Search

To learn more about the mechanisms of human dietary fat perception, we asked 398 human twins to rate the fattiness and how much they liked 6 types of potato chips that differed in triglyceride content (2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 15% corn oil); reliability estimates were obtained from a subset (n = 50) who did the task twice. Some chips also had a saturated long-chain fatty acid (FA; hexadecanoic acid, 16:0) added (0.2%) to evaluate its effect on fattiness and liking. We computed the heritability of these measures and conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify regions of the genome that co-segregate with fattiness and liking. Perceived fattiness of and liking for the potato chips were reliable (r = 0.31–0.62, P < 0.05) and heritable (up to h 2 = 0.29, P < 0.001, for liking). Adding hexadecanoic acid to the potato chips significantly increased ratings of fattiness but decreased liking. Twins with the G allele of rs263429 near GATA3-AS1 or the G allele of rs8103990 within ZNF729 reported more liking for potato chips than did twins with the other allele (multivariate GWAS, P < 1 × 10–5), with results reaching genome-wide suggestive but not significance criteria. Person-to-person variation in the perception and liking of dietary fat was 1) negatively affected by the addition of a saturated FA and 2) related to inborn genetic variants. These data suggest that liking for dietary fat is not due solely to FA content and highlight new candidate genes and proteins within this sensory pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TAS2R38 is a human bitter receptor gene with a common but inactive allele; people homozygous for the inactive form cannot perceive low concentrations of certain bitter compounds. The frequency of the inactive and active forms of this receptor is nearly equal in many human populations, and heterozygotes with 1 copy of the active form and 1 copy of the inactive form have the most common diplotype. However, even though they have the same genotype, heterozygotes differ markedly in their perception of bitterness, perhaps in part because of differences in TAS2R38 mRNA expression. Other tissues express this receptor too, including the nasal sinuses, where it contributes to pathogen defense. We, therefore, wondered whether heterozygous people had a similar wide range of TAS2R38 mRNA in sinonasal tissue and whether those with higher TAS2R38 mRNA expression in taste tissue were similarly high expressers in nasal tissue. To that end, we measured gene expression by quantitative PCR in taste and sinonasal tissue and found that expression abundance in one tissue was not related to the other. We confirmed the independence of expression in other tissue pairs expressing TAS2R38 mRNA, such as pancreas and small intestine, using autopsy data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression project (although people with high expression of TAS2R38 mRNA in colon also tended to have higher expression in the small intestine). Thus, taste tissue TAS2R38 mRNA expression among heterozygotes is unlikely to predict expression in other tissues, perhaps reflecting tissue-dependent function, and hence regulation, of this protein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020–2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%–40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020–2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%–43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0–100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19−; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19− groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: −82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19−: −59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g. fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0–10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify the causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified smell loss (anosmia and hyposmia) as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss—subjective measures, such as self-reported smell loss, versus objective measures using rated stimuli—to determine if prevalence differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbances. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19 (6 objective and 28 subjective), collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4–89.2%) and 44% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 32.2–57.0%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor of the journal "Chemical Senses" acknowledges concerns about overestimating taste loss as a symptom of COVID-19. The overestimate may have been due to including studies that used unvalidated sensory tests and had biased participant selection. The authors of the letter admit to including six biased studies and have removed them from the analysis, with no change in the outcomes or conclusions. They also mention the importance of including studies with validated methods in future meta-analyses. [Extracted from the article]