Crowdsourcing taste research: genetic and phenotypic predictors of bitter taste perception as a model

Understanding the influence of taste perception on food choice has captured the interest of academics, industry, and the general public, the latter as evidenced by the extent of popular media coverage and use of the term supertaster. Supertasters are highly sensitive to the bitter tastant propylthiouracil (PROP) and its chemical relative phenylthiocarbamide. The well-researched differences in taste sensitivity to these bitter chemicals are partially controlled by variation in the TAS2R38 gene; however, this variation alone does not explain the supertaster phenomenon. It has been suggested that density of papillae, which house taste buds, may explain supertasting. To address the unresolved role of papillae, we used crowdsourcing in the museum-based Genetics of Taste Lab. This community lab is uniquely situated to attract both a large population of human subjects and host a team of citizen scientists to research population-based questions about human genetics, taste, and health. Using this model, we find that PROP bitterness is not in any way predicted by papillae density. This result holds within the whole sample, when divided into major diplotypes, and when correcting for age, sex, and genotype. Furthermore, it holds when dividing participants into oft-used taster status groups. These data argue against the use of papillae density in predicting taste sensitivity and caution against imprecise use of the term supertaster. Furthermore, it supports a growing volume of evidence that sets the stage for hypergeusia, a reconceptualization of heightened oral sensitivity that is not based solely on PROP or papillae density. Finally, our model demonstrates how community-based research can serve as a unique venue for both study participation and citizen science that makes scientific research accessible and relevant to people’s everyday lives.

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

[2]  D. Smith,et al.  Taste intensity as a function of area and concentration: differentiation between compounds. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  G. Pickering,et al.  PERCEPTION OF MOUTHFEEL SENSATIONS ELICITED BY RED WINE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SENSITIVITY TO 6‐N‐PROPYLTHIOURACIL , 2006 .

[4]  Judith R Kidd,et al.  Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. , 2008, Chemical senses.

[5]  A. L. Fox The Relationship between Chemical Constitution and Taste. , 1932, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  D. G. Laing,et al.  Rapid quantitative assessment of fungiform papillae density in the human tongue , 2005, Brain Research.

[7]  L. Bartoshuk Sweetness : history, preference, and genetic variability , 1991 .

[8]  L. Marks,et al.  Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching , 2004, Physiology & Behavior.

[9]  D. Reed Birth of a new breed of supertaster. , 2008, Chemical senses.

[10]  B Cowart,et al.  Evaluating the 'Labeled Magnitude Scale' for measuring sensations of taste and smell. , 1996, Chemical senses.

[11]  P. Deb Finite Mixture Models , 2008 .

[12]  J. Pankow,et al.  Factors related to fungiform papillae density: the beaver dam offspring study. , 2013, Chemical senses.

[13]  A. Gelman,et al.  Splitting a Predictor at the Upper Quarter or Third and the Lower Quarter or Third , 2007 .

[14]  John E Hayes,et al.  Direct comparison of the generalized Visual Analog Scale (gVAS) and general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS). , 2013, Food quality and preference.

[15]  J. Guinard,et al.  Relation between PROP taster status and fat perception, touch, and olfaction , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[16]  J. Hayes,et al.  Two decades of supertasting: Where do we stand? , 2011, Physiology & Behavior.

[17]  B. Tepper,et al.  A paper screening test to assess genetic taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil , 2003, Physiology & Behavior.

[18]  E. Hand,et al.  Citizen science: People power , 2010, Nature.

[19]  P. Gasparini,et al.  Variation in the Bitter‐taste Receptor Gene TAS2R38, and Adiposity in a Genetically Isolated Population in Southern Italy , 2008, Obesity.

[20]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  B. Green,et al.  Measures of individual differences in taste and creaminess perception. , 2008, Chemical senses.

[22]  William F. Christensen,et al.  Predicting Presidential and Other Multistage Election Outcomes Using State-Level Pre-Election Polls , 2008 .

[23]  F. Duke,et al.  Age modifies the genotype-phenotype relationship for the bitter receptor TAS2R38 , 2010, BMC Genetics.

[24]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[25]  J. Hayes,et al.  Wine Expertise Predicts Taste Phenotype , 2012, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[26]  I. J. Miller,et al.  Quantification of fungiform papillae and taste pores in living human subjects , 1990 .

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

[28]  A. Blakeslee Genetics of Sensory Thresholds: Taste for Phenyl Thio Carbamide. , 1932, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  L. Bartoshuk,et al.  Capsaicin desensitization and recovery on the human tongue , 1991, Physiology & Behavior.

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

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

[32]  A. El-Sohemy,et al.  TAS2R38 Genotypes and Phenylthiocarbamide Bitter Taste Perception in a Population of Young Adults , 2010, Lifestyle Genomics.

[33]  Alissa L Allen,et al.  Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior? , 2013, Food quality and preference.