Submitted:
03 April 2024
Posted:
04 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
2.2. Alcohol Intake and Behaviors
2.2.1. Diet History Questionnaire
2.2.2. AUDIT
2.3. Body Composition Testing
2.4. Genetic Analysis
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Characteristics
3.2. Allelic Distribution Among the Participants
3.3. TAS2R Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Alcohol Consumption
3.4. Testing the SNPs as a Function of AUDIT-c, Alcohol Consumption, Energy and Fat Percentage
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Riera, C.E.; Vogel, H.; Simon, S.A.; Coutre, J.L. Artificial sweeteners and salts producing a metallic taste sensation activate TRPV1 receptors. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative Comparative Physiology. 2007, 293, R626–R634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ventura, A.K.; Worobey, J. Early influences on the development of food preferences. Current biology : CB. 2013, 23, R401–R408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feeney, E.; O’Brien, S.; Scannell, A.; Markey, A.; Gibney, E.R. Genetic variation in taste perception: Does it have a role in healthy eating? The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2011, 70, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, J.E.; Feeney, E.L.; Allen, A.L. Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior? Food quality and preference. 2013, 30, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, U.K.; Jorgenson, E.; Coon, H.; Leppert, M.; Risch, N.; Drayna, D. Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2003, 299, 1221–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Library of Medicine TAS2R13 taste 2 receptor member 13 [ Homo sapiens (human)]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?Db=gene&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=50838 (accessed September 2022).
- Dotson, C.D.; Wallace, M.R.; Bartoshuk, L.M.; Logan, H.L. Variation in the gene TAS2R13 is associated with differences in alcohol consumption in patients with head and neck cancer. Chemical senses. 2012, 37, 737–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keller, K.L.; Tepper, B.J. Inherited taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil in diet and body weight in children. Obesity research. 2004, 12, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tepper, B.J.; Neilland, M.; Ullrich, N.V.; Koelliker, Y.; Belzer, L.M. Greater energy intake from a buffet meal in lean, young women is associated with the 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) non-taster phenotype. Appetite. 2011, 56, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Cancer Institute Diet History Questionnaire II (DHQ II) for U.S. & Canada. https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/dhq2/ (accessed April 2022).
- Human Resources & Services Administration AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test). https://www.hrsa.gov/behavioral-health/audit-alcohol-use-disorders-identification-test (accessed September 2021).
- Campbell, C.E.; Maisto, S.A. Validity of the AUDIT-C screen for at-risk drinking among students utilizing university primary care. Journal of American college health : J of ACH. 2018, 66, 774–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, D.; DeBenedetti, A.F.; Volk, R.J.; Williams, E.C.; Kivlahan, D.R.; Bradley, K.A. Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a screening test for alcohol misuse in three race/ethnic groups. Journal of general internal medicine. 2008, 23, 781–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allen, A.L.; McGeary, J.E.; Hayes, J.E. Polymorphisms in TRPV1 and TAS2Rs associate with sensations from sampled ethanol. Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research. 2014, 38, 2550–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bouthoorn, S.H.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Kiefte-de Jong, J.C.; Taal, H.R.; Wijtzes, A.I.; Hofman, A.; Jaddoe, V.W.; Glymour, M.M.; Rivadeneira, F.; Raat, H. Genetic taste blindness to bitter and body composition in childhood: A Mendelian randomization design. International journal of obesity (2005). 2014, 38, 1005–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
| Variables | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Gender Male Female |
62 (15.4%) 340 (84.6%) |
| Race Caucasian African American |
297 ( 73.9%) 105 (26.1%) |
| Agea | 20.2 ± 2.23 |
| amean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) | |
| Ethnicity | rs1015443 genotype | N (%) | Allele frequency | ꭓ2 | p value | European American population | African American population |
Allele frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caucasian | TT | 55 | 0.42 | 0.219 | 0.896 | 8,600 | 4,406 | 0.42 |
| CT | 141 | |||||||
| CC | 101 | 0.58 | 0.58 | |||||
| African American | TT | 55 | 0.76 | 0.034 | 0.982 | 0.78 | ||
| CT | 35 | |||||||
| CC | 5 | 0.24 | 0.22 |
| Measures | Age categories | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 18-20 years > 21 | ||||
| Q1 “How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?” | H(2) = 6.372, p value = 0.041 Pairwise test comparison Bonferroni correction TT-CT: -2.077 TT-CC: -2.315 CT-CC: -0.510 (non-significant) Effect sizes: r1 = | z | / √N= | -2.077 | / √402 = 0.10. r2 = | -2.315 | / √ 402 = 0.12. |
H(2) = 3.227, p value = 0.199 |
|||
| Q2 “How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when drinking?” | H(2) = 6.006, p value = 0.058 | H(2) = 7.760, *p value = 0.021 |
H(2) = 0.386, p value = 0.824 |
||
| Q3 “How often do you have 5 or more drinks on one occasion?” | H(2) = 7.308, p value = 0.031 Pairwise test comparison TT-CT: -1.488 TT-CC: -2.638 CT-CC: 0.926 (non-significant) Effect sizes: r1 = | z | / √N = | -1.488 | / √402 = 0.8. r2 = | -2.638 | / √ 402 = 0.13 |
H(2) = 7.528, *p value = 0.023 |
H(2) = 0.881, p value = 0.644 |
||
| Alcohol consumption per gram USDA | H(2) = 7.240, p value = 0.035 Pairwise test comparison TT-CT: -2.332 TT-CC: -2.182 CT-CC: -0.117 (non-significant) Effect sizes: r1 = | z | / √N= | -2.332 | / √402 = 0.12. r2 = | -2.182 | / √ 402 = 0.11 |
H(2) = 6.224, *p value = 0.045 |
H(2) = 2.037, p value = 0.361 |
||
| Energy from Alcohol (gram) | H(2) = 8.799, * p value = 0.012 Pairwise test comparison TT-CT: -2.440 TT-CC: -2.720 CT-CC: -0.597 (non-significant) Effect sizes: r1 = | z | / √N= | -2.440 | / √402 = 0.12. r2 = | -2.182 | / √ 402 = 0.14 |
H(2) = 7.072, p value = 0.029 |
H(2) = 3.300, p value = 0.192 |
||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).