Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 10;11(1):129.
doi: 10.3390/nu11010129.

Quantifying Sweet Taste Liker Phenotypes: Time for Some Consistency in the Classification Criteria

Affiliations

Quantifying Sweet Taste Liker Phenotypes: Time for Some Consistency in the Classification Criteria

Vasiliki Iatridi et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Taste hedonics is a well-documented driver of food consumption. The role of sweetness in directing ingestive behavior is largely rooted in biology. One can then intuit that individual differences in sweet-liking may constitute an indicator of variations in the susceptibility to diet-related health outcomes. Despite half a century of research on sweet-liking, the best method to identify the distinct responses to sweet taste is still debated. To help resolve this issue, liking and intensity ratings for eight sucrose solutions ranging from 0 to 1 M were collected from 148 young adults (29% men). Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) revealed three response patterns: a sweet-liker (SL) phenotype characterized by a rise in liking as concentration increased, an inverted U-shaped phenotype with maximum liking at 0.25 M, and a sweet-disliker (SD) phenotype characterized by a decline in liking as a function of concentration. Based on sensitivity and specificity analyses, present data suggest the clearest discrimination between phenotypes is seen with 1.0 M sucrose, where a liking rating between -15 and +15 on a -50/+50 scale reliably distinguished individuals with an inverted U-shaped response from the SLs and the SDs. If the efficacy of this approach is confirmed in other populations, the discrimination criteria identified here can serve as the basis for a standard method for classifying sweet taste liker phenotypes in adults.

Keywords: classification method; hedonics; individual differences; sweet taste; sweetness; taste test.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

V.I. declares no conflict of interest. J.E.H. has received speaker fees, travel reimbursements, and/or consulting fees from federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, trade/commodity groups, and corporate clients in the food industry. M.R.Y has received direct research funding from numerous sources including national and international companies, as well as speaker fees, travel reimbursements, and consultancy fees from various companies, none of which impact on the work reported here. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Graphical representation of the most commonly reported sweet taste liker phenotypes. The green line corresponds to a phenotype characterized by a rise in liking with increasing sucrose concentration (e.g., sweet liker phenotype), yellow line illustrates an inverted U-shaped hedonic response as a function of sucrose concentration (e.g., inverted-U phenotype), grey line represents an insensitive response to changes in sucrose concentration, and red line corresponds to a phenotype characterized by a decline in liking as sucrose concentration increases (e.g., sweet disliker phenotype). Adapted with permission from Reference [11].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores (95% confidence interval) for liking ratings from the two taste test blocks across the different taste stimuli.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Liking ratings (mean ± standard error of the mean) as a function of sucrose solutions by the three sweet taste liker phenotypes. Ratings were averaged across the two taste test blocks. The response pattern for the sweet liker phenotype is displayed with a dotted line, the response pattern of inverted U-shaped phenotype with a solid line, and the response pattern of sweet disliker phenotype with a dashed line. Different colors denote the different ranges of liking ratings for 1 M sucrose which, according to the relevant sensitivity and specificity checks (see Table 2 and Table 3 for details), could be used for the reliable discrimination between the three distinct sweet taste liker phenotypes: green color corresponds to the range of liking ratings for 1 M sucrose representing sweet likers, yellow color indicates the hedonic response spectrum to 1 M sucrose characteristic of the inverted U-shaped phenotype, and red color corresponds to the range of liking ratings for 1 M sucrose for sweet dislikers.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Intensity ratings (mean ± standard error of the mean) as a function of sucrose solutions by the three sweet taste liker phenotypes. Ratings are averaged across the two taste test blocks. The intensity curve of the sweet liker phenotype is displayed with a dotted line, the intensity curve of the inverted U-shaped phenotype with a solid line, and the intensity curve of the sweet disliker phenotype with a dashed line.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Individual ratings of liking as a function of perceived intensity for the sweet taste stimuli in (a) sweet likers, (b) individuals exhibiting an inverted U-shaped hedonic response, and (c) sweet dislikers. Lines represent the average ratings across individuals classified within each phenotype.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of the distribution of sweet taste liker phenotypes in our study sample when different classification methods were used. Method 2 (rating the 1 M sucrose solution or not as the most pleasant) and Method 3 (rating the 0.5 M sucrose solution higher than 0 or not) were, by definition, limited to a two-response group phenotyping outcome (binomial distribution), while HCA method (rating the 1 M sucrose solutions higher than +15, lower than −15, or between −15 and +15) allowed for the identification of three distinct sweet taste liker phenotypes. 133 participants (77.4%) versus 27 (18.5%) were classified as SDs and 108 participants (74.0%) versus 46 (31.5%) were classified as SLs when Method 2 and Method 3 were contrasted with the method we proposed here (HCA method), respectively. Different colors of the stacked columns and the associated data labels (numbers) correspond to the number of participants classified into the phenotype of the same color when the HCA method was used. Data labels (numbers) within each column add up to the total number of participants classified into the phenotype illustrated at the upper end of the relevant column. Asterisks (*/**) denote alternatives to our definition for SLs and SDs. SDs, sweet dislikers; SLs, sweet likers.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Berridge K.C. Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 1996;20:1–25. doi: 10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-B. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Graaf C., Boesveldt S. The chemical senses and nutrition: The role of taste and smell in the regulation of food intake. In: Tepper B., Yeomans M., editors. Flavor, Satiety and Food Intake. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Chichester, UK: Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2017.
    1. Finlayson G., Dalton M. Hedonics of Food Consumption: Are Food ‘Liking’ and ‘Wanting’ Viable Targets for Appetite Control in the Obese? Curr. Obes. Rep. 2012;1:42–49. doi: 10.1007/s13679-011-0007-2. - DOI
    1. Duffy V.B. Variation in oral sensation: Implications for diet and health. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2007;23:171–177. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e3280147d50. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hayes J. Measuring sensory perception in relation to consumer behavior. In: Delarue J., Lawlor B., Rogeaux M., editors. Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques. Woodhead Publishing; Cambridge, UK: 2015. pp. 53–69.

LinkOut - more resources