FNS  Vol.6 No.9 , June 2015
Effect of Miraculin on Sweet and Sour Tastes Evoked by Mixed Acid Solutions
Abstract: Miraculin is a glycoprotein, and it changes the perceived quality and intensity of tastes (especially, sourness and sweetness). The oral application of miraculin in a high concentration elicits a strong sweetness for sour tastants. However, the mixing of different tastants increases or decreases the intensity of the taste elicited in comparison with the intensities elicited by the individual sour tastants. The synergy between different (e.g., sweetness and sourness) or similar taste qualities can be responsible for the changes in the perceived taste intensities. Despite the characteristics of miraculin and the sour tastant mixtures, the effects of miraculin on mixed acid solutions are still unknown. The goals of this study were to assess the following: 1) the intensities of the sourness and sweetness of mixed acid solutions before and after the oral application of miraculin and 2) the intensity of the sweetness of the mixed acid solutions after the oral application of miraculin. For twenty healthy young adults, sensory evaluation experiments examined the perceived intensities of taste (sweetness, sourness, and astringency) and the overall odor of six organic acid solutions (2.3 × 10–2 M of citric acid and three-binary and two-trinary mixtures including citric acid that ranged from 2.24 to 2.48 in average pH). The application of miraculin elicited sufficient sweetness, but it did not show statistically significant differences in the intensities of sweetness among the six acid solutions. Except for the sweetness, all of the four sensory items exhibited significant changes among the six solutions both before and after the application of miraculin, while the average scores for these items did not correlate with the average solution pH values. These results suggest that the binary and trinary mixed acid solutions affect the sourness both before and after the oral application of miraculan; however, there was no effect on the sweetness.
Cite this paper: Endo, C. , Hirata, A. , Takami, A. , Ashida, I. and Miyaoka, Y. (2015) Effect of Miraculin on Sweet and Sour Tastes Evoked by Mixed Acid Solutions. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 6, 757-764. doi: 10.4236/fns.2015.69078.

[1]   Cagan, R.H. (1973) Chemostimulatory Protein: A New Type of Taste Stimulus. Science, 181, 32-35.

[2]   Theerasilp, S., Hitotsuya, H., Nakajo, S., Nakaya, K., Nakamura, Y. and Kurihara, Y. (1989) Complete Amino Acid Sequence and Structure Characterization of the Taste-Modifying Protein, Miraculin. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 264, 6655-6659.

[3]   Ganzevles, P.G. and Kroeze, J.H. (1987) Effects of Adaptation and Cross-Adaptation to Common Ions on Sourness Intensity. Physiology & Behavior, 40, 641-646.

[4]   Pangborn, R.M. (1960) Taste Interrelationships. Food Science, 25, 245-256.

[5]   Sjöström, L.B. and Cairncross, S.E. (1953) Role of Sweeteners in Food Flavor. Advances in Chemistry Series, 108- 113.

[6]   Bartoshuk, L.M. and Cleveland, C.T. (1977) Mixtures of Substances with Similar Tastes. A Test of a Psychophysical Model of Taste Mixture Interactions. Sens Processes, 1, 177-186.

[7]   Moskowitz, H.R. (1974) Sourness of Acid Mixtures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 640-647.

[8]   MBerry: Makes Life Sweeter.

[9]   Igarashi, G., Higuchi, R., Yamazaki, T., Ito, N., Ashida, I. and Miyaoka, Y. (2013) Differential Sweetness of Commercial Sour Liquids Elicited by Miracle Fruit in Healthy Young Adults. Food Science and Technology International, 19, 243-249.

[10]   Pfaffmann, C., Bartoshuk, L.M. and Mcburney, D.H. (1971) Taste Psycophysics. In: Beidler, L.M., Ed., Handbook of Sensory Physiologt, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 75-101.

[11]   Pangborn, R.M. (1963) Relative Taste Intensities of Selected Sugars and Organic Acids. Food Science, 28, 726-733.

[12]   Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. (1999) Discrimination Testing. In: Lawless, H.T., Ed., Sensory Evaluation of Food, Aspen Publication, Gaithersburg, 116-139.

[13]   Weathington, B.L., Cunningham, C.J.L. and Pittenger, D.J. (2012) Appendix B: Statistical Tables. In: Weathington, B.L., Cunningham, C.J.L. and Pittenger, D.J., Eds., Understanding Business Research, Wiley & Sons. Inc., Canada, 435-483.

[14]   Richards, T.W. (1900) The Relation of the Taste of Acids to Their Degree of Dissociation, II. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 4, 207-211.

[15]   Hahn, H. and Ulbrich, L. (1948) Eine systematische Untersuchung der Geschmacksschwellen. Pflugers Arch Gesamte Pflügers Archiv für die Gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, 250, 357-384.

[16]   Bartoshuk, L.M., Gentile, R.L., Molkowitz, H.R. and Meiselman, H.L. (1974) Sweet Taste Induced by Miracle Fruit (Synsepalum dulcificum). Physiology & Behavior, 12, 449-456.

[17]   Hellekant, G., Hagstrom, E.C., Kasahara, Y. and Zotterman, Y. (1974) On the Gustatory Effects of Miraculin and Gymnemic Acid in the Monkey. Chemical Senses and Flavor, 1, 137-145.

[18]   Sowalsky, R.A. and Noble, A.C. (1998) Comparison of the Effects of Concentration, pH and Anion Species on Astringency and Sourness of Organic Acids. Chemical Senses, 23, 343-349.

[19]   Fontoin, H., Saucier, C., Teissedre, P.L. and Glories, Y. (2008) Effect of pH, Ethanol and Acidity on Astringency and Bitterness of Grape Seed Tannin Oligomers in Model Wine Solution. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 286-291.

[20]   Garcia-Medina, M.R. (1981) Flavor-Odor Taste Interactions in Solutions of Acetic Acid and Coffee. Chemical Senses, 6, 13-22.

[21]   Gillan, D.J. (1983) Taste-Taste, Odor-Odor, and Taste-Odor Mixtures: Greater Suppression within than between Modalities. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 183-185.

[22]   Breslin, P.A.S. (2000) Human Gustation. In: Finger, T.E., Silver, W.L. and Restrepo, D., Eds., The Neurobiology of Taste and Smell, Wiley-Liss, Inc., New York, 423-461.

[23]   Lawless, H. and Schlegel, M.P. (1984) Direct and Indirect Scaling of Sensory Differences in Simple Taste and Odor Mixtures. Journal of Food Science, 49, 44-46.