4.5 Article

Taste disorders are partly genetically determined: Role of the TAS2R38 gene, a pilot study

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 129, 期 9, 页码 E307-E312

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.27828

关键词

Phenylthiocarbamide responsiveness; taste disorders

资金

  1. University of Cagliari

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis Taste sensitivity varies greatly among individuals influencing eating behavior and health, consequently the disorders of this sense can affect the quality of life. The ability to perceive the bitter of thiourea compounds, such as phenylthiocarbamide (PTC), has been largely reported as a marker of the general taste sensitivity, food preferences, and health. PTC sensitivity is mediated by the TAS2R38 receptor and its genetic common variants. We study the role of the TAS2R38 receptor in taste disorders with the aim of understanding if these can be genetically determined. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods Differences in the PTC responsiveness between the patients cohort and healthy controls were assessed. All subjects received standardized tests for smell and taste function and were genotyped for the TAS2R38 gene. Results PAV/PAV homozygous patients gave high PTC ratings, whereas PAV/AVI genotypes reported lower values, which are similar to those determined in AVI/AVI or rare genotypes. In addition, the patients cohort did not meet the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium at the TAS2R38 locus, showing a very low frequency of subjects carrying the PAV/AVI diplotype. Independently, in healthy controls who were in equilibrium at the locus, PAV/PAV homozygous and heterozygous rated PTC bitterness higher compared to AVI/AVI or rare genotypes. Conclusions Our findings, by showing that an only taster haplotype (PAV) is not sufficient to evoke high responses of TAS2R38 receptor in patients with taste disorders, suggest that the genetic constitution may represent a risk factor for the development of taste disorders. Level of Evidence 2c Laryngoscope, 129:E307-E312, 2019

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据