Next Article in Journal
Association Between Orthorexia and Plant-Based Diets—Is There a Vicious Cycle?
Next Article in Special Issue
Luminal Sweet Sensing and Enteric Nervous System Participate in Regulation of Intestinal Glucose Transporter, GLUT2
Previous Article in Journal
Branched-Chain Amino Acids and Inflammation Management in Endurance Sports: Molecular Mechanisms and Practical Implications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Smell and Taste Impairments in Head and Neck Cancer Patients—A Scoping Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review

Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, The University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2025, 17(8), 1336; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336
Submission received: 15 January 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 10 April 2025 / Published: 12 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Interaction Between Flavor and Diet)

Abstract

:
Taste sensation is at the intersection of nutrition and health. Our food choices are shaped by the foods we like, but our dietary habits can, in turn, influence how we sense food. This phenomenon, known as diet-induced taste plasticity, has received renewed attention as a tool for designing healthier foods and retraining eating habits. This review synthesizes emerging data from humans and model organisms to characterize how dietary environments shape taste sensation while exploring its underlying molecular and physiological mechanisms. Although there is still so much to discover about this phenomenon, accumulating evidence suggests an inverse relationship between a tastant concentration and the ability of the organism to respond to it. The effects largely depend on diet, but body weight changes play a role in specific dietary settings. Several mechanisms are at play, including receptor abundance and function, neuroendocrine signaling, gene expression, and neuroinflammation. Many open questions on mechanisms remain, including the concentration and times of exposure for effects to manifest and the consequences for nutrition and health. Beyond mechanisms, future research should explore strategies to leverage taste adaptation for healthier food design.

1. Introduction

The chemosensory system of taste enables organisms to detect and differentiate chemical compounds in their environment, guiding dietary choices essential for survival. A key function of the gustatory system is to distinguish nutrient-rich foods from harmful substances. Far from being static, taste sensation is shaped by a variety of physiological and environmental factors, including metabolism, age, and disease [1,2,3,4,5].
Among these factors, diet-induced taste plasticity—the ability of the taste system to change with diverse dietary environments—is significant for nutrition and health, allowing organisms to efficiently use available food resources, especially when these become scarce. One striking example is found in insects that adapt to dietary deterrents. For instance, certain insects reared on a diet containing bitter plant-derived deterrents such as strychnine exhibit reduced responses to the bitter compounds and an increased acceptance of a bitter-containing diet [6,7,8,9,10]. A similar phenomenon has been observed in wild rodents, which respond differently to bitter compounds depending on their habitat [11].
While these adaptations to bitter compounds illustrate how dietary exposure can shape taste sensation in response to environmental constraints, a similar form of diet-induced taste plasticity occurs with macronutrient-rich foods, particularly those high in fat and sugar. Given the strong relationship between a high-calorie diet and weight gain, much of the research in this area has examined taste alterations in the context of diet-induced obesity. Obese individuals and animal models often exhibit blunted taste responses, particularly to sweet and fatty stimuli, and many studies have primarily examined taste alteration as a result of weight changes [12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, accumulating evidence suggests that dietary experience itself is also a driver of taste plasticity independently of weight changes. Studies in both animal models and humans indicate that exposure to diets high in fat and sugar reduces taste sensitivity, even in the absence of significant weight gain. For instance, chronic consumption of a high-fat or sugar diet leads to a diminished taste sensation, even in models where weight gain was genetically or pharmacologically inhibited [18,19,20].
Understanding how dietary environments shape taste and feeding behavior is key to designing interventions that encourage healthier eating habits and combat diet-related diseases. Food manufacturers could leverage the plasticity of the taste system to develop products that align sensory experiences with health goals. For instance, creating appealing foods with reduced sugar and salt content could help individuals “retrain” their taste preferences toward healthier choices. Public communication emphasizing the adaptability of the taste system could further empower individuals to adopt sustainable dietary habits.
This review synthesizes recent research from model organisms and humans on how dietary environments affect taste plasticity. It also explores open questions, including the molecular mechanisms driving taste plasticity, the interplay between inflammation and sensory adaptation, and the epigenetic regulation of the gustatory system.

2. Anatomy of Taste System

Taste is a critical sensory system that guides feeding behaviors in mammals and insects. Despite their evolutionary divergence, these two groups exhibit similarities in detecting and processing taste stimuli, even though their taste systems are structurally and molecularly distinct.
In mammals, taste is mediated by taste receptor cells (TRC), which continuously regenerate every 10–14 days [21,22]. These cells are housed within taste buds primarily located on the tongue. Taste buds are distributed among three main types of papillae: fungiform (anterior tongue), circumvallate (posterior tongue), and foliate (lateral tongue). These taste buds contain multiple TRCs that respond to distinct taste modalities—sweet, umami, bitter, sour, and salty—each activating specific intracellular signaling pathways. Sweet, umami, and bitter tastes are detected by G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) of the T1R and T2R families, initiating intracellular signaling transduction by stimulating gustducin, which activates downstream cascades, including Phospholipase Cβ2 (PLCβ2) [23,24]. Sour taste is mediated by proton-sensitive channels, and salty taste involves epithelial sodium channels [24,25,26]. In addition to the five basic taste modalities, fat sensation is also recognized as a distinct taste modality, involving specific receptors that detect free fatty acids [18,27]. These signals are transmitted to the brain via afferent nerves, including the chorda tympani and glossopharyngeal nerves, which project to the nucleus of the solitary tract in the brainstem [22].
In contrast, insects rely on gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs), which are housed within sensilla found on multiple sites, including the proboscis, legs, and wings [28,29,30]. Unlike mammalian TRCs, which are renewed continuously, insect GRNs are terminally differentiated and do not undergo continual replacement. Insect taste receptors expressed in GRNs belong to a distinct family of ligand-gated ion channels, which directly generate electrical signals in response to tastants instead of relying on second-messenger cascades like mammalian GPCRs. These receptors form heteromeric complexes to detect sugars, bitter compounds, salts, and other chemical cues essential for feeding decisions [31,32,33,34]. GRNs project to the subesophageal zone (SEZ), the primary taste processing center in the brain [35,36].

3. Diet-Induced Taste Plasticity from Insects to Humans

Changes in taste sensation in response to dietary composition have been observed across various species, from invertebrates to mammals (Table 1).
In insects, much of this research has focused on how these animals adapt to unpalatable diets through sensory desensitization—a process that allows them to overcome the aversive taste of plant-derived deterrents and expand their feeding options.
A striking example comes from caterpillars of the moth genus Helicoverpa. When reared on a diet containing the bitter plant-derived toxin strychnine, these caterpillars displayed diminished responses in their taste sensilla to the compound [6,7]. Remarkably, they exhibited reduced neural responses and consumed strychnine-laced food at levels indistinguishable from caterpillars raised on a control diet. Research on Drosophila melanogaster further highlights the adaptability of insect taste system in aversive food environments. Flies fed camphor-laced diets exhibited reduced responses in bitter-sensing neurons and increased acceptance of camphor-containing foods [8]. These findings suggest that sensory systems can recalibrate when organisms repeatedly encounter specific compounds. However, this adaptability has limits. For more toxic compounds, such as quinine or strychnine, D. melanogaster flies did not show comparable desensitization, indicating that toxicity may constrain sensory plasticity. This limitation likely reflects an evolutionary balance, ensuring that while insects can adapt to exploit aversive food sources, their ability to avoid truly harmful toxins remains intact.
Indeed, caterpillars reared on tobacco exhibited a strong preference and high consumption of tobacco leaves, whereas those reared on cotton showed a greater inclination towards cotton leaves over tobacco leaves [57]. Similarly, caterpillars raised on a caffeinated diet ate caffeine-treated disks as readily as water-treated disks, adapting to the bitter compound [9]. Thus, adaptations to aversive tastants allow insects to adjust to challenging feeding conditions.
Taste plasticity can also manifest rapidly. For example, in Manduca sexta caterpillars, just 12 h of exposure to caffeine reduced neural responses and behavioral aversion to the compound [9,10]. This suggests that insects can adapt quickly to new chemical environments, potentially through receptor sensitivity shifts, alterations in signaling pathways, or changes in how the nervous system processes sensory information. This rapid plasticity may enable caterpillars to continue feeding on otherwise noxious plants while they learn about potential toxicity.
Chronic exposure to sweet compounds can also alter sweet taste sensation. Feeding Drosophila melanogaster flies a high-sugar diet (30% sucrose, fructose, or glucose) for more than five days led to reduced responses of sweet-sensing gustatory neurons in the labellar sensilla to sucrose [19,40,41]. This diminished neuronal sensitivity was mirrored behaviorally by lower proboscis extension responses to various sucrose concentrations and a deficit in locating sweet food sources [19,40]. Notably, our group found that these taste changes were independent of diet-induced obesity: genetically obese flies on a control diet had normal sucrose responses, while genetically obesity-resistant flies on a high-sugar diet showed reduced sucrose sensitivity [19]. Remarkably, the decrease in sweet sensation persisted for more than 20 days after reverting to a control diet through epigenetic mechanisms [41], suggesting that the neurons in the sensory system can remain locked into a past nutritional environment. These sensory alterations had profound implications for feeding behavior. Using neuro- and optogenetics, we demonstrated they directly and causally drove higher food intake and obesity by diminishing food reinforcement learning, primarily through lower stimulation of dopaminergic neurons and impaired dopamine release onto food memory circuits [58,59].
Artificial sweeteners can similarly reshape taste, eating, and metabolic responses. Wang et al. (2016) found that chronic consumption of sucralose in Drosophila melanogaster reprogrammed neural activity in sweet-sensing pathways, leading to higher feeding behavior and disrupted glucose homeostasis [37]. Dietary imbalances can also modulate taste sensitivity. Flies fed a sugar-enriched diet lacking yeast, their natural protein source, for four days exhibited reduced gustatory neuron responses to sucrose and shifted their feeding preference toward yeast extract rather than sugars like sucrose, fructose, and glucose [54]. In contrast, flies fed a sugar-reduced but yeast-enriched diet (no added glucose) showed heightened responses to sugars [54].
Together, these studies illustrate how diverse dietary experiences—whether bitter, high-sugar, artificially sweetened, or protein-deficient—alter the neural and behavioral components of taste sensation in insects. These findings also show that sensory changes have a direct and causal role in reshaping feeding behavior and metabolic health.
Dietary experiences also affect taste sensation in rodents. Blind mole rats (Spalax galili) exhibit population-level differences in bitter taste sensitivity that align with the soil types of their habitats. Those living in basalt soil—relatively less bitter yet rich in nutrients—displayed heightened sensitivity to bitter taste, presumably as a protective mechanism to avoid ingesting harmful substances in an otherwise resource-abundant environment [11,60]. In contrast, mole rats from chalk soil regions, where food is scarce, exhibited lower bitter responsiveness, increasing the range of acceptable food sources in a harsher habitat. Thus, similarly to insects, the modulation of bitter sensitivity is tightly linked to survival, enabling animals to balance the risks of toxin ingestion with the need to exploit limited food resources optimally.
Diets rich in fat or sugar also influence gustatory plasticity, often selectively. Rats with four-week access to 30% sugar water but standard chow exhibited attenuated chorda tympani nerve responses to sucrose applied to the tongue [43,44]. This attenuation was also observed with sodium chloride in females [43] but not in male rats [44]. Notably, these alterations to sucrose responses were present across concentrations without weight gain; however, this diet did not affect responses to glucose, fructose, maltose, sodium saccharin, NaCl, organic acids, or umami, indicating specific effects [44]. There was also no effect on the responses to mechanical or temperature stimuli [44]. Importantly, unlike in the fly, these deficits returned to normal after removing the sugar water for four weeks [44], which could be explained by the fundamental difference in the biology of taste in insects, where the taste receptor cells are neurons that do not renew [34].
Beyond affecting the sensory nerves, diet can also alter the responses of the taste cells and higher-order neurons involved in taste processing in the brain. Chronic consumption of a high-fat diet reduced the calcium responsiveness of isolated mouse taste cells to sweet stimuli like saccharin and acesulfame potassium and to the bitter compound denatonium; some of these deficits were dependent on diet, while others were also dependent on weight gain [16,20]. The high-fat diet mice showed lower preference for the sweet tastants at lower or higher concentrations, depending on the compound; for saccharin, the obese mice were less sensitive than controls at low concentrations. A high-energy diet (high in fat and carbohydrates) also decreased the magnitude and duration of taste responses in the nucleus of the solitary tract of obese rats. Interestingly, there were proportionally more taste-responsive cells in obese rats, suggesting potential compensatory mechanisms for diminished taste responses [14]. In addition to long-term high-energy diet exposure, short-term exposure to various tastants during early life also altered neural responsiveness to sucrose in the gustatory insular cortex (GC) of mice. Weanlings were given repeated access to various tastants—sucrose, citric acid, Ensure, and salt—with each solution presented once per day in a rotating manner over 8 days (each tastant was presented twice). Compared to naïve mice, this multi-tastant exposure group exhibited fewer sucrose-responsive pyramidal excitatory neurons and a decreased excitation/inhibition balance in the GC network [61].
In summary, and strikingly similar to insects, rodents display marked, reciprocal taste adaptations to long-term exposure to dietary environments.
Changes in taste with dietary composition have also been reported in humans. Most notably, lower sodium intake increased the sensitivity of saltiness [50,51]. In contrast, individuals who ate higher sodium had difficulties in identifying salt concentrations correctly [52], while those with severe obesity who ate a Mediterranean diet for 4 weeks showed a reduced salty threshold (indicating higher sensitivity to salt) but no change in the sweet threshold [55].
A similar trend is seen with sugar levels, where a decrease in the total carbohydrate intake over several months increased sweet sensitivity [38], while one month of soft drink supplementation was associated with lower sweet sensitivity at higher concentrations [39] and changes in sweet preference after sugary drink intake; no changes were observed in responses to salt. Moreover, switching from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) to either artificially sweetened (ASB) or unsweetened beverages (USB) over 12 months produced distinct effects on taste perception. The sweetness threshold and preferred concentration decreased in the USB group, while only the preferred concentration decreased in the ASB group [62]. A similar pattern was observed in participants who replaced SSB with water for 12 weeks, showing decreased liking for high sucrose concentrations [63]. Interestingly, blocking sweet taste sensation resulted in an increased desire for sweet foods [64]. Consistent with this, participants with higher sweet taste sensitivity consumed less total energy, carbohydrates, and sugars in their diets, while those with higher hedonic liking for sweetness tended to consume more total energy and sugars [65].
However, Mah et al. (2024) demonstrated that the relationship between reduced sugar intake and taste perception is more complex. Among habitual full-sugar sweetened beverage (FSS) consumers in the U.S., liking for low-sweetness beverages decreased in the control group (who continued FSS consumption for 6 months), but was maintained in both the stepwise (StepR) and direct (DirR) sweetness reduction groups over 6 months with no change in perceived sweetness intensity. In contrast, among habitual low-calorie sweetened beverage consumers in the U.S., sweetness intensity for high concentration of sucrose increased in the DirR group. Notably, no significant changes in liking or perceived intensity were observed in the Mexican cohorts, regardless of reduction strategy or baseline beverage habits [66].
Low-fat diet also influence sensory responses similarly, with low-fat diets increasing fat taste sensitivity in lean and obese individuals and high-fat diets reducing fat sensitivity in only lean individuals after 4 weeks [46,48]. Finally, an increase in the intake of the savory Monosodium glutamate resulted in a decrease in umami sensation and preference [53].
Thus, in humans, there is growing evidence that diet can influence taste perception, particularly in the context of chronic dietary patterns. However, the strength and consistency of this effect appear to vary by taste—being more robust for salt than for sweet taste. As highlighted in the review by Appleton et al. (2018) [67], findings on sweet taste are more mixed, and further work is needed to clarify these relationships.
How these changes affect eating and health is less clear but critically important to define. Notably, many studies in humans have looked at the relationship between body mass index and taste sensitivity and intensity; although a few found no effect, and others a positive correlation [13,68], most have reported a generally inverse relationship between the two, consistent with the findings of rodent and fly studies (reviewed in Bartoshuk et al. (2006) [69] and May and Dus (2021) [3]). However, it is important to note that in these models, diet had clear effects independent of weight gain.

4. Uncovering the Mechanisms of Diet-Induced Taste Plasticity

Much remains to be understood about the molecular and neural mechanisms underlying taste plasticity. Research using animal models is illuminating several key aspects, from metabolic signaling to inflammation.
Vaziri et al. (2020) used cell-specific gene expression measurements in the fly sweet-sensing neurons to show that a high-sugar diet decreased the mRNA abundance of 80% of expressed genes, with a particular reduction in synaptic genes [41]. This silencing was mediated by the conserved epigenetic repressor Polycomb Repressive Complex 2.1 (PRC2.1). Notably, 47% of the genes repressed by PRC2.1 under a sugar diet remained downregulated even after reverting to a control diet for seven days. A subsequent study linked increased PRC2.1 activity to the metabolic sensor O-linked N-Acetylglucosamine Transferase (OGT), whose activity rises with higher dietary sugar due to increased flux through the Hexosamine Biosynthesis Pathway [40]. While this metabolic–epigenetic (nutrigenomic) signaling drove taste adaptation prescriptively, the authors also found that it integrated directly with the activity of the neurons through the MAPK/ERK pathway [40]. These findings highlight a link between metabolic changes and neuronal signaling.
Expanding this link between metabolism and neural signaling, Wang et al. (2020) linked dietary modulation of sweet taste sensitivity in fruit flies to dopamine signaling and the Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma Coactivator 1-alpha (PGC1α) pathway [42]. This pathway modulates mitochondrial function and energy metabolism within sweet-taste neurons. Expanding on the role of dopamine, Ganguly et al. (2021) demonstrated that dopamine neuromodulation via the type 2-like receptor (Dop2R) enhances sweet sensitivity to sugar while simultaneously reducing sensitivity to amino acids under sugar-reduced/protein-enriched diets [54].
In addition to neural and metabolic pathways, endocrine signaling also contributes to the regulation of taste sensitivity. Notably, reduced sweet sensitivity correlated with the downregulation of Drosophila insulin-like peptide 5 (Dilp5) in response to a high-sugar/low-protein diet. Wang et al. (2016) further highlighted the role of insulin signaling in taste plasticity [37]—an intriguing finding, given that hormones such as leptin and insulin are also thought to influence the taste system in rodents (reviewed in May and Dus (2021) [3]). This area of research has been a significant focus of recent studies because of the rapid adoption of Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide (Ozempic) for diabetes and obesity. This hormone has been increasingly recognized as influencing taste sensation [70,71,72,73]. GLP-1 is a peptide that stimulates the release of insulin in hyperglycemic states and reduces food intake via central and peripheral mechanisms [71,74,75,76,77]. Diets high in fiber or low in carbohydrates increase circulating GLP-1 plasma levels [78,79], while diets high in fat reduce circulating GLP-1 plasma levels [80,81]. In the peripheral taste system, GLP-1 is produced in taste cells in the circumvallate papillae that co-express T1R3, a subunit of both the sweet and umami taste receptors [72,82]. GLP-1 acts in the periphery to modulate sweet and umami taste sensitivity [71]. By enhancing GLP-1 receptor activation in the periphery, GLP-1 analogs may alter the functional responsiveness of taste cells, thus impacting taste sensation. Indeed, treatment with the GLP-1 analog liraglutide for 12 weeks resulted in significantly lower detection threshold of sweet and bitter tastes (indicating higher sensitivity to sweet and bitter) in type 2 diabetic patients [83]. Such alterations in taste sensation may lead to changes in dietary choices and intake patterns, which further influence taste plasticity.
Beyond endocrine mechanisms, inflammation due to diet-induced obesity also affects the taste system in rodents [84]. Obese mice fed a high-fat diet for eight weeks exhibited a large increase in relative gene expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), a primary marker of the innate immune response, in the tongue epithelial tissues containing taste buds; this rise in inflammatory markers coincided with reduced taste buds in circumvallate papillae [84]; the effect of obesity on the fungiform papillae was also observed in rats [15] and young males along with a deficit in salty and sweet taste [68,85]. However, a high dietary sugar, unlike fat, does not affect the number and distribution of taste papilla [43,44] but did decrease the number of type II PLCβ2+ taste receptor cells [44], although this effect disappeared when the sugar was removed from the rat diet. Interestingly, a decrease in α-gustducin and PLCβ2 mRNAs has been observed in the tongues of mice fed a chronic high-fat diet [20], and the sweet taste receptor T1R3 was significantly decreased in rats on a high-fat diet [86].
Rather specific changes in receptor expression have also been observed with chronic consumption of tastants for those receptors. Consumption of a high-fat diet resulted in a decrease in fat receptor CD36 expression in circumvallate taste buds in mice [12,47]. Furthermore, dietary fat intake also modulates fatty acid taste receptors in humans. Chronic consumption of a low-fat diet showed to upregulate fat receptor FFAR4 expression in fungiform papillae, which is associated with increased fat taste sensitivity [49]. Receptor mRNA expression was also lower after exposure to appetitive, but not to aversive tastants for four weeks, specifically, lower mRNA abundance of the umami receptor (Tas1R1), sweet receptor (Tas1R2), epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) for salt, and polycystic kidney disease 2-like 1 protein (PKD2L1), which is considered a marker of sour-sensitive taste cells [87], in mice treated with MSG, saccharin, NaCl, and citric acid, respectively, but no changes in bitter receptor (Tas2R5) with quinine treatment [56]. Notably, early-life exposure to low-calorie sweeteners also influences the taste system. Juvenile rats given chronic access to acesulfame potassium exhibited a significant reduction in the sweet taste receptors Tas1R2 and Tas1R3 expression in the circumvallate papillae, leading to decreased responsiveness to sugars [45,88]. Similar receptor-based adaptations occur in fruit flies as well. Zhang et al. (2013) found the fly bitter taste adaptation operated through direct modulation of receptor proteins. The exposure to a camphor-supplemented diet downregulates the transient receptor potential-like (TRPL) cation channel in gustatory neurons, thereby reducing camphor aversion [8]. This effect was mediated by protein turnover via the E3 ubiquitin ligase Ube3a, with TRPL transcription remaining unchanged.
Overall, while significant gaps remain in understanding the mechanisms of diet-induced taste plasticity, recent studies highlight metabolic, signaling, and gene expression changes driven by specific nutrient conditions, particularly in humans and models exposed to high-fat and high-sugar diets. Among the unresolved questions, the most pressing include disentangling the differential effects of diet and weight, the role of nutrient concentrations and exposure durations, and the impact of taste adaptations on feeding behavior and overall health (Figure 1). On a broader scale, the evolution of sensory adaptations, such as those observed in the arms race between plants and insects, is an intriguing area of exploration with potential applications in pest control.

5. Conclusions

Diet-induced taste plasticity is a unique neurobiological process that highlights the sensory system’s remarkable adaptability while presenting feasible opportunities for sustainable public health interventions. Although much remains to be uncovered about the drivers and consequences of this plasticity, recent studies have begun to define some fundamental principles. First, there is generally an inverse correlation between the levels of a nutrient in the diet and its effect on taste sensation; second, the effects are often, but not universally specific to the taste modality linked to the nutrient; third, there are different, decoupled effects coming from diet exposure vs. obesity; and finally, the mechanisms span from protein and gene regulation to metabolic signaling, inflammation, and neuroendocrine pathways (Figure 1). What is evident is that taste, and its adaptability, lies at a critical intersection between nutrition and health. Investigating its mechanisms will deepen our understanding of nutrient-sensing processes in the mouth, brain, and body. Finally, characterizing this phenomenon will be a robust foundation for designing foods and healthy eating strategies that enhance and safeguard well-being.

Author Contributions

Selecting articles, H.S., E.H. and M.D.; Writing the manuscript, H.S., E.H. and M.D.; Review and editing, H.S. and M.D.; Supervision, M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by NIH 1DP2DK113750, NIH R01DK130875, the Rita Allen Foundation, and NSF CAREER 1941822 (all to M.D.) and NIH T32DK101357 (to E.H.). The APC was funded by NSF CAREER 1941822 (to M.D.).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request due to (specify the reason for the restriction, e.g., privacy, legal or ethical reasons).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors do not declare any conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fukunaga, A.; Uematsu, H.; Sugimoto, K. Influences of Aging on Taste Perception and Oral Somatic Sensation. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2005, 60, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sensory Science and Chronic Diseases, 1st ed.; Joseph, P.V., Duffy, V.B., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 9783030862817. [Google Scholar]
  3. May, C.E.; Dus, M. Confection Confusion: Interplay between Diet, Taste, and Nutrition. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 32, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Micarelli, A.; Malacrida, S.; Strapazzon, G.; Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Micarelli, B.; Alessandrini, N.; Carbini, V.; Caputo, S.; Falla, M.; Alessandrini, M. Impact of Nutritional Intervention on Taste Perception—A Scoping Review. Foods 2021, 10, 2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Peinado, B.R.R.; Frazão, D.R.; Bittencourt, L.O.; de Souza-Rodrigues, R.D.; Vidigal, M.T.C.; da Silva, D.T.; Paranhos, L.R.; Magno, M.B.; Fagundes, N.C.F.; Maia, L.C.; et al. Is Obesity Associated with Taste Alterations? A Systematic Review. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1167119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhou, D.-S.; Wang, C.-Z.; van Loon, J.J.A. Habituation to a Deterrent Plant Alkaloid Develops Faster in the Specialist Herbivore Helicoverpa Assulta than in Its Generalist Congener Helicoverpa Armigera and Coincides with Taste Neuron Desensitisation. Insects 2021, 13, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhou, D.-S.; Wang, C.-Z.; van Loon, J.J.A. Chemosensory Basis of Behavioural Plasticity in Response to Deterrent Plant Chemicals in the Larva of the Small Cabbage White Butterfly Pieris Rapae. J. Insect Physiol. 2009, 55, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Y.V.; Raghuwanshi, R.P.; Shen, W.L.; Montell, C. Food Experience-Induced Taste Desensitization Modulated by the Drosophila TRPL Channel. Nat. Neurosci. 2013, 16, 1468–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Glendinning, J.I.; Brown, H.; Capoor, M.; Davis, A.; Gbedemah, A.; Long, E. A Peripheral Mechanism for Behavioral Adaptation to Specific “Bitter” Taste Stimuli in an Insect. J. Neurosci. 2001, 21, 3688–3696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Glendinning, J.I.; Ensslen, S.; Eisenberg, M.E.; Weiskopf, P. Diet-Induced Plasticity in the Taste System of an Insect: Localization to a Single Transduction Pathway in an Identified Taste Cell. J. Exp. Biol. 1999, 202, 2091–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jiao, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, B.-J.; Li, K.; Lövy, M.; Nevo, E.; Li, Q.; Su, W.; Jiang, P.; Zhao, H. Local Adaptation of Bitter Taste and Ecological Speciation in a Wild Mammal. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 4562–4572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, X.-J.; Zhou, L.-H.; Ban, X.; Liu, D.-X.; Jiang, W.; Liu, X.-M. Decreased Expression of CD36 in Circumvallate Taste Buds of High-Fat Diet Induced Obese Rats. Acta Histochem. 2011, 113, 663–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hardikar, S.; Höchenberger, R.; Villringer, A.; Ohla, K. Higher Sensitivity to Sweet and Salty Taste in Obese Compared to Lean Individuals. Appetite 2017, 111, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Weiss, M.S.; Hajnal, A.; Czaja, K.; Di Lorenzo, P.M. Taste Responses in the Nucleus of the Solitary Tract of Awake Obese Rats Are Blunted Compared with Those in Lean Rats. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Harnischfeger, F.; O’Connell, F.; Weiss, M.; Axelrod, B.; Hajnal, A.; Czaja, K.; Di Lorenzo, P.M.; Dando, R. Sprague Dawley Rats Gaining Weight on a High Energy Diet Exhibit Damage to Taste Tissue Even after Return to a Healthy Diet. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Maliphol, A.B.; Garth, D.J.; Medler, K.F. Diet-Induced Obesity Reduces the Responsiveness of the Peripheral Taste Receptor Cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brondel, L.; Quilliot, D.; Mouillot, T.; Khan, N.A.; Bastable, P.; Boggio, V.; Leloup, C.; Pénicaud, L. Taste of Fat and Obesity: Different Hypotheses and Our Point of View. Nutrients 2022, 14, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Liu, D.; Archer, N.; Duesing, K.; Hannan, G.; Keast, R. Mechanism of Fat Taste Perception: Association with Diet and Obesity. Prog. Lipid Res. 2016, 63, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. May, C.E.; Vaziri, A.; Lin, Y.Q.; Grushko, O.; Khabiri, M.; Wang, Q.-P.; Holme, K.J.; Pletcher, S.D.; Freddolino, P.L.; Neely, G.G.; et al. High Dietary Sugar Reshapes Sweet Taste to Promote Feeding Behavior in Drosophila Melanogaster. Cell Rep. 2019, 27, 1675–1685.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahart, Z.C.; Martin, L.E.; Kemp, B.R.; Dutta Banik, D.; Roberts, S.G.E.; Torregrossa, A.-M.; Medler, K.F. Differential Effects of Diet and Weight on Taste Responses in Diet-Induced Obese Mice. Obesity 2020, 28, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lindemann, B. Receptors and Transduction in Taste. Nature 2001, 413, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yarmolinsky, D.A.; Zuker, C.S.; Ryba, N.J.P. Common Sense about Taste: From Mammals to Insects. Cell 2009, 139, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhang, Y.; Hoon, M.A.; Chandrashekar, J.; Mueller, K.L.; Cook, B.; Wu, D.; Zuker, C.S.; Ryba, N.J.P. Coding of Sweet, Bitter, and Umami Tastes: Different Receptor Cells Sharing Similar Signaling Pathways. Cell 2003, 112, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kinnamon, S.C.; Finger, T.E. Recent Advances in Taste Transduction and Signaling. F1000Research 2019, 8, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, A.L.; Chen, X.; Hoon, M.A.; Chandrashekar, J.; Guo, W.; Tränkner, D.; Ryba, N.J.P.; Zuker, C.S. The Cells and Logic for Mammalian Sour Taste Detection. Nature 2006, 442, 934–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chandrashekar, J.; Kuhn, C.; Oka, Y.; Yarmolinsky, D.A.; Hummler, E.; Ryba, N.J.P.; Zuker, C.S. The Cells and Peripheral Representation of Sodium Taste in Mice. Nature 2010, 464, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sclafani, A.; Ackroff, K. Greater Reductions in Fat Preferences in CALHM1 than CD36 Knockout Mice. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2018, 315, R576–R585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Freeman, E.G.; Dahanukar, A. Molecular Neurobiology of Drosophila Taste. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2015, 34, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Joseph, R.M.; Carlson, J.R. Drosophila Chemoreceptors: A Molecular Interface between the Chemical World and the Brain. Trends Genet. 2015, 31, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Montell, C. Drosophila Sensory Receptors-a Set of Molecular Swiss Army Knives. Genetics 2021, 217, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, D.; Hu, M.; Yang, X.; Liu, Q.; Ye, F.; Cai, W.; Wang, Y.; Xu, X.; Chang, S.; Wang, R.; et al. Structural Basis for Sugar Perception by Drosophila Gustatory Receptors. Science 2024, 383, eadj2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frank, H.M.; Walujkar, S.; Walsh, R.M., Jr.; Laursen, W.J.; Theobald, D.L.; Garrity, P.A.; Gaudet, R. Structural Basis of Ligand Specificity and Channel Activation in an Insect Gustatory Receptor. Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 114035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chen, Y.-C.D.; Dahanukar, A. Recent Advances in the Genetic Basis of Taste Detection in Drosophila. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020, 77, 1087–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Scott, K. Gustatory Processing in Drosophila Melanogaster. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Falk, R.; Bleiser-Avivi, N.; Atidia, J. Labellar Taste Organs of Drosophila Melanogaster: Taste oragns of dorhophila. J. Morphol. 1976, 150, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benton, R.; Dahanukar, A. Chemosensory Coding in Drosophila Single Sensilla. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2023, 2023, db.top107803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, Q.-P.; Lin, Y.Q.; Zhang, L.; Wilson, Y.A.; Oyston, L.J.; Cotterell, J.; Qi, Y.; Khuong, T.M.; Bakhshi, N.; Planchenault, Y.; et al. Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting Response. Cell Metab. 2016, 24, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wise, P.M.; Nattress, L.; Flammer, L.J.; Beauchamp, G.K. Reduced Dietary Intake of Simple Sugars Alters Perceived Sweet Taste Intensity but Not Perceived Pleasantness. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 103, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sartor, F.; Donaldson, L.F.; Markland, D.A.; Loveday, H.; Jackson, M.J.; Kubis, H.-P. Taste Perception and Implicit Attitude toward Sweet Related to Body Mass Index and Soft Drink Supplementation. Appetite 2011, 57, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sung, H.; Vaziri, A.; Wilinski, D.; Woerner, R.K.R.; Freddolino, P.L.; Dus, M. Nutrigenomic Regulation of Sensory Plasticity. Elife 2023, 12, e83979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vaziri, A.; Khabiri, M.; Genaw, B.T.; May, C.E.; Freddolino, P.L.; Dus, M. Persistent Epigenetic Reprogramming of Sweet Taste by Diet. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabc8492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Q.-P.; Lin, Y.Q.; Lai, M.-L.; Su, Z.; Oyston, L.J.; Clark, T.; Park, S.J.; Khuong, T.M.; Lau, M.-T.; Shenton, V.; et al. PGC1α Controls Sucrose Taste Sensitization in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2020, 31, 107480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McCluskey, L.P.; He, L.; Dong, G.; Harris, R. Chronic Exposure to Liquid Sucrose and Dry Sucrose Diet Have Differential Effects on Peripheral Taste Responses in Female Rats. Appetite 2020, 145, 104499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sung, H.; Vesela, I.; Driks, H.; Ferrario, C.R.; Mistretta, C.M.; Bradley, R.M.; Dus, M. High-Sucrose Diet Exposure Is Associated with Selective and Reversible Alterations in the Rat Peripheral Taste System. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, 4103–4113.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tsan, L.; Chometton, S.; Hayes, A.M.; Klug, M.E.; Zuo, Y.; Sun, S.; Bridi, L.; Lan, R.; Fodor, A.A.; Noble, E.E.; et al. Early-Life Low-Calorie Sweetener Consumption Disrupts Glucose Regulation, Sugar-Motivated Behavior, and Memory Function in Rats. JCI Insight 2022, 7, e157714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Stewart, J.E.; Keast, R.S.J. Recent Fat Intake Modulates Fat Taste Sensitivity in Lean and Overweight Subjects. Int. J. Obes. 2012, 36, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Martin, C.; Passilly-Degrace, P.; Gaillard, D.; Merlin, J.-F.; Chevrot, M.; Besnard, P. The Lipid-Sensor Candidates CD36 and GPR120 Are Differentially Regulated by Dietary Lipids in Mouse Taste Buds: Impact on Spontaneous Fat Preference. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Newman, L.P.; Bolhuis, D.P.; Torres, S.J.; Keast, R.S.J. Dietary Fat Restriction Increases Fat Taste Sensitivity in People with Obesity. Obesity 2016, 24, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Costanzo, A.; Liu, D.; Nowson, C.; Duesing, K.; Archer, N.; Bowe, S.; Keast, R. A Low-Fat Diet up-Regulates Expression of Fatty Acid Taste Receptor Gene FFAR4 in Fungiform Papillae in Humans: A Co-Twin Randomised Controlled Trial. Br. J. Nutr. 2019, 122, 1212–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Beauchamp, G.K.; Bertino, M.; Burke, D.; Engelman, K. Experimental Sodium Depletion and Salt Taste in Normal Human Volunteers. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1990, 51, 881–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bertino, M.; Beauchamp, G.K.; Engelman, K. Long-Term Reduction in Dietary Sodium Alters the Taste of Salt. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1982, 36, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pangborn, R.M.; Pecore, S.D. Taste Perception of Sodium Chloride in Relation to Dietary Intake of Salt. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1982, 35, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Noel, C.A.; Finlayson, G.; Dando, R. Prolonged Exposure to Monosodium Glutamate in Healthy Young Adults Decreases Perceived Umami Taste and Diminishes Appetite for Savory Foods. J. Nutr. 2018, 148, 980–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ganguly, A.; Dey, M.; Scott, C.; Duong, V.-K.; Arun Dahanukar, A. Dietary Macronutrient Imbalances Lead to Compensatory Changes in Peripheral Taste via Independent Signaling Pathways. J. Neurosci. 2021, 41, 10222–10246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cattaneo, C.; Mambrini, S.P.; Gilardini, L.; Scacchi, M.; Pagliarini, E.; Bertoli, S. Impact of 4-Week of a Restricted Mediterranean Diet on Taste Perception, Anthropometric, and Blood Parameters in Subjects with Severe Obesity. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1196157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Shahbandi, A.A.; Choo, E.; Dando, R. Receptor Regulation in Taste: Can Diet Influence How We Perceive Foods? J 2018, 1, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, D.-S.; Gao, S.-X.; Zhao, X.-C.; Tang, Q.-B.; Wang, C.-Z.; van Loon, J.J.A. Higher Plasticity in Feeding Preference of a Generalist than a Specialist: Experiments with Two Closely Related Helicoverpa Species. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. May, C.E.; Rosander, J.; Gottfried, J.; Dennis, E.; Dus, M. Dietary Sugar Inhibits Satiation by Decreasing the Central Processing of Sweet Taste. Elife 2020, 9, e54530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pardo-Garcia, T.R.; Gu, K.; Woerner, R.K.R.; Dus, M. Food Memory Circuits Regulate Eating and Energy Balance. Curr. Biol. 2023, 33, 215–227.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Itoigawa, A.; Hayakawa, T.; Zhou, Y.; Manning, A.D.; Zhang, G.; Grutzner, F.; Imai, H. Functional Diversity and Evolution of Bitter Taste Receptors in Egg-Laying Mammals. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2022, 39, msac107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schiff, H.C.; Kogan, J.F.; Isaac, M.; Czarnecki, L.A.; Fontanini, A.; Maffei, A. Experience-Dependent Plasticity of Gustatory Insular Cortex Circuits and Taste Preferences. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eade6561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ebbeling, C.B.; Feldman, H.A.; Steltz, S.K.; Quinn, N.L.; Robinson, L.M.; Ludwig, D.S. Effects of Sugar-Sweetened, Artificially Sweetened, and Unsweetened Beverages on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Body Composition, and Sweet Taste Preference: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e015668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kendig, M.D.; Chow, J.Y.L.; Martire, S.I.; Rooney, K.B.; Boakes, R.A. Switching from Sugar- to Artificially-Sweetened Beverages: A 12-Week Trial. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Noel, C.A.; Sugrue, M.; Dando, R. Participants with Pharmacologically Impaired Taste Function Seek out More Intense, Higher Calorie Stimuli. Appetite 2017, 117, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jayasinghe, S.N.; Kruger, R.; Walsh, D.C.I.; Cao, G.; Rivers, S.; Richter, M.; Breier, B.H. Is Sweet Taste Perception Associated with Sweet Food Liking and Intake? Nutrients 2017, 9, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mah, E.; Kamil, A.; Blonquist, T.M.; Rehm, C.D.; Qu, S.; Stern, P.; Wilson, A.R. Change in Liking Following Reduction in Sweetness Level of Carbonated Beverages: A Randomized Controlled Parallel Trial. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 26742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Appleton, K.M.; Tuorila, H.; Bertenshaw, E.J.; de Graaf, C.; Mela, D.J. Sweet Taste Exposure and the Subsequent Acceptance and Preference for Sweet Taste in the Diet: Systematic Review of the Published Literature. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 107, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Noel, C.A.; Cassano, P.A.; Dando, R. College-Aged Males Experience Attenuated Sweet and Salty Taste with Modest Weight Gain. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 1885–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bartoshuk, L.M.; Duffy, V.B.; Hayes, J.E.; Moskowitz, H.R.; Snyder, D.J. Psychophysics of Sweet and Fat Perception in Obesity: Problems, Solutions and New Perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ben-Chetrit, E.; Ben-Ya’acov, A.; Quitina, A.; Atia, O.; Regev, E.; Shteyer, E.; Nashef, R. Anosmia and Dysgeusia amongst COVID-19 Patients Are Associated with Low Levels of Serum Glucagon-like Peptide 1. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e14996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Martin, B.; Dotson, C.D.; Shin, Y.-K.; Ji, S.; Drucker, D.J.; Maudsley, S.; Munger, S.D. Modulation of Taste Sensitivity by GLP-1 Signaling in Taste Buds. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1170, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shin, Y.-K.; Martin, B.; Golden, E.; Dotson, C.D.; Maudsley, S.; Kim, W.; Jang, H.-J.; Mattson, M.P.; Drucker, D.J.; Egan, J.M.; et al. Modulation of Taste Sensitivity by GLP-1 Signaling. J. Neurochem. 2008, 106, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sukumaran, S.K.; Palayyan, S.R. Sweet Taste Signaling: The Core Pathways and Regulatory Mechanisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Berthoud, H.-R.; Zheng, H. Modulation of Taste Responsiveness and Food Preference by Obesity and Weight Loss. Physiol. Behav. 2012, 107, 527–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Krieger, J.-P.; Langhans, W.; Lee, S.J. Vagal Mediation of GLP-1’s Effects on Food Intake and Glycemia. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Madsbad, S. The Role of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Impairment in Obesity and Potential Therapeutic Implications. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2014, 16, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moran, T.H. Gut Peptides in the Control of Food Intake. Int. J. Obes. 2009, 33 (Suppl. 1), S7–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hengist, A.; Sciarrillo, C.M.; Guo, J.; Walter, M.; Hall, K.D. Gut-Derived Appetite Hormones Do Not Explain Energy Intake Differences in Humans Following Low-Carbohydrate versus Low-Fat Diets. Obesity 2024, 32, 1689–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhu, S.; Yang, J.; Xia, P.; Li, S.; Wang, Q.; Li, K.; Li, B.; Li, J. Effects of Konjac Glucomannan Intake Patterns on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism of Obese Mice Induced by a High Fat Diet. Food Funct. 2024, 15, 9116–9135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anini, Y.; Brubaker, P.L. Role of Leptin in the Regulation of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Secretion. Diabetes 2003, 52, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gniuli, D.; Calcagno, A.; Dalla Libera, L.; Calvani, R.; Leccesi, L.; Caristo, M.E.; Vettor, R.; Castagneto, M.; Ghirlanda, G.; Mingrone, G. High-Fat Feeding Stimulates Endocrine, Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide (GIP)-Expressing Cell Hyperplasia in the Duodenum of Wistar Rats. Diabetologia 2010, 53, 2233–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Feng, X.-H.; Liu, X.-M.; Zhou, L.-H.; Wang, J.; Liu, G.-D. Expression of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 in the Taste Buds of Rat Circumvallate Papillae. Acta Histochem. 2008, 110, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Brindisi, M.-C.; Brondel, L.; Meillon, S.; Barthet, S.; Grall, S.; Fenech, C.; Liénard, F.; Schlich, P.; Astruc, K.; Mouillot, T.; et al. Proof of Concept: Effect of GLP-1 Agonist on Food Hedonic Responses and Taste Sensitivity in Poor Controlled Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2019, 13, 2489–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kaufman, A.; Choo, E.; Koh, A.; Dando, R. Inflammation Arising from Obesity Reduces Taste Bud Abundance and Inhibits Renewal. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2001959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kaufman, A.; Kim, J.; Noel, C.; Dando, R. Taste Loss with Obesity in Mice and Men. Int. J. Obes. 2020, 44, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, K.; Yan, J.; Suo, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Lv, B. Nutritional Status Alters Saccharin Intake and Sweet Receptor mRNA Expression in Rat Taste Buds. Brain Res. 2010, 1325, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Liman, E.R.; Kinnamon, S.C. Sour Taste: Receptors, Cells and Circuits. Curr. Opin. Physiol. 2021, 20, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chometton, S.; Tsan, L.; Hayes, A.M.R.; Kanoski, S.E.; Schier, L.A. Early-Life Influences of Low-Calorie Sweetener Consumption on Sugar Taste. Physiol. Behav. 2023, 264, 114133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Evolving principles and unresolved questions in diet-induced taste plasticity.
Figure 1. Evolving principles and unresolved questions in diet-induced taste plasticity.
Nutrients 17 01336 g001
Table 1. Summary of notable findings on the diet-induced taste.
Table 1. Summary of notable findings on the diet-induced taste.
DietOrganism [Ref]Effect on Taste SensationTaste System Alteration/Underlying Mechanisms
Bitter
StrychnineCaterpillars of the moth [6]Diminished responses to strychnineUnidentified
StrychnineLarvae of white butterfly [7]Diminished responses to bitter compoundsUnidentified
CaffeineCaterpillars of the moth [9,10]Diminished responses to caffeineUnidentified
CamphorFruit flies [8]Diminished responses to camphorDownregulated TRPL mediated via Ube3a in sweet neurons
Sweet
Non-nutritive sweetenerFruit flies [37]Increased responses to low concentrations of sucroseUnidentified
Low sugarHumans [38]Increased perceived sweet intensityUnidentified
Soft drink supplementationHumans [39]Reduced perceived sweet intensityUnidentified
High sugarFruit flies [19,40,41]Desensitized responses to sucroseEpigenetic modulation mediated by PRC2.1/OGT
MAPK/ERK signaling pathway
SorbitolFruit flies [42]Increased sensitivity to sucroseDopamine signaling via DopR1 and PGC1α pathway
High sugarRats [43,44]Attenuated responses to sucroseDecreased PLCβ2+ type II taste cells in fungiform papillae
Low-calorie sweetenerRats [45]UnidentifiedReduction in Tas1R2 and Tas1R3 in circumvallate papilla
Fat
High fatHumans [46]Increased fat (C18:1) taste thresholdUnidentified
High fatMice [20]Reduced responses of taste cells to sucralose and denatoniumReduction in mRNA of α-gustducin and PLCβ2 in taste buds
High fatMice [47]UnidentifiedReduced mRNA of CD36 in circumvallate papillae
Low fatHumans [46,48,49]Decreased fat (C18:1) taste thresholdUpregulated mRNA of FFAR4 in fungiform papillae
Salt
Low saltHumans [50,51]Reduced salty thresholdUnidentified
High saltHumans [52]Difficulty in discriminating salt concentrationUnidentified
Umami
Monosodium glutamateHumans [53]Reduced perceived umami taste intensityUnidentified
Protein
Protein restrictedFruit flies [42]Increased sensitivity to sucroseDopamine signaling via DopR1 and PGC1α pathway
Other
Sugar-enriched/Protein-depletedFruit flies [54]Decreased responses to sugars/ Increased responses to amino acidsDownregulation of Dilp5
Sugar-reduced/Protein-enrichedFruit flies [54]Increased responses to sugarsDopamine neuromodulation via Dop2R
MediterraneanHuman [55]Reduced salty thresholdUnidentified
Appetitive taste solutionsMice [56]UnidentifiedDecreased mRNA for Tas1R1, Tas1R2, or ENaC
Aversive taste solutionsMice [56]UnidentifiedIncreased mRNA for Tas2R5 or PKD2L1
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sung, H.; Heaton, E.; Dus, M. Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review. Nutrients 2025, 17, 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336

AMA Style

Sung H, Heaton E, Dus M. Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review. Nutrients. 2025; 17(8):1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sung, Hayeon, Elizabeth Heaton, and Monica Dus. 2025. "Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review" Nutrients 17, no. 8: 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336

APA Style

Sung, H., Heaton, E., & Dus, M. (2025). Taste Plasticity in Nutrition and Health: A Scoping Review. Nutrients, 17(8), 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081336

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop