MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic variation in the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) and salt taste perception in humans

2012· article· en· W3176477555 on OpenAlexaff
Andre G. Dias, Ahmed El‐Sohemy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismTasteEpithelial sodium channelAlleleSNPGenotypeGeneticsGenetic variationTaste receptorGeneBiologySodiumFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite individual differences in salt taste sensitivity no studies have identified variations in genes that explain this variability. Our objective was to determine whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), a putative salt taste receptor with 3 subunits, modifies salt (NaCl) taste in men (n=28) and women (n=67) aged 20–35 yrs. Taste thresholds (TT) were determined using a 3 alternative forced choice staircase model with solutions ranging from 9 ×10 −6 to 0.5 mol/L. Suprathreshold taste sensitivity (STT) to 5 solutions (0.01–1 mol/L) was assessed using a general Labeled Magnitude Scale. Genotypes were extracted from an Affymetrix 6.0 chip (5 SNPs in SCNN1A; 34 SNPs in SCNN1B; 13 SNPs in SCNN1G ). A general linear model was used to compute differences between genotypes. No SNPs in the SCNN1A or SCNN1G genes modified salt taste. In the SCNN1B gene the rs9939129 (C>T) SNP modified TT (mmol/L ± SE) where carriers of the T allele detected significantly lower NaCl concentrations than CC homozygotes (2.33±0.76 vs 3.85±0.37, p=0.02). The rs239345 (A>T) SNP in this gene modified STT (iAUC ± SE) were those homozygous for the A allele perceived salt solutions less intensely than carriers of the T allele (70.82±12.16 vs. 96.95±3.75, p=0.02). Our findings indicate that variation in the SCNN1B gene modifies salt taste perception in humans. Grant Funding Source : The Advanced Food and Materials Network

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207