Polymorphisms in TRPV1 and TAS2Rs associate with sensations from sampled ethanol.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variation in chemosensory genes can explain variability in individual's perception of and preference for many foods and beverages. To gain insight into variable preference and intake of alcoholic beverages, we explored individual variability in the responses to sampled ethanol (EtOH). In humans, EtOH elicits sweet, bitter, and burning sensations. Here, we explore the relationship between variation in EtOH sensations and polymorphisms in genes encoding bitter taste receptors (TAS2Rs) and a polymodal nociceptor (TRPV1). METHODS: Caucasian participants (n = 93) were genotyped for 16 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in TRPV1, 3 SNPs in TAS2R38, and 1 SNP in TAS2R13. Participants rated sampled EtOH on a generalized Labeled Magnitude Scale. Two stimuli were presented: a 16% EtOH whole-mouth sip-and-spit solution with a single time-point rating of overall intensity and a cotton swab saturated with 50% EtOH on the circumvallate papillae (CV) with ratings of multiple qualities over 3 minutes. Area-under-the-curve (AUC) was calculated for the time-intensity data. RESULTS: The EtOH whole-mouth solution had overall intensity ratings near "very strong." Burning/stinging had the highest mean AUC values, followed by bitterness and sweetness. Whole-mouth intensity ratings were significantly associated with burning/stinging and bitterness AUC values on the CV. Three TRPV1 SNPs (rs224547, rs4780521, rs161364) were associated with EtOH sensations on the CV, with 2 (rs224547 and rs4780521) exhibiting strong linkage disequilibrium. Additionally, the TAS2R38 SNPs rs713598, rs1726866, and rs10246939 formed a haplotype, and were associated with bitterness on the CV. Last, overall intensity for whole-mouth EtOH associated with the TAS2R13 SNP rs1015443. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest genetic variation in TRPV1 and TAS2Rs influence sensations from sampled EtOH and may potentially influence how individuals initially respond to alcoholic beverages.

Rebaudioside A and Rebaudioside D bitterness do not covary with Acesulfame K bitterness or polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31.

In order to reduce calories in foods and beverages, the food industry routinely uses non-nutritive sweeteners. Unfortunately, many are synthetically derived, and many consumers have a strong preference for natural sweeteners, irrespective of the safety data on synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners. Additionally, many non-nutritive sweeteners elicit aversive side tastes such as bitter and metallic in addition to sweetness. Bitterness thresholds of acesulfame-K (AceK) and saccharin are known to vary across bitter taste receptors polymorphisms in TAS2R31. RebA has shown to activate hTAS2R4 and hTAS2R14 in vitro. Here we examined bitterness and sweetness perception of natural and synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners. In a follow-up to a previous gene-association study, participants (n=122) who had been genotyped previously rated sweet, bitter and metallic sensations from rebaudioside A (RebA), rebaudioside D (RebD), aspartame, sucrose and gentiobiose in duplicate in a single session. For comparison, we also present sweet and bitter ratings of AceK collected in the original experiment for the same participants. At similar sweetness levels, aspartame elicited less bitterness than RebD, which was significantly less bitter than RebA. The bitterness of RebA and RebD showed wide variability across individuals, and bitterness ratings for these compounds were correlated. However, RebA and RebD bitterness did not covary with AceK bitterness. Likewise, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) shown previously to explain variation in the suprathreshold bitterness of AceK (rs3741845 in TAS2R9 and rs10772423 in TAS2R31) did not explain variation in RebA and RebD bitterness. Because RebA activates hT2R4 and hT2R14, a SNP in TAS2R4 previously associated with variation in bitterness perception was included here; there are no known functional SNPs for TAS2R14. In present data, a putatively functional SNP (rs2234001) in TAS2R4 did not explain variation in RebA or RebD bitterness. Collectively, these data indicate the bitterness of RebA and RebD cannot be predicted by AceK bitterness, reinforcing our view that bitterness is not a simple monolithic trait that is high or low in an individual. This also implies consumers who reject AceK may not find RebA and RebD aversive, and vice versa. Finally, RebD may be a superior natural non-nutritive sweetener to RebA, as it elicits significantly less bitterness at similar levels of sweetness.

Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior?

In the last decade, basic research in chemoreceptor genetics and neurobiology have revolutionized our understanding of individual differences in chemosensation. From an evolutionary perspective, chemosensory variations appear to have arisen in response to different living environments, generally in the avoidance of toxins and to better detect vital food sources. Today, it is often assumed that these differences may drive variable food preferences and choices, with downstream effects on health and wellness. A growing body of evidence indicates chemosensory variation is far more complex than previously believed. However, just because a genetic polymorphism results in altered receptor function in cultured cells or even behavioral phenotypes in the laboratory, this variation may not be sufficient to influence food choice in free living humans. Still, there is ample evidence to indicate allelic variation in TAS2R38 predicts variation in bitterness of synthetic pharmaceuticals (e.g., propylthiouracil) and natural plant compounds (e.g., goitrin), and this variation associates with differential intake of alcohol and vegetables. Further, this is only one of 25 unique bitter taste genes (TAS2Rs) in humans, and emerging evidence suggests other TAS2Rs may also contain polymorphisms that a functional with respect to ingestive behavior. For example, TAS2R16 polymorphisms are linked to the bitterness of naturally occurring plant compounds and alcoholic beverage intake, a TAS2R19 polymorphism predicts differences in quinine bitterness and grapefruit bitterness and liking, and TAS2R31 polymorphisms associate with differential bitterness of plant compounds like aristolochic acid and the sulfonyl amide sweeteners saccharin and acesulfame-K. More critically with respect to food choices, these polymorphisms may vary independently from each other within and across individuals, meaning a monolithic one-size-fits-all approach to bitterness needs to be abandoned. Nor are genetic differences restricted to bitterness. Perceptual variation has also been associated with polymorphisms in genes involved in odors associated with meat defects (boar taint), green/grassy notes, and cilantro, as well as umami and sweet tastes (TAS1R1/2/3). Here, a short primer on receptor genetics is provided, followed by a summary of current knowledge, and implications for human ingestive behavior are discussed.

Bitterness of the non-nutritive sweetener acesulfame potassium varies with polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31.

Demand for nonnutritive sweeteners continues to increase due to their ability to provide desirable sweetness with minimal calories. Acesulfame potassium and saccharin are well-studied nonnutritive sweeteners commonly found in food products. Some individuals report aversive sensations from these sweeteners, such as bitter and metallic side tastes. Recent advances in molecular genetics have provided insight into the cause of perceptual differences across people. For example, common alleles for the genes TAS2R9 and TAS2R38 explain variable response to the bitter drugs ofloxacin in vitro and propylthiouracil in vivo. Here, we wanted to determine whether differences in the bitterness of acesulfame potassium could be predicted by common polymorphisms (genetic variants) in bitter taste receptor genes (TAS2Rs). We genotyped participants (n = 108) for putatively functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in 5 TAS2Rs and asked them to rate the bitterness of 25 mM acesulfame potassium on a general labeled magnitude scale. Consistent with prior reports, we found 2 single nucleotide polymorphisms in TAS2R31 were associated with acesulfame potassium bitterness. However, TAS2R9 alleles also predicted additional variation in acesulfame potassium bitterness. Conversely, single nucleotide polymorphisms in TAS2R4, TAS2R38, and near TAS2R16 were not significant predictors. Using 1 single nucleotide polymorphism each from TAS2R9 and TAS2R31, we modeled the simultaneous influence of these single nucleotide polymorphisms on acesulfame potassium bitterness; together, these 2 single nucleotide polymorphisms explained 13.4% of the variance in perceived bitterness. These data suggest multiple polymorphisms within TAS2Rs contribute to the ability to perceive the bitterness from acesulfame potassium.

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

Hundreds of studies have used the generalized Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) to collect intensity data. Recent work on generalized affective scales like the Labeled Affective Magnitude (LAM) scale and Labeled Hedonic Scale (LHS) suggest a substantial proportion of participants fail to use the entire range of generalized scales, marking only at the adjective labels. This categorical behavior (i.e., clustering) is not limited to affective ratings, as it is well known anecdotally among users of the gLMS. One way to stop this behavior would be to retain a generalized top anchor and cross modal orientation procedure while stripping away the internal adjectives. Several published studies have already used this variant, the generalized Visual Analog Scale (gVAS). Because there are no reports directly comparing the gVAS and gLMS head to head, we did so in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants (n=87) were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions to test effects of scaling instructions and scale structure. In Experiment 2, participants (n=58) assessed perceived ease of use and resolving power for each scale in a two-session crossover design. gLMS data showed evidence of categorical behavior, while gVAS data did not. Explicitly instructing participants to rate between adjectives did not reduce this behavior. The gLMS was easier to use according to participants, but resulted in non-normal data due to clustering near the adjective labels. gVAS data did not show categorical behavior, as there are no adjectives to cluster around, but the gVAS sacrifices semantic information about the magnitude of response. Regardless of scale type, participants felt the cross-modal orientation procedure helped them understand how to use the scale. Both scales were able to discriminate between sucrose samples in a concentration series. Relative tradeoffs between the two methods suggest the choice of one scale over the other depends on the specific goals and context of the project.