Advertisement

Detection thresholds for quinine, PTC, and PROP measured using taste strips

  • Annachiara CavazzanaEmail author
  • Antti Knaapila
  • Florian Roßkopf
  • Pengfei Han
  • Thomas Hummel
Rhinology
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

In clinical practice, when ability to perceive bitter taste is studied, quinine is preferred to phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) and 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) as taste stimulus, because many subjects are genetically non-tasters for PTC/PROP. However, it is poorly known how sensitive anterior (front) and posterior (back) parts of the tongue are to different bitter tastants that are detected by different bitter taste receptors (TAS2Rs). In the present study, we aimed to characterize sensitivity to bitter taste at front and back parts of tongue.

Methods

We measured thresholds for quinine, PTC, and PROP using the “taste strips”, employing seven concentrations of each stimulus both at front and back parts of tongue in 203 healthy participants (56% females, mean age 28 years).

Results

Our data confirmed the hypothesis that the inability to perceive quinine was less frequent than the inability to perceive PTC and PROP: People can still perceive the bitter taste of quinine even if they are “non-tasters” for PROP/PTC. As expected, strong correlations between PTC and PROP thresholds were observed. Interestingly, correlations between thresholds for quinine and PTC/PROP also emerged. Overall, the detection thresholds were lower when measured at front part of the tongue.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that determining taster status for quinine using paper “taste strips”, applied to front part of the tongue, represents a suitable method for the screening for ageusia for bitter taste.

Keywords

Taste threshold Quinine Phenylthiocarbamide 6-n-Propylthiouracil Clinical assessment 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to TH (DFG HU 411/18-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

405_2018_5266_MOESM1_ESM.sav (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (SAV 22 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Sternini C (2007) Taste receptors in the gastrointestinal tract. IV. Functional implications of bitter taste receptors in gastrointestinal chemosensing. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 292:G457–G461.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00411.2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adler E, Hoon MA, Mueller KL, Chandrashekar J, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS (2000) A novel family of mammalian taste receptors. Cell 100:693–702.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80705-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matsunami H, Montmayeur JP, Buck LB (2000) A family of candidate taste receptors in human and mouse. Nature 404:601–604.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35007072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drayna D (2005) Human taste genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 6:217–235.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.6.080604.162340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoppu U, Knaapila A, Laaksonen O, Sandell M (2016) Genetic basis of flavor sensitivity and food preferences. Flavor: from food to behaviors. Wellbeing Health.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100295-7.00010-4 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bufe B, Breslin PAS, Kuhn C, Reed DR, Tharp CD, Slack JP et al (2005) The molecular basis of individual differences in phenylthiocarbamide and propylthiouracil bitterness perception. Curr Biol 15:322–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes JE, Bartoshuk LM, Kidd JR, Duffy VB (2008) Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chem Senses 33:255–265.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjm084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen L, de Moor C, Eisenberg P, Ming EE, Hu H (2007) Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: incidence and impact on patient quality of life at community oncology settings. Support Care Cancer 15:497–503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-006-0173-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox AL (1932) The relationship between chemical constitution and taste. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 18:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall MJ, Bartoshuk LM, Cain WS, Stevens JC (1975) PTC taste blindness and the taste of caffeine. Nature 253:442–443.  https://doi.org/10.1038/253442a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ (1994) PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(94)90361-1 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartoshuk LM (2000) Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chem Senses 25:447–460.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/25.4.447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox A (1931) Six in ten “tasteblind” to bitter chemical. Sci News Lett 9:249Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delwiche JF, Buletic Z, Breslin P (2001) Covariation in individuals’ sensitivities to bitter compounds: evidence supporting multiple receptor/transduction mechanisms. Percept Psychophys 63:761–776.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gent JF, Bartoshuk LM (1983) Sweetness of sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone, and saccharin is related to genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil. Chem Senses 7:265–272.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/7.3-4.265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lawless HT (1980) A comparison of different methods used to assess sensitivity to the PTC. Chem senses 5:256–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leach EJ, Noble AC (1986) Comparison of bitterness of caffeine and quinine by a time–intensity procedure. Chem Senses 11:339–345.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/11.3.339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang WI, Chung JW, Kim YK, Chung SC, Kho HS (2006) The relationship between phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) and 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) taster status and taste thresholds for sucrose and quinine. Arch Oral Biol 51:427–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2005.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartoshuk LM (1979) Bitter taste of saccharin related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil. Science 205:934–935.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.472717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frank RA, Korchmar DL (1985) Gustatory processing differences in PTC tasters and non-tasters: a reaction time analysis. Physiol Behav 35:239–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(85)90343-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mela DJ (1989) Bitter taste intensity: the effect of tastant and thiourea taster status. Chem Senses 14:131–135.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/14.1.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schifferstein HNJ, Frijters JER (1991) The perception of the taste of KCl, NaCl, and quinine HCl is not related to PROP sensitivity. Chem Senses 16:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yokomukai Y, Cowart BJ, Beauchamp GK (1993) Individual differences in sensitivity to bitter-tasting substances. Chem Senses 18:669–681.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/18.6.669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer R, Griffin F (1963) Quinine dimorphism: a cardinal determinant of taste sensitivity. Nature 200:343–347.  https://doi.org/10.1038/200343a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawless H (1979) The taste of creatine and creatinine. Chem Senses 4:249–258.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/4.3.249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schiffman SS, Gatlin LA, Frey AE, Heiman SA, Stagner WC, Cooper DC (1994) Taste perception of bitter compounds in young and elderly persons: relation to lipophilicity of bitter compounds. Neurobiol Aging 15:743–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-4580(94)90057-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keast RSJ, Roper J (2007) A complex relationship among chemical concentration, detection threshold, and suprathreshold intensity of bitter compounds. Chem Senses 32:245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjl052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henkin RI, Christiansen RL (1967) Taste localization on the tongue, palate, and pharynx of normal man. J Appl Physiol 22:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sato K, Endo S, Tomita H (2002) Sensitivity of three loci on the tongue and soft palate to four basic tastes in smokers and non-smokers. Acta Otolaryngol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480260046445 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nordin S, Brämerson A, Bringlöv E, Kobal G, Hummel T, Bende M (2007) Substance and tongue-region specific loss in basic taste-quality identification in elderly adults. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 264:285–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0169-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meyerhof W, Batram C, Kuhn C, Brockhoff A, Chudoba E, Bufe B et al (2009) The molecular receptive ranges of human TAS2R bitter taste receptors. Chem Senses 35:157–170.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjp092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mueller C, Kallert S, Renner B, Stiassny K, Temmel AFP, Hummel T et al (2003) Quantitative assessment of gustatory function in a clinical context using impregnated “taste strips”. Rhinology 41:2–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12677732
  33. 33.
    Landis BN, Welge-Luessen A, Brämerson A, Bende M, Mueller CA, Nordin S et al (2009) “Taste Strips”—a rapid, lateralized, gustatory bedside identification test based on impregnated filter papers. J Neurol 256:242–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-0088-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reed DR, Zhu G, Breslin PAS, Duke FF, Henders AK, Campbell MJ et al (2010) The perception of quinine taste intensity is associated with common genetic variants in a bitter receptor cluster on chromosome 12. Hum Mol Genet 19:4278–4285.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddq324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hayes JE, Keast RSJ (2011) Two decades of supertasting: where do we stand? Physiol Behav 104:1072–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste ClinicTechnical University of DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Food and NutritionUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations