Bitter taste sensitivity, food intake, and risk of malignant cancer in the UK Women’s Cohort Study
There is variability in sensitivity to bitter tastes. Taste 2 Receptor (TAS2R)38 binds to bitter tastants including phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Many foods with putative cancer preventive activity have bitter tastes. We examined the relationship between PTC sensitivity or TAS2R38 diplotype, food intake, and cancer risk in the UK Women’s Cohort Study.
PTC taste phenotype (n = 5500) and TAS238 diplotype (n = 750) were determined in a subset of the cohort. Food intake was determined using a 217-item food-frequency questionnaire. Cancer incidence was obtained from the National Health Service Central Register. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.
PTC tasters [HR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04, 1.62], but not supertasters (HR 0.98, CI 0.76, 1.44), had increased cancer risk compared to nontasters. An interaction was found between phenotype and age for supertasters (p = 0.019) but not tasters (p = 0.54). Among women > 60 years, tasters (HR 1.40, CI 1.03, 1.90) and supertasters (HR 1.58, CI 1.06, 2.36) had increased cancer risk compared to nontasters, but no such association was observed among women ≤ 60 years (tasters HR 1.16, CI 0.84, 1.62; supertasters HR 0.54, CI 0.31, 0.94). We found no association between TAS2R38 diplotype and cancer risk. We observed no major differences in bitter fruit and vegetable intake.
These results suggest that the relationship between PTC taster phenotype and cancer risk may be mediated by factors other than fruit and vegetable intake.
KeywordsBitter taste perception Cancer Food choice Epidemiology
Body mass index
95% confidence interval
Taste 2 receptor 38
United Kingdom Women’s Cohort Study
We thank the participants who took part in the UK Women’s Cohort Study, Mr. Neil Hancock for his contributions to data management for the cohort, previous cohort team members who contributed to data collection, and Ms. Yashvee Dunneram for advice regarding data analysis. The cohort was supported by funding from the World Cancer Research Fund (to JEC). JDL received support from the United States Department of Agriculture Hatch Program (Project No. 4565).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 8.des Gachons CP, Beauchamp GK, Breslin PAS (2009) The genetics of bitterness and pungency detection and its impact on phytonutrient evaluation. In: Finger TE (ed) International symposium on olfaction and taste. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, p 140–144Google Scholar
- 22.Yamaki M, Saito H, Isono K, Goto T, Shirakawa H, Shoji N, Satoh-Kuriwada S, Sasano T, Okada R, Kudoh K, Motoi F, Unno M, Komai M (2017) Genotyping analysis of bitter-taste receptor genes TAS2R38 and TAS2R46 in Japanese patients with gastrointestinal cancers. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo) 63:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Carrai M, Steinke V, Vodicka P, Pardini B, Rahner N, Holinski-Feder E, Morak M, Schackert HK, Gorgens H, Stemmler S, Betz B, Kloor M, Engel C, Buttner R, Naccarati A, Vodickova L, Novotny J, Stein A, Hemminki K, Propping P, Forsti A, Canzian F, Barale R, Campa D (2011) Association between TAS2R38 gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk: a case-control study in two independent populations of Caucasian origin. PLoS One 6:e20464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Spence M, Cade JE, Burley VJ, Greenwood DC (2002) Ability of the UK Women’s Cohort Food frequency questionnaire to rank dietary intakes: a preliminary validation study. Proc Nutr Soc 61:117AGoogle Scholar
- 30.Rose D, Pevalin D, O’Reilly K (2005) The national statistics socio-economic classification: origins, development and use. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireGoogle Scholar
- 31.Holland B, Welch AA, Unwin ID, Buss DH, Paul AA, Southgate DAT (1991) McCance & Widdowson’s the composition of foods. Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 43.Diallo A, Deschasaux M, Latino-Martel P, Hercberg S, Galan P, Fassier P, Alles B, Gueraud F, Pierre FH, Touvier M (2017) Red and processed meat intake and cancer risk: results from the prospective NutriNet-Sante cohort study. Int J Cancer 142:230–237Google Scholar
- 52.Snyder DJ, Duffy VB, Marino SE, Bartoshuk LM (2008) We are what we eat, but why? Relationships between oral sensation, genetics, pathology, and diet. In: Weerasinghe DK, DuBois GE (eds) Sweetness and sweeteners—biology, chemistry, and psychophysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 258–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar