62 | 169.70 |
| Taster | 10.60 | 20.22 | 0.91 | 2.55 | −0.01 | 12.26 | 8.53 | 3.05 |
| Gender | 3.19 | 19.54 | 3.11 | 0.76 | −1.67 | 11.41 | 7.83 | 4.80 |
| Ethnicity | 4.11 | −1.32 | 15.29 | 5.60 | 2.59 | 4.04 | −1.29 | 8.68 |
| Age | 3.10 | 4.07 | 4.18 | −1.31 | 6.84 | 2.07 | 2.36 | 3.58 |
| BMI | 11.30 | 6.90 | −1.13 | 1.67 | 0.19 | 6.97 | 16.2 | 2.74 |
1 Features highlighted in dark green account for the most variation within the data for a particular attribute; a lighter color explains less variation within the data; scores should only be compared down a column and not across rows.