Advertisement

Bitter taste sensitivity, food intake, and risk of malignant cancer in the UK Women’s Cohort Study

  • Joshua D. Lambert
  • Sarah R. VanDusen
  • Jennie E. Cockroft
  • Elizabeth C. Smith
  • Darren C. Greenwood
  • Janet E. Cade
Original Contribution

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the relationship between PTC taster phenotype and cancer risk may be mediated by factors other than fruit and vegetable intake.

Keywords

Bitter taste perception Cancer Food choice Epidemiology 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

CI

95% confidence interval

FFQ

Food-frequency questionnaire

GI

Gastrointestinal tract

HR

Hazard ratio

OR

Odds ratio

PROP

6-Propylthioluracil

PTC

Phenylthiocarbamide

SES

Socio-economic status

TAS2R38

Taste 2 receptor 38

UKWCS

United Kingdom Women’s Cohort Study

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

394_2018_1772_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 KB)
394_2018_1772_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 KB)
394_2018_1772_MOESM3_ESM.pptx (166 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PPTX 165 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Lund EK, Belshaw NJ, Elliott GO, Johnson IT (2011) Recent advances in understanding the role of diet and obesity in the development of colorectal cancer. Proc Nutr Soc 70:194–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kerr J, Anderson C, Lippman SM (2017) Physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet, and cancer: an update and emerging new evidence. Lancet Oncol 18:e457–e471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turati F, Rossi M, Pelucchi C, Levi F, La Vecchia C (2015) Fruit and vegetables and cancer risk: a review of southern European studies. Br J Nutr 113(Suppl 2):S102–S110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodriguez-Casado A (2016) The health potential of fruits and vegetables phytochemicals: notable examples. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56:1097–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domingo JL, Nadal M (2017) Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: a review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food Chem Toxicol 105:256–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feeney E, O’Brien S, Scannell A, Markey A, Gibney ER (2011) Genetic variation in taste perception: does it have a role in healthy eating? Proc Nutr Soc 70:135–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D (1998) Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 98:1118–1126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C (2000) Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72:1424–1435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basson MD, Bartoshuk LM, Dichello SZ, Panzini L, Weiffenbach JM, Duffy VB (2005) Association between 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and colonic neoplasms. Dig Dis Sci 50:483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akella GD, Henderson SA, Drewnowski A (1997) Sensory acceptance of Japanese green tea and soy products is linked to genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Nutr Cancer 29:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen JL, Reed DR, Wright MJ, Martin NG, Breslin PA (2006) Heritability and genetic covariation of sensitivity to PROP, SOA, quinine HCl, and caffeine. Chem Senses 31:403–413CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drewnowski A (1997) Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 17:237–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Shore AB (1997) Taste responses to naringin, a flavonoid, and the acceptance of grapefruit juice are related to genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Am J Clin Nutr 66:391–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lucchina LA, Curtis VOF, Putnam P, Drewnowski A, Prutkin JM, Bartoshuk LM (1998) Psychophysical measurement of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) taste perception. Ann NY Acad Sci 855:816–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandrashekar J, Mueller KL, Hoon MA, Adler E, Feng L, Guo W, Zuker CS, Ryba NJ (2000) T2Rs function as bitter taste receptors. Cell 100:703–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andres-Barquin PJ, Conte C (2004) Molecular basis of bitter taste: the T2R family of G protein-coupled receptors. Cell Biochem Biophys 41:99–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyerhof W, Batram C, Kuhn C, Brockhoff A, Chudoba E, Bufe B, Appendino G, Behrens M (2010) The molecular receptive ranges of human TAS2R bitter taste receptors. Chem Sens 35:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim U-k, Jorgenson E, Coon H, Leppert M, Risch N, Drayna D (2003) Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science 299:1221–1225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drewnowski A, Rock CL (1995) The influence of genetic taste markers on food acceptance. Am J Clin Nutr 62:506–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dinehart ME, Hayes JE, Bartoshuk LM, Lanier SL, Duffy VB (2006) Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness, bitterness, and intake. Physiol Behav 87:304–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Choi JH, Lee J, Oh JH, Chang HJ, Sohn DK, Shin A, Kim J (2017) Variations in the bitterness perception-related genes TAS2R38 and CA6 modify the risk for colorectal cancer in Koreans. Oncotarget 8:21253–21265PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choi JH, Lee J, Choi IJ, Kim YW, Ryu KW, Kim J (2016) Genetic variation in the TAS2R38 bitter taste receptor and gastric cancer risk in Koreans. Sci Rep 6:26904CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Schembre SM, Cheng I, Wilkens LR, Albright CL, Marchand le L (2013) Variations in bitter-taste receptor genes, dietary intake, and colorectal adenoma risk. Nutr Cancer 65:982–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cade J, Burley V, Greenwood D (2004) The UK Women’s Cohort Study: comparison of vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters. Public Health Nutr 7:871–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J (1996) Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem Senses 21:323–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Rose D, Pevalin D, O’Reilly K (2005) The national statistics socio-economic classification: origins, development and use. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Ly A, Drewnowski A (2001) PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine,sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Chem Sens 26:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tepper BJ, Nurse RJ (1998) PROP taster status is related to fat perception and preference. Ann NY Acad Sc 855:802–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Methven L, Allen VJ, Withers CA, Gosney MA (2012) Ageing and taste. Proc Nutr Soc 71:556–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koskinen S, Kalviainen N, Tuorila H (2003) Perception of chemosensory stimuli and related responses to flavored yogurts in the young and elderly. Food Qual Prefer 14:623–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsuji M, Nakamura K, Tamai Y, Wada K, Sahashi Y, Watanabe K, Ohtsuchi S, Ando K, Nagata C (2012) Relationship of intake of plant-based foods with 6-n-propylthiouracil sensitivity and food neophobia in Japanese preschool children. Eur J Clin Nutr 66:47–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burd C, Senerat A, Chambers E, Keller KL (2013) PROP taster status interacts with the built environment to influence children’s food acceptance and body weight status. Obesity (Silver Spring) 21:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ullrich NV, Touger-Decker R, O’Sullivan-Maillet J, Tepper BJ (2004) PROP taster status and self-perceived food adventurousness influence food preferences. J Am Diet Assoc 104:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Hann CS, Berg WA, Ruffin MT (2000) Genetic taste markers and preferences for vegetables and fruit of female breast care patients. J Am Diet Assoc 100:191–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yackinous CA, Guinard JX (2002) Relation between PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) taster status, taste anatomy and dietary intake measures for young men and women. Appetite 38:201–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Navarro-Allende A, Khataan N, El-Sohemy A (2008) Impact of genetic and environmental determinants of taste with food preferences in older adults. J Nutr Elder 27:267–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pollard J, Greenwood D, Kirk S, Cade J (2002) Motivations for fruit and vegetable consumption in the UK Women’s Cohort Study. Public Health Nutr 5:479–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    Wu J, Zeng R, Huang J, Li X, Zhang J, Ho JC, Zheng Y (2016) Dietary protein sources and incidence of breast cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Nutrients 8:730CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guo J, Wei W, Zhan L (2015) Red and processed meat intake and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151:191–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cade JE, Burley VJ, Warm DL, Thompson RL, Margetts BM (2004) Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation. Nutr Res Rev 17:5–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brunner E, Stallone D, Juneja M, Bingham S, Marmot M (2001) Dietary assessment in Whitehall II: comparison of 7 d diet diary and food-frequency questionnaire and validity against biomarkers. Br J Nutr 86:405–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wooding S, Gunn H, Ramos P, Thalmann S, Xing C, Meyerhof W (2010) Genetics and bitter taste responses to goitrin, a plant toxin found in vegetables. Chem Sens 35:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hayes JE, Bartoshuk LM, Kidd JR, Duffy VB (2008) Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chem Senses 33:255–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hayes JE, Wallace MR, Knopik VS, Herbstman DM, Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB (2011) Allelic variation in TAS2R bitter receptor genes associates with variation in sensations from and ingestive behaviors toward common bitter beverages in adults. Chem Senses 36:311–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ (1994) PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav 56:1165–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 53.
    Behrens M, Foerster S, Staehler F, Raguse JD, Meyerhof W (2007) Gustatory expression pattern of the human TAS2R bitter receptor gene family reveals a heterogenous population of bitter responsive taste receptor cells. J Neurosci 27:12630–12640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food ScienceThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Molecular Toxicology and CarcinogenesisThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Nutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and NutritionUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  4. 4.School of Biology, Faculty of Biological SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  5. 5.Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine and HealthUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations