Human hedonic responses to sweetness: Role of taste genetics and anatomy

While past research has suggested an association between the ability to taste PROP and liking for the taste of sucrose, many aspects of this relationship remain ambiguous. To clarify this further, 60 volunteers (40 women and 20 men) were classified as PROP super-medium or non-tasters and as sweet likers or dislikers depending on hedonic and intensity ratings for PROP and sucrose. 67% of PROP super-tasters were sweet dislikers, compared to 12% of PROP non-tasters. PROP super-tasters also rated the intensity of salty and sweet tastes as greater than did non- or medium PROP tasters, but these differences in sweet intensity could not explain the group differences in sweet liking. The groups did not differ in restraint or BMI. Taste bud density was higher in PROP super-tasters and sweet dislikers than in PROP medium or non-tasters or sweet likers. Overall these data confirm that PROP super-tasters are more likely to be sweet dislikers, and that this cannot be explained as secondary to cognitive attitudes to sweetness (restraint) or enhanced sweet intensity.

[1]  H. Weingarten,et al.  Facial expressions and genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil predict hedonic response to sweet , 1992, Physiology & Behavior.

[2]  B. Tepper,et al.  Fat Perception is Related to PROP Taster Status , 1997, Physiology & Behavior.

[3]  A. Drewnowski,et al.  Genetic Sensitivity to 6-n-Propylthiouracil and Sensory Responses to Sugar and Fat Mixtures , 1998, Physiology & Behavior.

[4]  Puja Patel,et al.  Initial licking responses of mice to sweeteners: effects of tas1r3 polymorphisms. , 2005, Chemical senses.

[5]  I. J. Miller,et al.  Variations in human taste bud density and taste intensity perception , 1990, Physiology & Behavior.

[6]  Linda M. Bartoshuk,et al.  Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste , 2003 .

[7]  A. Drewnowski,et al.  Psychophysical Measurement of 6‐n‐Propylthiouracil (PROP) Taste Perception a , 1998, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[8]  B. Tepper,et al.  Influence of genetic taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP), dietary restraint and disinhibition on body mass index in middle-aged women , 2002, Physiology & Behavior.

[9]  H. Weingarten,et al.  Effects of metabolic state on sweet taste reactivity in humans depend on underlying hedonic response profile , 1991 .

[10]  D. G. Laing,et al.  Topographical differences in sweetness sensitivity in the peripheral gustatory system of adults and children. , 1994, Brain research. Developmental brain research.

[11]  S. Mobini,et al.  Hedonic and sensory characteristics of odors conditioned by pairing with tastants in humans. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[12]  J. Guinard,et al.  Relation between PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) taster status, taste anatomy and dietary intake measures for young men and women , 2002, Appetite.

[13]  S. Mobini,et al.  Hunger alters the expression of acquired hedonic but not sensory qualities of food-paired odors in humans. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[14]  Francis McGlone,et al.  Lingual tactile acuity, taste perception, and the density and diameter of fungiform papillae in female subjects , 2003, Physiology & Behavior.

[15]  J. M. Peterson,et al.  Genetic and Environmental Variation in Taste: Associations With Sweet Intensity, Preference, and Intake , 2003 .

[16]  V. Duffy,et al.  PROP (6‐n‐Propylthiouracil) Supertasters and the Saltiness of NaCl a , 1998, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[17]  A. Drewnowski,et al.  Nontasters, Tasters, and Supertasters of 6-n-Propylthiouracil (PROP) and Hedonic Response to Sweet , 1997, Physiology & Behavior.

[18]  A. Stunkard,et al.  The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. , 1985, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[19]  H. L. Jacobs,et al.  Sugar Sweetness and Pleasantness: Evidence for Different Psychological Laws , 1974, Science.

[20]  A. Drewnowski,et al.  PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine,sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. , 2001, Chemical senses.

[21]  H. Weingarten,et al.  Hedonic response of sucrose likers and dislikers to other gustatory stimuli , 1992, Physiology & Behavior.

[22]  P. Given,et al.  Chemistry of Taste: Mechanisms, Behaviors, and Mimics , 2002 .

[23]  M. Cabanac.  Physiological Role of Pleasure , 1971, Science.

[24]  Mark Leppert,et al.  Positional Cloning of the Human Quantitative Trait Locus Underlying Taste Sensitivity to Phenylthiocarbamide , 2003, Science.

[25]  Toshiko Tanaka,et al.  Diverse tastes: Genetics of sweet and bitter perception , 2006, Physiology & Behavior.

[26]  Linda M. Bartoshuk,et al.  PTC/PROP tasting: Anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects , 1994, Physiology & Behavior.

[27]  J. M. Peterson,et al.  Intensity and Preference for Sweetness is Influenced by Genetic Taste Variation , 1999 .

[28]  Linda M. Bartoshuk,et al.  Sweetness of sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone, and saccharin is related to genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil , 1983 .

[29]  J. Prescott,et al.  Responses of PROP taster groups to variations in sensory qualities within foods and beverages , 2004, Physiology & Behavior.

[30]  I. Wakeling,et al.  Binary taste mixture interactions in prop non-tasters, medium-tasters and super-tasters. , 2001, Chemical senses.

[31]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Effects of context in judgments of sweetness and pleasantness , 1979 .

[32]  Jin-Woo Chung,et al.  The relationship between phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) and 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) taster status and taste thresholds for sucrose and quinine. , 2006, Archives of oral biology.

[33]  J. Prescott,et al.  Genetic variation in taste sensitivity. , 2004 .

[34]  D. Reed,et al.  Genetic and Environmental Determinants of Bitter Perception and Sweet Preferences , 2005, Pediatrics.

[35]  J. Hayes,et al.  Sweet and bitter tastes of alcoholic beverages mediate alcohol intake in of-age undergraduates , 2005, Physiology & Behavior.

[36]  P. Breslin,et al.  Relationship of papillae number to bitter intensity of quinine and PROP within and between individuals , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[37]  Beverly J. Tepper,et al.  Development of brief methods to classify individuals by PROP taster status , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.