Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 109–117 | Cite as

Rebaudioside A and Rebaudioside D Bitterness do not Covary with Acesulfame-K Bitterness or Polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31

  • Alissa L. Allen
  • John E. McGeary
  • John E. HayesEmail author


In order to reduce calories in foods and beverages, the food industry routinely uses non-nutritive sweeteners. Unfortunately, many are synthetically derived, and many consumers have a strong preference for natural sweeteners, irrespective of the safety data on synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners. Additionally, many non-nutritive sweeteners elicit aversive side tastes, such as bitter and metallic, in addition to sweetness. Bitterness thresholds of acesulfame-K (AceK) and saccharin are known to vary across bitter taste receptor polymorphisms in TAS2R31. Rebaudioside A (RebA) has been shown to activate hTAS2R4 and hTAS2R14 in vitro. Here, we examined the bitterness and sweetness perception of natural and synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners. In a follow-up to a previous gene association study, participants (n = 122) who had been genotyped previously rated sweet, bitter, and metallic sensations from RebA, rebaudioside D (RebD), aspartame, sucrose, and gentiobiose in duplicate in a single session. For comparison, we also present sweet and bitter ratings of AceK collected in the original experiment for the same participants. At similar sweetness levels, aspartame elicited less bitterness than RebD, which was significantly less bitter than RebA. The bitterness of RebA and RebD showed wide variability across individuals, and bitterness ratings for these compounds were correlated. However, RebA and RebD bitterness did not covary with AceK bitterness. Likewise, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) shown previously to explain the variation in the suprathreshold bitterness of AceK (rs3741845 in TAS2R9 and rs10772423 in TAS2R31) did not explain the variation in RebA and RebD bitterness. Because RebA activates hT2R4 and hT2R14, an SNP in TAS2R4 previously associated with variation in bitterness perception was included here; there are no known functional SNPs for TAS2R14. In the present data, a putatively functional SNP (rs2234001) in TAS2R4 did not explain the variation in RebA or RebD bitterness. Collectively, these data indicate that the bitterness of RebA and RebD cannot be predicted by AceK bitterness, reinforcing our view that bitterness is not a simple monolithic trait that is high or low in an individual. This also implies that consumers who reject AceK may not find RebA and RebD aversive, and vice versa. Finally, RebD may be a superior natural non-nutritive sweetener to RebA, as it elicits significantly less bitterness at similar levels of sweetness.


Bitterness Non-nutritive sweetener Rebaudioside A Rebaudioside D Genetics Taste phenotype Project GIANT-CS 



This manuscript was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree at the Pennsylvania State University by the first author. The authors would like to thank Dr. Emma L. Feeney, Nadia K. Byrnes, Meghan Kane, and Rachel J. Primrose for collecting the psychophysical data and leading the training sessions, Samantha M. Bennett for the assistance with protocol development, and Kayla Beaucage for genotyping our DNA samples. We also thank our study participants for their time and participation. This work was partially supported by a National Institutes of Health grant from the National Institute National of Deafness and Communication Disorders [DC010904] to the corresponding author, United States Department of Agriculture Hatch Project PEN04332 funds, funds from the Pennsylvania State University, and a VA shared equipment grant to JEM.

Compliance with Ethics Requirements

Conflict of Interest

Alissa L. Allen declares that she has no conflict of interest.

John E. McGeary declares that he has no conflict of interest.

John E. Hayes has received speaking fees from Tate & Lyle PLC, Symrise AG, and General Mills, Inc. for unrelated projects. He also serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Medifast, Inc. None of these organizations have had any influence over study design or interpretation, or the decision to publish these results.

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. Alarcon S, Tharp A, Tharp C, Breslin PA (2008) The effect of polymorphisms in 4 hTAS2R genes on PROP bitterness perception. Chem Senses 33(8):S43Google Scholar
  2. Allen AL, McGeary JE, Hayes JE (2013) Bitterness of the non-nutritive sweetener acesulfame potassium varies with polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31. Chem Senses 38(5):379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ (1994) PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav 56(6):1165–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrnes NK, Hayes JE (2013) Personality factors predict spicy food liking and intake. Food Qual Pref 28(1):213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dotson CD, Zhang L, Xu H, Shin YK, Vigues S, Ott SH, Elson AET, Choi HJ, Shaw H, Egan JM (2008) Bitter taste receptors influence glucose homeostasis. PLoS One 3(12):e3974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dotson CD, Wallace MR, Bartoshuk LM, Logan HL (2012) Variation in the gene TAS2R13 is associated with differences in alcohol consumption in patients with head and neck cancer. Chem Senses 37(8):737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DuBois GE, Walters DE, Schiffman SS, Warwick ZS, Booth BJ, Pecore SD, Gibes K, Carr BT, Brands LM (1991) Discovery, molecular design and chemoreception. In: Walters DE, Orthoeter FT, DuBois GE (eds) Concentration–response relationships of sweeteners. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy VB, Bartoshuk LM (2000) Food acceptance and genetic variation in taste. J Am Diet Assoc 100(6):647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duffy VB, Davidson AC, Kidd JR, Kidd KK, Speed WC, Pakstis AJ, Reed DR, Snyder DJ, Bartoshuk LM (2004) Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 28(11):1629–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy VB, Hayes JE, Davidson AC, Kidd JR, Kidd KK, Bartoshuk LM (2010) Vegetable intake in college-aged adults is explained by oral sensory phenotypes and TAS2R38 genotype. Chemos Percept 3:137–148Google Scholar
  11. Ellis JW (1995) Overview of sweeteners. J Chem Educ 72(8):671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feeney E (2011) The impact of bitter perception and genotypic variation of TAS2R38 on food choice. Nutr Bull 36(1):20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Genick UK, Kutalik Z, Ledda M, Destito MCS, Souza MM, Cirillo CA, Godinot N, Martin N, Morya E, Sameshima K (2011) Sensitivity of genome-wide-association signals to phenotyping strategy: the PROP-TAS2R38 taste association as a benchmark. PLoS One 6(11):e27745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes JE (2008) Transdisciplinary perspectives on sweetness. Chemosens Percept 1(1):48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes JE, Bartoshuk LM, Kidd JR, Duffy VB (2008) Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chem Senses 33(3):255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes JE, Sullivan BS, Duffy VB (2010) Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking. Physiol Behav 100(4):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(3):311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes JE, Allen AL, Bennett SM (2013) Direct comparison of the generalized Visual Analog Scale (gVAS) and general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS). Food Qual Pref 28(1):36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helgren FJ, Lynch MJ, Kirchmeyer F (1955) A taste panel study of the saccharin “off-taste”. J Am Pharm Assoc 44(6):353–355Google Scholar
  20. Hellfritsch C, Brockhoff A, Staehler F, Meyerhof W, Hofmann T (2012) Human psychometric and taste receptor responses to steviol glycosides. J Agric Food Chem 60(27):6782–6793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horne J, Lawless HT, Speirs W, Sposato D (2002) Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame-K. Chem Senses 27(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. JECFA (2010) Steviol glycosides. Compendium of Food Additive Specifications, 73rd Meeting, FAO JECFA Monographs 10. FAO, Rome, pp 17–22Google Scholar
  23. Kamerud JK, Delwiche JF (2007) Individual differences in perceived bitterness predict liking of sweeteners. Chem Senses 32(9):803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn C, Bufe B, Winnig M, Hofmann T, Frank O, Behrens M, Lewtschenko T, Slack JP, Ward CD, Meyerhof W (2004) Bitter taste receptors for saccharin and acesulfame K. J Neurosci 24(45):10260–10265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis WH (1992) Early uses of Stevia rebaudiana (Asteraceae) leaves as a sweetener in Paraguay. Econ Bot 46(3):336–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas L, Riddell L, Liem G, Whitelock S, Keast R (2011) The influence of sodium on liking and consumption of salty food. J Food Sci 76(1):S72–S76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mennella J, Pepino MY, Duke F, Reed D (2010) Age modifies the genotype–phenotype relationship for the bitter receptor TAS2R38. BMC Genet 11(1):60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 Senses 35(2):157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ohta M, Sasa S, Inoue A, Tamai T, Fujita I, Morita K, Matsuura F (2010) Characterization of novel steviol glycosides from leaves of Stevia rebaudiana Morita. Journal of Applied Glycoscience 57:199–209Google Scholar
  30. Phillips K (1989) Stevia: steps in developing a new sweetener. In: Grenby TH (ed) Developments in sweeteners. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  31. Pronin AN, Xu H, Tang H, Zhang L, Li Q, Li X (2007) Specific alleles of bitter receptor genes influence human sensitivity to the bitterness of aloin and saccharin. Curr Biol 17(16):1403–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roudnitzky N, Bufe B, Thalmann S, Kuhn C, Gunn HC, Xing C, Crider BP, Behrens M, Meyerhof W, Wooding SP (2011) Genomic, genetic and functional dissection of bitter taste responses to artificial sweeteners. Hum Mol Genet 20(17):3437–3449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schiffman SS, Booth B, Carr B, Losee M, Sattely-Miller E, Graham B (1995a) Investigation of synergism in binary mixtures of sweeteners. Brain Res Bull 38(2):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schiffman SS, Booth BJ, Losee ML, Pecore SD, Warwick ZS (1995b) Bitterness of sweeteners as a function of concentration. Brain Res Bull 36(5):505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tepper BJ, Keller KL, Ullrich NV (2003) Genetic variation in taste and preferences for bitter and pungent foods: implications for chronic disease risk. In: Challenges in taste chemistry and biology. ACS Symposium Series, vol. 867, pp 60–74Google Scholar
  36. Wang JC, Hinrichs AL, Bertelsen S, Stock H, Budde JP, Dick DM, Bucholz KK, Rice J, Saccone N, Edenberg HJ (2007) Functional variants in TAS2R38 and TAS2R16 influence alcohol consumption in high-risk families of African-American origin. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31(2):209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wölwer-Rieck U (2012) The leaves of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni), their constituents and the analyses thereof: a review. J Agric Food Chem 60(4):886–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alissa L. Allen
    • 1
    • 2
  • John E. McGeary
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • John E. Hayes
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Sensory Evaluation Center, College of Agricultural SciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural SciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural SciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Providence Veterans Affairs Medical CenterProvidenceUSA
  5. 5.Division of Behavior GeneticsRhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  6. 6.Center for Alcohol and Addiction StudiesBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations