Next Article in Journal
α-Lipoic Acid Alleviates Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease by Elevating Chaperone-Mediated Autophagy and Increasing β-Oxidation via AMPK-TFEB Axis
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Association Between DTC Obesity-Related Gene Polymorphisms and Obesity Risk Factors in Koreans: Focus on BDNF
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Therapeutic Effect and Mechanism of Stir-Roasted Deer Velvet Antler with Ghee on Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Mango Bagasse and Peel Confectionery Rich in Dietary Fiber on Gut Microbiota, Metabolite Profiles, and Genetic Regulation in High-Fat-Diet-Fed Wistar Rats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 18
Issue 3
10.3390/nu18030400
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Associations of FTO and CLOCK Genetic Variants with Emotional Eating and Reward-Related Appetite Regulation Among Healthy Young Adult Males: An Exploratory Secondary Analysis

by
Julie E. Brown
1,*,
Christopher P. Hedges
1,
Lindsay D. Plank
2 and
Andrea J. Braakhuis
1
1
The Discipline of Nutrition, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
2
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2026, 18(3), 400; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18030400
Submission received: 2 December 2025 / Revised: 14 January 2026 / Accepted: 20 January 2026 / Published: 26 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Gene–Diet Interactions and Human Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Patterns of dysregulated eating, including overeating, frequent snacking, and heightened food cravings, are associated with an increased risk of obesity and metabolic disease. Eating behaviors are multidimensional and can influence many factors, including social, cultural, and biological processes. Emerging evidence suggests that genetic variation may contribute to inter-individual differences in appetite regulation and reward-related eating, potentially influencing susceptibility to dysregulated eating patterns and behaviors. Objectives: This exploratory, secondary analysis investigated possible relationships between the genetic variants FTO rs9939609, CLOCK rs1801260, MC4R rs17782313, and CD36 rs1761667 and eating behavior traits and postprandial appetite regulation in healthy young males. Methods: Thirty healthy males (27.7 ± 3.6 y; BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m2) completed the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R18) and consumed a standardized burrito-style meal, with appetite tracked over four hours using visual analogue scales (VAS). VAS data were baseline-adjusted and summarized as incremental area under the curve (AUC) to generate two derived exploratory composites of appetite suppression and cravings suppression. Genotyping was performed using iPLEX MassARRAY, and associations were tested with ANOVA and linear regression models. Results: FTO rs9939609 was significantly associated with higher emotional eating scores (β = 11.67; 95% CI 3.50, 19.83; p = 0.007, unadjusted), and this association remained significant after false discovery rate (FDR) correction. CLOCK rs1801260 showed a nominal association with reduced postprandial cravings suppression (β = −59.17; 95% CI −104.98, −13.35; p = 0.013, unadjusted). No associations were observed for MC4R or CD36. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis found a strong association between FTO rs9939609 and emotional eating, as well as a nominal relationship between CLOCK rs1801260 and craving regulation. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger cohorts.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In many developed countries, food is easy to access, yet eating patterns differ markedly, with some individuals struggling with strong cravings, frequent snacking, or overeating, while others maintain more stable and regulated patterns of intake [1]. These differences reflect the fact that eating behavior is multidimensional, shaped by a combination of influences [2]. Social and cultural norms, everyday food environments, and habitual practices all play a role, alongside biological factors that influence appetite and food preference [3,4,5]. Population-based studies have shown that this broader context is important when interpreting variations in appetite and food choice [6]. From a biological perspective, variation in eating behavior has also been linked to physiological processes and inherited genetic differences involved in appetite regulation and responses to food [3]. Central to this variability is the interaction between homeostatic mechanisms that regulate energy balance and hedonic systems that drive food reward [7].
The homeostatic system involves signaling processes along the gut–brain axis to modulate hunger and satiety and maintain energy balance, which is driven by hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), cholecystokinin (CCK), and peptide YY (PYY) [8,9,10]. Alongside homeostatic regulation, the hedonic reward-driven system is mediated by mesolimbic dopamine signaling and responds to the rewarding properties of palatable foods, which can override physiological satiety cues [7]. Disruptions in either of these signaling systems can lead to impaired appetite regulation, promoting overconsumption of food, and result in dysregulated eating behaviors, contributing to obesity [11].
Research shows single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) influence appetite regulation, taste perception, metabolic pathways, and susceptibility to obesity and related chronic diseases [12]. Such genetic predisposition may partly explain inter-individual differences in eating behavior and vulnerability to dysregulated intake patterns [10,11,12,13]. Our recent scoping review synthesized evidence from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and candidate-gene studies of eating behavior traits and was undertaken to serve as the primary hypothesis-generating framework for the present work [13,14,15,16]. From this review, several SNPs consistently emerged as being associated with eating-related phenotypes. These included the Melanocortin 4 Receptor (MC4R) rs17782313, linked to central appetite regulation and satiety [9,17,18,19,20]; the Fat Mass and Obesity-Associated (FTO) rs9939609, associated with adiposity and eating behavior traits such as emotional eating (EE) and food cravings [21,22,23]; the Circadian Locomotor Output Cycles Kaput (CLOCK) rs1801260, reported in relation to circadian influences on appetite and meal timing [24,25,26]; and the Cluster of Differentiation 36 (CD36) rs1761667, associated with fat taste sensitivity and dietary fat preference [27,28,29,30].
Collectively, these variants have been implicated in neural reward pathways and appetite control, potentially modifying hedonic responses to food [3,9,31].
Despite this growing literature, much of the existing research has focused on mixed or female-dominant cohorts, leaving a gap in knowledge about young males—a group at risk of developing unhealthy eating patterns and metabolic complications during a key life stage [32,33,34]. Therefore, this secondary analysis conducted an exploratory investigation to examine whether selected genetic variants were individually associated with eating behavior traits and short-term postprandial appetite regulation in a small male cohort, using parallel single-SNP analyses.

Aim

This exploratory secondary analysis examined whether four candidate SNPs, FTO rs9939609, MC4R rs17782313, CLOCK rs1801260, and CD36 rs1761667, previously identified as genetic modifiers of eating behavior, were associated with eating behavior traits, cognitive restraint (CR), emotional eating (EE), and uncontrolled eating (UE), as well as postprandial appetite responses in healthy young males.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Study Design and Setting

This secondary cross-sectional analysis used eating behavior data and within-day postprandial response measures from a parent double-blind, randomized trial conducted at the University of Auckland Clinical Research Centre (Auckland, New Zealand) between October and December 2020. The parent study investigated postprandial amino acid availability and appetite responses following a standardized meal [35]. An ancillary exploratory genetic study was also conducted to assess inter-individual variability in fasting and postprandial metabolic responses [36]. These genetic and eating behavior data were not primary outcomes of the parent study; therefore, we have not conducted a sample size calculation and accept the exploratory nature of our findings. The parent study included four test meals administered in a computer-generated random order, with participants and clinical staff blinded to allocation. Because outcome responses were similar across all meals, we selected the grain-fed beef mixed meal data for this secondary analysis.
Ethical approval for the parent study was granted by the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s Health and Disability Ethics Committees (Ref: 19/STH/226/AM02), and the study adhered to the principles outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent, including consent for future secondary analyses of their data. The parent trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04545398; November 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04545398; accessed 15 March 2025). Participants were not involved in the design, conduct, or reporting process of the parent trial, ancillary genetic study, or this secondary analysis.

2.2. Participant Recruitment and Eligibility Criteria

As described previously [35], 30 healthy males aged 20–34 years were recruited from the community. Participants represented diverse ethnic backgrounds (see Supplementary Data). Eligibility criteria for this secondary analysis were identical to those for the parent study. Participants were required to report good general health, follow an omnivorous diet, and have a body mass index (BMI) ≤ 30 kg/m2.
Exclusion criteria included chronic disease, hyperlipidemia, regular prescription medication use (other than occasional NSAIDs/antihistamines), a history of anosmia or ageusia, current dieting or disordered eating, smoking, or recreational drug use [37]. Baseline procedures and anthropometric measurements were performed as previously reported [35].

2.3. Eating Behavior Assessment (TFEQ-R18)

The dietetic team administered the TFEQ-R18 at screening, a validated 18-item questionnaire adapted from the original 51-item TFEQ, to assess CR, UE, and EE [37,38]. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = definitely true, 2 = mostly true, 3 = mostly false, 4 = definitely false). CR was assessed by items 2, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18 (e.g., “I deliberately take small helpings as a means of controlling my weight”); UE by items 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 17 (e.g., “Sometimes when I start eating, I just can’t seem to stop”); and EE by items 3, 6, and 10 (e.g., “When I feel anxious, I find myself eating”).
Raw domain scores for each domain were rescaled to a 0–100 percentage scale using the formula: [(raw-score- lowest possible raw score)/raw score range] × 100. Higher scores indicated greater restraint, increased UE, or a stronger tendency towards EE.

2.4. Appetite Assessment and Standardized Test Meal

Subjective appetite was assessed following consumption of a standardized burrito-style meal (~817 kcal; 61 g protein; 30 g fat; 71 g carbohydrates; 9 g fiber) as previously described [36]. Appetite sensations were measured using a validated 100-point online VAS administered via Qualtrics XM software (version 2020, Provo, UT, USA) [39]. Participants rated hunger, satiety, fullness, PFC, and cravings for sweet, salty, savory, and fatty foods at baseline/pre-meal (t-pre; −1 h), immediately post-meal (t0), and at 30, 60, 120, 180, and 240 min postprandially (t30 to t240). Ratings were completed without knowledge of genotype.
Appetite-related questions included: “How hungry do you feel?” (0 = not hungry at all, 100 = very hungry); “How satisfied do you feel?” (0 = completely empty, 100 = very full); “How full do you feel?” (0 = not full at all, 100 = very full); and “How much do you think you can eat?” (0 = a lot, 100 = none at all). Craving-related questions were phrased as: “Would you like to eat something [sweet/salty/savory/fatty]?” (0 = yes, very much; 100 = no, not at all).

2.5. Composite Appetite and Cravings Suppression Scores

Two derived exploratory composite measures of appetite suppression and cravings suppression were calculated from repeated VAS ratings over the 0–240-min postprandial period to capture short-term appetite dynamics following the standardized test meal. Appetite suppression at each time point was calculated as the mean of four appetite-related VAS ratings: (satiety + fullness + PFC + (100 − hunger))/4, with hunger reversed so that higher scores reflected lower appetite and greater satiety [40]. Cravings suppression was calculated at each time point as the mean of the VAS ratings for sweet, salty, savory, and fatty food cravings, with higher scores indicating reduced cravings or greater suppression of food cravings. These derived composite measures are consistent with validated approaches used in previous research on appetite [40,41,42,43].
To capture postprandial dynamics over time, each composite time series was baseline-adjusted by subtracting the participant’s pre-meal (t-pre) value from all subsequent time points and then reduced to an incremental area under the curve (AUC; t0 to t240) using the trapezoidal method [44]. This yielded two derived exploratory outcomes per participant: appetite suppression AUC and cravings suppression AUC, capturing cumulative postprandial change relative to fasting. All derived values are provided in the Supplementary Data.

2.6. Genetic Analysis and SNP Selection

Genotyping procedures have been previously reported [36]. Briefly, buccal DNA was collected using Isohelix SK-1 swab kits, supplied as part of a sample collection pack from Nutrigenomix Ltd. (Sydney, NSW, Australia). Samples were processed at Nutrigenomix Ltd. Laboratories (University of Sydney, NSW, Australia), a CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited facility (College of American Pathologists). Genotyping was conducted using the iPLEX Gold assay on the Sequenom MassARRAY platform (Agena Bioscience Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Quality-control metrics met all platform recommendations for all SNPs (success rates > 97%, call rate > 98%, duplicate concordance > 99%, and missingness < 3%), confirming high reliability of the genetic data [45].
From the full Nutrigenomix panel, four SNPs were selected a priori for analysis (FTO rs9939609 T>A, CD36 rs1761667 G>A, MC4R rs17782313 T>C, and CLOCK rs1801260; 3111T>C), guided by our previous scoping review [14].
All four SNPs conformed to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) using chi-square analysis; however, given the small sample size (N = 30), HWE results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited power and small expected genotype counts (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Data). All SNPs were annotated using dbSNP build 153 [46], and aligned to the GRCh38 human genome reference build [47].

2.7. Data Analysis and Statistics

Analyses were performed using complete cases (N = 30), with no missing data. Descriptive statistics were reported as mean ± SD by outcome and genotype group. Baseline-adjusted incremental AUC values were calculated in Microsoft Excel using the trapezoidal method, and statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics v30 with a two-tailed significance threshold of α = 0.05.
Genotype–phenotype associations were first examined using one-way ANOVA to compare mean scores across genotype groups (major-allele homozygote, heterozygote, minor-allele homozygote) for each SNP. The five outcomes included CR, UE, and EE from the TFEQ-R18 (rescaled 0–100), along with appetite suppression and cravings suppression derived from baseline-adjusted incremental AUC values. F statistics, degrees of freedom, two-sided p values, and effect sizes (η2 = SS between/SS total) were calculated and reported.
Additive linear regression models (coded 0, 1, 2 copies of the minor allele) were used to test dose–response trends. Both unadjusted and adjusted models (including age and BMI) were conducted, with results reported as unstandardized β coefficients, 95% confidence intervals (CI), p values, and R2 [48].
Analyses and reporting followed STREGA (STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies) guidelines for genetic research [49]. Findings are presented with appropriate caution, reflecting the exploratory nature of the study, the limited sample size, and the absence of pre-specified genetic hypotheses. Results are therefore intended to support transparent reporting and interpretation rather than confirmatory inference.
Model assumptions were checked by Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05), visual inspection of histograms, Q–Q, and P–P plots for residual normality, and residual-fitted plots for heteroscedasticity.
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normality, as it is appropriate for small sample sizes (<50) [50]. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIFs), with all VIFs < 2. For descriptive interpretation only, unstandardized β coefficients were additionally expressed as percent change relative to the sample mean (%Δ per allele = β/outcome mean × 100) following established guidelines [51].

2.8. Statistical Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons

Multiple testing used the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (BH-FDR) procedure, applied in two ways: globally across all 20 tests (four SNPs × five outcomes), and separately for each SNP across the five outcomes (q = 0.05) [52].
Only associations that remained significant after BH-FDR correction were interpreted as statistically significant, while nominal (p < 0.05) findings were treated as exploratory.

3. Results

All 30 healthy young male participants were included in the final analysis (see Supplementary Data). Baseline characteristics and fasting appetite ratings are presented in Table 1. Large standard deviations for baseline VAS appetite measures are expected, as fasting subjective appetite ratings typically show wide inter-individual variability in healthy populations [39,53].

3.1. Allele Frequencies and Reliability

Allele frequencies and genotype distributions for the four SNPs are presented in Table 2, alongside reference population frequencies. All SNPs conformed to HWE (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Data). Reference frequencies were retrieved from gnomAD v4.1.0 and NCBI dbSNP databases [54,55].
The TFEQ-R18 showed good internal consistency for the total scale (Cronbach α = 0.79). Subscale reliabilities were acceptable for each domain: CR (α = 0.87), UE (α = 0.77), and EE (α = 0.68) [57,58,59]. Internal consistency for appetite-related VAS items was acceptable (Cronbach α = 0.75), with subscale reliabilities α values ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 [57].

3.2. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics for eating behavior traits and postprandial appetite-related outcomes are provided in Table 3. CR, UE, and EE were derived from the TFEQ-R18 scores and rescaled to percentages. Appetite suppression and cravings suppression composites were derived as baseline-adjusted incremental AUCs from t0 to t240 measures, as described in the Methods.

3.3. Genotype Group Comparisons (One-Way ANOVA)

One-way ANOVA identified nominal genotype differences for FTO rs9939609 on EE, and for CLOCK rs1801260 on UE and cravings suppression (Table 4). MC4R rs17782313 showed non-significant trends for CR and cravings suppression, while CD36 rs1761667 showed no evidence of genotype differences for any outcome.
These ANOVA results are reported descriptively and interpreted as exploratory, with the findings further evaluated in subsequent linear regression analyses that incorporate correction for multiple testing. Levene’s tests were non-significant for all outcomes (p > 0.05), indicating homogeneity of variance across genotype groups and supporting the use of one-way ANOVA.

3.4. Additive Linear Regression Models

Additive linear regression models were fitted for each SNP with eating behavior traits (CR, UE, EE) and postprandial appetite outcomes (appetite suppression and cravings suppression). Genotypes were coded as 0, 1, or 2 copies of the minor allele. Table 5 presents the unstandardized regression coefficients (β), 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for both unadjusted models and models adjusted for age and BMI.
Model diagnostics met assumptions: residual normality was assessed using visual inspection of histograms, Q–Q and P–P plots, and the Shapiro–Wilk test, with all tests non-significant (p > 0.05). Residuals-versus-fitted plots did not indicate heteroscedasticity, and VIFs < 2 indicated no problematic multicollinearity.
A nominal association was observed between CLOCK rs1801260 and cravings suppression, with each C-allele associated with lower postprandial suppression in both unadjusted and age- and BMI-adjusted models (Table 5). However, this association did not survive BH-FDR correction and is therefore reported for completeness and interpreted as exploratory. No consistent evidence of association was observed for MC4R rs17782313 or CD36 rs1761667 across behavioral or postprandial appetite outcomes. Across all models, the only association that remained statistically significant after correction for multiple testing was the relationship between FTO rs9939609 and EE. All other associations are reported descriptively and interpreted as nominal.

3.5. Multiple Testing Correction

When BH-FDR correction was applied across all 20 unadjusted tests (4 SNPs × 5 outcomes) no associations remained significant at the global level (global BH-FDR q > 0.10). When applying a per-SNP BH-FDR correction (q = 0.05) across the five outcomes for each SNP, only the association between FTO rs9939609 and EE remained significant (unadjusted q = 0.034; adjusted q = 0.045; see Supplementary Data). Accordingly, this association was considered significant, while all other findings were classified as exploratory.

3.6. Genotype–Phenotype Association: FTO rs9939609 and EE

The positive association between FTO rs9939609 and EE is shown in Figure 1. Each additional A-allele was associated with higher EE scores across genotypes (TT, TA, AA). This relationship was statistically significant in both ANOVA and regression analyses, remained significant after adjustment for age and BMI, and survived per-SNP BH-FDR correction.
In the unadjusted model, FTO explained 23.4% of the variance in EE within this cohort (R2 = 0.234).

3.7. Effect Size Interpretation

To aid interpretation of effect magnitude, unadjusted percent-change effect sizes (%Δ per allele relative to the outcome mean) were +22.47% for EE for FTO rs9939609. Additional results are provided in the Supplementary Data. This is provided for descriptive purposes only and should be interpreted with caution, given the exploratory nature of the analysis.

4. Discussion

This exploratory secondary analysis was informed by our prior scoping review of genetic influences on eating behavior [14] and examined whether common variants in FTO, MC4R, CLOCK, and CD36 were associated with eating behavior traits and postprandial appetite dynamics in healthy young males. The selection of these genetic variants was guided by evidence linking them to appetite regulation, satiety signaling, reward processing, and circadian control of food intake [13,26,29,60]. Therefore, this study employed a targeted candidate-gene approach to prioritize these variants based on their strong biological plausibility in relation to eating behaviors [1].
The key finding of this study was a statistically significant association between FTO rs9939609 and EE, with A-allele carriers displaying higher EE scores than TT homozygous genotype (p = 0.007, unadjusted). This association, corresponding to an approximate 22% increase in EE score per risk allele, remained significant after adjustment for age and BMI and following BH–FDR correction. This suggests that, within this cohort, the FTO A-allele may increase susceptibility to emotion-driven eating, supporting the behavioral relevance of this variant despite the modest sample size. This result is consistent with studies linking FTO to dysregulated eating, obesity-related phenotypes, and diet quality [26,61,62].
Previous studies have linked FTO to both homeostatic and reward-related regulation of food intake, with evidence suggesting involvement of hypothalamic pathways and mesolimbic dopaminergic circuits that govern food motivation and reward [63]. Variation within this gene may therefore increase sensitivity to palatable food cues and promote eating in response to emotional or situational triggers rather than physiological hunger alone. While neural and hormonal mediators were not directly measured in the present study, the association observed with EE is consistent with this broader biological framework and supports the view of FTO as a marker of behavioral vulnerability, rather than a gene that directly drives energy intake.
We also observed a nominal association between the CLOCK rs1801260 C-allele and lower postprandial cravings suppression, which did not remain significant after BH-FDR correction. This nominal finding should therefore be interpreted with caution and considered as an exploratory finding. Nevertheless, the direction of effect is consistent with prior evidence implicating CLOCK variants in disrupted circadian regulation of eating behavior and appetite timing [25,64,65]. Circadian misalignment has been associated with altered secretion of appetite-regulating hormones, including ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), which may promote increased hunger, snacking, and reduced satiety [6,43]. These observations suggest that variation in the circadian CLOCK gene may influence the temporal patterns of appetite regulation, particularly under conditions of disturbed sleep patterns or irregular eating schedules [66]. Although preliminary, our finding highlights the potential relevance of circadian biology in postprandial appetite responses and warrants further investigation in larger, adequately powered samples.
There were no significant associations detected for MC4R rs17782313 or CD36 rs1761667, consistent with previous reports suggesting that the effects of these variants on eating behaviors and food preferences may be difficult to detect in our small cohort [67]. It is also possible that the influence of these variants emerges more clearly in interaction with environmental exposures, dietary patterns, or broader polygenic risk, which were beyond the scope of the present analysis.
Taken together, these results suggest that variation in genes related to appetite and reward may contribute to inter-individual differences in eating behavior among young male adults [9,12]. Although this study focused on genetic factors, the observed associations should be interpreted within the wider behavioral context of eating behavior, which reflects an interplay between genetic predisposition, alongside psychological, social, and environmental influences [4].

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

This study combined validated behavioral measures, detailed postprandial appetite profiles, and targeted genotyping, providing an integrated assessment of the genotype-behavior relationship. However, we acknowledge several limitations. The sample size was small (N = 30), which limits statistical power, increases the risk of both Type I and Type II errors, and restricts the ability to adjust for potential confounders, including ethnicity [68]. Participants were limited to healthy young males, addressing a gap in the literature, and a strength of the study [69]. The cross-sectional nature of the analysis precludes causal inference regarding the direction of SNP–behavior relationships [70,71]. The self-reported questionnaires may introduce subjectivity and recall or response bias [40,72]. Lastly, although BH-FDR correction was applied, a residual risk of inflated Type I error (i.e., a p-value of >0.05) remains in small-sample studies with multiple tests [73,74]. These limitations are common to many exploratory nutrigenetic studies in small cohorts [75,76].
Despite these limitations, exploratory genetic studies such as this are valuable for generating biologically grounded hypotheses and informing the design of larger, well-powered trials [77]. In this context, this work contributes to this process by highlighting FTO as a variant of interest in relation to EE.

4.2. Future Directions

Future research could confirm the associations between genetic variation in SNPs related to eating behaviors, eating patterns, and subsequent health effects [78,79]. Eating behavior does not arise solely from genetics. Incorporating factors such as food environments, psychosocial stress, sleep patterns, and cultural eating practices alongside genetic data may further improve the interpretation of observed associations [4]. Interestingly, future studies may find it useful to examine whether tertile-based TFEQ-R18 groupings, together with genetic risk alleles, show similar patterns in other populations [80].

5. Conclusions

This exploratory hypothesis-generating study provides preliminary evidence that the FTO rs9939609 variant is associated with higher EE scores within this cohort. This association remained significant after correction for multiple testing. In contrast, the association observed between CLOCK rs1801260 and postprandial cravings suppression was nominal and did not survive BH-FDR correction and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Overall, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and require confirmation in larger cohorts [81].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu18030400/s1, Table S1. Ethnic distribution of participants (N = 30). Table S2. Area under the curve (AUC) calculations for fat craving scores (N = 30). Table S3. Three-factor eating questionnaire-R18 (TFEQ-R18) and appetite-related measures (N = 30). Table S4. Genotype distribution of four SNPs related to eating behaviors (N = 30). Table S5. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) and chi-square calculations for four SNPs (N = 30). Table S6. Example Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) FDR calculation for FTO (5 outcomes, α = 0.05). Table S7. Example Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) FDR calculation for CLOCK (5 outcomes, α = 0.05). Table S8. Effect size interpretation (%Δ per allele relative to the outcome mean).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.B. and A.J.B.; methodology, J.E.B., A.J.B., C.P.H. and L.D.P.; software, J.E.B.; validation, L.D.P. and C.P.H.; formal analysis, J.E.B.; data curation, J.E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.B.; writing—review and editing, J.E.B., A.J.B., C.P.H. and L.D.P.; visualization, J.E.B.; supervision, A.J.B. and C.P.H.; project administration, A.J.B.; funding acquisition, A.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The genetic analysis was funded through the University of Auckland’s internal Student Graduate Funds.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and Ethical approval for the parent study was granted by the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s Health and Disability Ethics Committees (Ref: 19/STH/226/AM02/November 2020). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial registration: NCT04545398; registered November 2020) and assigned a Universal Trial Number (U1111-1244-9426).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript
AUCArea under the curve
BH-FDR Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate
BMIBody Mass Index
CCKCholecystokinin
CD36Cluster of Differentiation 36
CIConfidence interval
CLOCKCircadian Locomotor Output Cycles Kaput
CR Cognitive restraint
EE Emotional eating
FTO Fat Mass and Obesity-Associated
GLP-1Glucagon-like peptide-1
GWASGenome-wide association studies
HWEHardy–Weinberg Equilibrium
MC4RMelanocortin 4 receptor
PYYPeptide YY
PFC Prospective food consumption
SNPSingle nucleotide polymorphism
TFEQ Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire
UE Uncontrolled eating
VAS Visual Analogue Scale

References

  1. Stover, P.J.; Field, M.S.; Andermann, M.L.; Bailey, R.L.; Batterham, R.L.; Cauffman, E.; Frühbeck, G.; Iversen, P.O.; Starke-Reed, P.; Sternson, S.M.; et al. Neurobiology of eating behavior, nutrition, and health. J. Intern. Med. 2023, 294, 582–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asamane, E.A.; Greig, C.A.; Aunger, J.A.; Thompson, J.L. Perceptions and Factors Influencing Eating Behaviours and Physical Function in Community-Dwelling Ethnically Diverse Older Adults: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Paquet, C. Environmental Influences on Food Behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Higgs, S. Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite 2015, 86, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jinnette, R.; Narita, A.; Manning, B.; McNaughton, S.A.; Mathers, J.C.; Livingstone, K.M. Does Personalized Nutrition Advice Improve Dietary Intake in Healthy Adults? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Adv. Nutr. 2021, 12, 657–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herle, M.; Smith, A.D.; Kininmonth, A.; Llewellyn, C. The Role of Eating Behaviours in Genetic Susceptibility to Obesity. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2020, 9, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cifuentes, L.; Acosta, A. Homeostatic regulation of food intake. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2022, 46, 101794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Berthoud, H.R.; Münzberg, H.; Morrison, C.D. Blaming the Brain for Obesity: Integration of Hedonic and Homeostatic Mechanisms. Gastroenterology 2017, 152, 1728–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Szalanczy, A.M.; Key, C.-C.; Solberg Woods, L.C. Genetic variation in satiety signaling and hypothalamic inflammation: Merging fields for the study of obesity. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2022, 101, 108928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ahima, R.S.; Antwi, D.A. Brain regulation of appetite and satiety. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 2008, 37, 811–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. de Wouters d’Oplinter, A.; Huwart, S.J.P.; Cani, P.D.; Everard, A. Gut microbes and food reward: From the gut to the brain. Front. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 947240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stover, P.J. Human nutrition and genetic variation. Food Nutr. Bull. 2007, 28, S101–S115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jacob, R.; Drapeau, V.; Tremblay, A.; Provencher, V.; Bouchard, C.; Pérusse, L. The role of eating behavior traits in mediating genetic susceptibility to obesity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 108, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brown, J.E.; Morton, L.; Braakhuis, A.J. Exploring Genetic Modifiers Influencing Adult Eating Behaviour: A Scoping Review. Appetite 2025, 214, 108193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gkouskou, K.G.; Georgiopoulos, G.; Vlastos, I.; Lazou, E.; Chaniotis, D.; Papaioannou, T.G.; Mantzoros, C.S.; Sanoudou, D.; Eliopoulos, A.G. CYP1A2 polymorphisms modify the association of habitual coffee consumption with appetite, macronutrient intake, and body mass index: Results from an observational cohort and a cross-over randomized study. Int. J. Obes. 2022, 46, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kawafune, K.; Hachiya, T.; Nogawa, S.; Takahashi, S.; Jia, H.; Saito, K.; Kato, H. Strong association between the 12q24 locus and sweet taste preference in the Japanese population revealed by genome-wide meta-analysis. J. Hum. Genet. 2020, 65, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Farooqi, I.S.; Keogh, J.M.; Yeo, G.S.; Lank, E.J.; Cheetham, T.; O’Rahilly, S. Clinical spectrum of obesity and mutations in the melanocortin 4 receptor gene. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 1085–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Grimm, E.R.; Steinle, N.I. Genetics of eating behavior: Established and emerging concepts. Nutr. Rev. 2011, 69, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Huang, T.; Zheng, Y.; Hruby, A.; Williamson, D.A.; Bray, G.A.; Shen, Y.; Sacks, F.M.; Qi, L. Dietary protein modifies the effect of the MC4R genotype on 2-year changes in appetite and food craving: The POUNDS Lost Trial. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Loos, R.J.F.; Lindgren, C.M.; Li, S.; Wheeler, E.; Zhao, J.H.; Prokopenko, I.; Inouye, M.; Freathy, R.M.; Attwood, A.P.; Beckmann, J.S.; et al. Common variants near MC4R are associated with fat mass, weight and risk of obesity. Nat. Genet. 2008, 40, 768–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Harbron, J.; van der Merwe, L.; Zaahl, M.G.; Kotze, M.J.; Senekal, M. Fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene polymorphisms are associated with physical activity, food intake, eating behaviors, psychological health, and modeled change in body mass index in overweight/obese Caucasian adults. Nutrients 2014, 6, 3130–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frayling, T.M.; Timpson, N.J.; Weedon, M.N.; Zeggini, E.; Freathy, R.M.; Lindgren, C.M.; Perry, J.R.B.; Elliott, K.S.; Lango, H.; Rayner, N.W.; et al. A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007, 316, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Magno, F.C.C.M.; Guaraná, H.C.; Fonseca, A.C.P.; Cabello, G.M.K.; Carneiro, J.R.I.; Pedrosa, A.P.; Ximenes, A.C.; Rosado, E.L. Influence of FTO rs9939609 polymorphism on appetite, ghrelin, leptin, IL6, TNFα levels, and food intake of women with morbid obesity. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2018, 11, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rijo-Ferreira, F.; Takahashi, J.S. Genomics of circadian rhythms in health and disease. Genome Med. 2019, 11, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Espinosa-Salinas, I.; San-Cristobal, R.; Colmenarejo, G.; Loria-Kohen, V.; Molina, S.; Reglero, G.; de Molina, A.R.; Martinez, J.A. Polymorphic Appetite Effects on Waist Circumference Depend on rs3749474 CLOCK Gene Variant. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barragán, R.; Fernández-Carrión, R.; Asensio-Márquez, E.M.; Ortega-Azorín, C.; Álvarez-Sala, A.; Pérez-Fidalgo, A.; Sorlí, J.V.; Portolés, O.; González-Monje, I.; St-Onge, M.P.; et al. Timing of Meals and Sleep in the Mediterranean Population: The Effect of Taste, Genetics, Environmental Determinants, and Interactions on Obesity Phenotypes. Nutrients 2023, 15, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Karmous, I.; Plesnik, J.; Khan, A.S.; Sery, O.; Abid, A.; Mankai, A.; Aouidet, A.; Khan, N.A. Orosensory detection of bitter in fat-taster healthy and obese participants: Genetic polymorphism of CD36 and TAS2R38 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Degrace-Passilly, P.; Besnard, P. CD36 and taste of fat. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2012, 15, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Melis, M.; Carta, G.; Pintus, S.; Pintus, P.; Piras, C.A.; Murru, E.; Manca, C.; Di Marzo, V.; Banni, S.; Barbarossa, I.T. Polymorphism rs1761667 in the CD36 gene is associated to changes in fatty acid metabolism and circulating endocannabinoid levels distinctively in normal weight and obese subjects. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Plesník, J.; Šerý, O.; Khan, A.S.; Bielik, P.; Khan, N.A. The rs1527483, but not rs3212018, CD36 polymorphism associates with linoleic acid detection and obesity in Czech young adults. Br. J. Nutr. 2018, 119, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, J.H.; Kim, M.S. Molecular mechanisms of appetite regulation. Diabetes Metab. J. 2012, 36, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ordovas, J.M. Genotype-phenotype associations: Modulation by diet and obesity. Obesity 2008, 16, S40–S46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ellis, A.; Rozga, M.; Braakhuis, A.; Monnard, C.R.; Robinson, K.; Sinley, R.; Wanner, A.; Vargas, A.J. Effect of Incorporating Genetic Testing Results into Nutrition Counseling and Care on Health Outcomes: An Evidence Analysis Center Systematic Review—Part II. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 121, 582–605.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Lauzon-Guillain, B.; Clifton, E.A.; Day, F.R.; Clément, K.; Brage, S.; Forouhi, N.G.; Griffin, S.J.; Koudou, Y.A.; Pelloux, V.; Wareham, N.J.; et al. Mediation and modification of genetic susceptibility to obesity by eating behaviors. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 106, 996–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pham, T.; Knowles, S.; Bermingham, E.; Brown, J.; Hannaford, R.; Cameron-Smith, D.; Braakhuis, A. Plasma Amino Acid Appearance and Status of Appetite Following a Single Meal of Red Meat or a Plant-Based Meat Analog: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2022, 6, nzac082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brown, J.E.; Pham, T.; Burden, H.; Braakhuis, A.J. Specific Genotypes Associated with Differences in Fasting Insulin Levels and Body Mass Index in Healthy Young Males: Implications for Gene-Nutrient Interactions-an Exploratory Study. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2023, 7, 102018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Stunkard, A.J.; Messick, S. The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. J. Psychosom. Res. 1985, 29, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Lauzon, B.; Romon, M.; Deschamps, V.; Lafay, L.; Borys, J.-M.; Karlsson, J.; Ducimetière, P.; Charles, M.A. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire-R18 is able to distinguish among different eating patterns in a general population. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 2372–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Flint, A.; Raben, A.; Blundell, J.E.; Astrup, A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2000, 24, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gibbons, C.; Hopkins, M.; Beaulieu, K.; Oustric, P.; Blundell, J.E. Issues in Measuring and Interpreting Human Appetite (Satiety/Satiation) and Its Contribution to Obesity. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2019, 8, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rahati, S.; Qorbani, M.; Naghavi, A.; Pishva, H. Association and interaction of the MC4R rs17782313 polymorphism with plasma ghrelin, GLP-1, cortisol, food intake and eating behaviors in overweight/obese Iranian adults. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2022, 22, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Amr, A.M.; Anderson, G.H.; Vien, S.; Fabek, H. Potatoes Compared with Rice in Meals with either Animal or Plant Protein Reduce Postprandial Glycemia and Increase Satiety in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Crossover Study. J. Nutr. 2024, 154, 2999–3011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rahati, S.; Qorbani, M.; Naghavi, A.; Nia, M.H.; Pishva, H. Association between CLOCK 3111 T/C polymorphism with ghrelin, GLP-1, food timing, sleep and chronotype in overweight and obese Iranian adults. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2022, 22, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lairon, D.; Lopez-Miranda, J.; Williams, C. Methodology for studying postprandial lipid metabolism. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 1145–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mullins, V.A.; Bresette, W.; Johnstone, L.; Hallmark, B.; Chilton, F.H. Genomics in Personalized Nutrition: Can You “Eat for Your Genes”? Nutrients 2020, 12, 3118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sherry, S.T.; Ward, M.-H.; Kholodov, M.; Baker, J.; Phan, L.; Smigielski, E.M.; Sirotkin, K. dbSNP: The NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 308–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schneider, V.A.; Graves-Lindsay, T.; Howe, K.; Bouk, N.; Chen, H.-C.; Kitts, P.A.; Murphy, T.D.; Pruitt, K.D.; Thibaud-Nissen, F.; Albracht, D.; et al. Evaluation of GRCh38 and de novo haploid genome assemblies demonstrates the enduring quality of the reference assembly. Genome Res. 2017, 27, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Liu, X.; Li, C.; Sun, X.; Yu, Y.; Si, S.; Hou, L.; Yan, R.; Yu, Y.; Li, M.; Li, H.; et al. Genetically Predicted Insomnia in Relation to 14 Cardiovascular Conditions and 17 Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021, 10, e020187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Little, J.; Higgins, J.P.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Moher, D.; Gagnon, F.; Von Elm, E.; Khoury, M.J.; Cohen, B.; Davey-Smith, G.; Grimshaw, J.; et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)—An extension of the STROBE statement. Genet. Epidemiol. 2009, 33, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mishra, P.; Pandey, C.M.; Singh, U.; Gupta, A.; Sahu, C.; Keshri, A. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann. Card. Anaesth. 2019, 22, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cole, T.J. Sympercents: Symmetric percentage differences on the 100 log(e) scale simplify the presentation of log transformed data. Stat. Med. 2000, 19, 3109–3125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Benjamini, Y.; Drai, D.; Elmer, G.; Kafkafi, N.; Golani, I. Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav. Brain Res. 2001, 125, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Blundell, J.; De Graaf, C.; Hulshof, T.; Jebb, S.; Livingstone, B.; Lluch, A.; Mela, D.; Salah, S.; Schuring, E.; Van Der Knaap, H.; et al. Appetite control: Methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes. Rev. 2010, 11, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gudmundsson, S.; Singer-Berk, M.; Watts, N.A.; Phu, W.; Goodrich, J.K.; Solomonson, M.; Genome Aggregation Database Consortium; Rehm, H.L.; MacArthur, D.G.; O’Donnell-Luria, A. Variant interpretation using population databases: Lessons from gnomAD. Hum. Mutat. 2022, 43, 1012–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bhagwat, M. Searching NCBI’s dbSNP Database. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2010, 32, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Antontseva, E.V.; Degtyareva, A.O.; Korbolina, E.E.; Damarov, I.S.; Merkulova, T.I. Human-genome single nucleotide polymorphisms affecting transcription factor binding and their role in pathogenesis. Vavilov J. Genet. Breed. 2023, 27, 662–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nawi, F.A.M.; Malek, A.T.A.; Faizal, S.M.; Wan, M.W.M. A Review on the Internal Consistency of a Scale: The Empirical Example of the Influence of Human Capital Investment on Malcom Baldridge Quality Principles in TVET Institutions. Asian People J. 2020, 3, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 1997, 314, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2017, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Magno, F.C.C.M.; Guaraná, H.C.; da Fonseca, A.C.P.; Pedrosa, A.P.; Zembrzuski, V.M.; Cabello, P.H.; Cabello, G.M.K.; Carneiro, J.R.I.; Rosado, E.L. Association of the MC4R rs17782313 polymorphism with plasma ghrelin, leptin, IL6 and TNFα concentrations, food intake and eating behaviors in morbidly obese women. Eat. Weight Disord. 2021, 26, 1079–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Huang, T.; Qi, Q.; Li, Y.; Hu, F.B.; Bray, G.A.; Sacks, F.M.; Williamson, D.A.; Qi, L. FTO genotype, dietary protein, and change in appetite: The Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 1126–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Madrigal-Juarez, A.; Martínez-López, E.; Sanchez-Murguia, T.; la Vega, L.M.-D.; Rodriguez-Echevarria, R.; Sepulveda-Villegas, M.; Torres-Valadez, R.; Torres-Castillo, N. FTO genotypes (rs9939609 T>A) are Associated with Increased Added Sugar Intake in Healthy Young Adults. Lifestyle Genom. 2023, 16, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dougkas, A.; Yaqoob, P.; Givens, D.I.; Reynolds, C.K.; Minihane, A.M. The impact of obesity-related SNP on appetite and energy intake. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 110, 1151–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. López-Guimerà, G.; Dashti, H.S.; Smith, C.E.; Sánchez-Carracedo, D.; Ordovas, J.M.; Garaulet, M. CLOCK 3111 T/C SNP interacts with emotional eating behavior for weight-loss in a Mediterranean population. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lopez-Minguez, J.; Gomez-Abellan, P.; Garaulet, M. Circadian rhythms, food timing and obesity. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2016, 75, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Barakat, S.; McLean, S.A.; Bryant, E.; Le, A.; Marks, P.; Touyz, S.; Maguire, S. Risk factors for eating disorders: Findings from a rapid review. J. Eat. Disord. 2023, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chamoun, E.; Mutch, D.M.; Allen-Vercoe, E.; Buchholz, A.C.; Duncan, A.M.; Spriet, L.L.; Haines, J.; Ma, D.W.L.; on behalf of the Guelph Family Health Study. A review of the associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms in taste receptors, eating behaviors, and health. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Smit, R.A.J.; Wade, K.H.; Hui, Q.; Arias, J.D.; Yin, X.; Christiansen, M.R.; Yengo, L.; Preuss, M.H.; Nakabuye, M.; Rocheleau, G.; et al. Polygenic prediction of body mass index and obesity through the life course and across ancestries. Nat. Med. 2025, 31, 3151–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chermon, D.; Birk, R. Predisposition of the Common MC4R rs17782313 Female Carriers to Elevated Obesity and Interaction with Eating Habits. Genes 2023, 14, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Whatnall, M.C.; Hutchesson, M.J.; Sharkey, T.; Haslam, R.L.; Bezzina, A.; Collins, C.E.; Tzelepis, F.; Ashton, L.M. Recruiting and retaining young adults: What can we learn from behavioural interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity and/or obesity? A systematic review of the literature. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 5686–5703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Timasheva, Y.; Balkhiyarova, Z.; Avzaletdinova, D.; Morugova, T.; Korytina, G.F.; Nouwen, A.; Prokopenko, I.; Kochetova, O. Mendelian Randomization Analysis Identifies Inverse Causal Relationship between External Eating and Metabolic Phenotypes. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Obregon, A.M.; Oyarce, K.; Santos, J.L.; Valladares, M.; Goldfield, G. Association of the melanocortin 4 receptor gene rs17782313 polymorphism with rewarding value of food and eating behavior in Chilean children. J. Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 73, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Perneger, T.V. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 1998, 316, 1236–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Groenwold, R.H.H.; Goeman, J.J.; Cessie, S.L.; Dekkers, O.M. Multiple testing: When is many too much? Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2021, 184, E11–E14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Han, P.; Keast, R.S.; Roura, E. Salivary leptin and TAS1R2/TAS1R3 polymorphisms are related to sweet taste sensitivity and carbohydrate intake from a buffet meal in healthy young adults. Br. J. Nutr. 2017, 118, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Franzago, M.; Di Nicola, M.; Fraticelli, F.; Marchioni, M.; Stuppia, L.; Vitacolonna, E. Nutrigenetic variants and response to diet/lifestyle intervention in obese subjects: A pilot study. Acta Diabetol. 2022, 59, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chamoun, E.; Liu, A.S.; Duizer, L.M.; Feng, Z.; Darlington, G.; Duncan, A.M.; Haines, J.; Ma, D.W. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in sweet, fat, umami, salt, bitter and sour taste receptor genes are associated with gustatory function and taste preferences in young adults. Nutr. Res. 2021, 85, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Llewellyn, C.; Wardle, J. Behavioral susceptibility to obesity: Gene–environment interplay in the development of weight. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nielsen, D.E.; El-Sohemy, A. Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oikarinen, N.; Jokelainen, T.; Heikkilä, L.; Nurkkala, M.; Hukkanen, J.; Salonurmi, T. Low eating self-efficacy is associated with unfavorable eating behavior tendencies among individuals with overweight and obesity. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 7730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dubois, L.; Bédard, B.; Goulet, D.; Prud’homme, D.; Tremblay, R.E.; Boivin, M. Eating behaviors, dietary patterns and weight status in emerging adulthood and longitudinal associations with eating behaviors in early childhood. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2022, 19, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 18 00400 g001
Figure 1. Emotional eating scores (0–100; ±95% CI) by FTO rs9939609 genotypes (TT, TA, AA). Higher scores reflect a greater tendency towards emotional eating.
Figure 1. Emotional eating scores (0–100; ±95% CI) by FTO rs9939609 genotypes (TT, TA, AA). Higher scores reflect a greater tendency towards emotional eating.
Nutrients 18 00400 g001
Table 1. Participant characteristics and baseline visual analogue scale (VAS) appetite scores.
Table 1. Participant characteristics and baseline visual analogue scale (VAS) appetite scores.
Characteristics (N = 30)Mean ± SD
Age (years)27.7 ± 3.62
Body weight (kg)76.6 ± 10.0
Height (cm)176.6 ± 5.80
Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)24.5 ± 2.69
Hunger (VAS, 0–100)72.7 ± 25.3
Satiety (VAS, 0–100)32.4 ± 26.6
Fullness (VAS, 0–100)34.4 ± 33.6
Prospective food consumption (VAS, 0–100)29.2 ± 23.3
Desire for sweet foods (VAS, 0–100)48.0 ± 28.1
Desire for salty foods (VAS, 0–100)43.9 ± 19.1
Desire for savory foods (VAS, 0–100)33.0 ± 22.8
Desire for fatty foods (VAS, 0–100)52.1 ± 23.3
Data are presented as mean ± SD, reflecting the normal distribution of variables.
Table 2. Allele frequencies and genotype distributions for the four SNPs (N = 30).
Table 2. Allele frequencies and genotype distributions for the four SNPs (N = 30).
GeneSNP rsIDPopulationAllele FrequencyGenotype Frequency
FTOrs9939609ReferenceT = 0.60, A = 0.40TT = 42%, TA = 44%, AA = 13%
FTOrs9939609Study cohort (N = 30)T = 0.67, A = 0.33TT = 15 (50%), TA = 10 (33%), AA = 5 (17%)
CD36rs1761667ReferenceG = 0.52, A = 0.48GG = 27%, GA = 50%, AA = 23%
CD36rs1761667Study cohort (N = 30)G = 0.62, A = 0.38GG = 11 (37%), GA = 15 (50%), AA = 4 (13%)
MC4Rrs17782313ReferenceT = 0.77, C = 0.23TT = 61%, CT = 34%, CC = 5%
MC4Rrs17782313Study cohort (N = 30)T = 0.72, C = 0.28TT = 15 (50%), CT = 13 (43%), CC = 2 (7%)
CLOCKrs1801260ReferenceT = 0.64, C = 0.36TT = 54%, CT = 38%, CC = 7%
CLOCKrs1801260Study cohort (N = 30)T = 0.78, C = 0.22TT = 19 (63%), CT = 9 (30%), CC = 2 (7%)
Reference frequencies were retrieved from gnomAD v4.1.0 (https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org; accessed 15 March 2025) [54], and NCBI dbSNP (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp; accessed 15 March 2025) [55,56], across multiple population groups. Percentages may not round to 100 due to rounding.
Table 3. Eating behavior and appetite-related measures.
Table 3. Eating behavior and appetite-related measures.
MetricMeanSDSE95% CI (Lower)95% CI (Upper)
Cognitive restraint (%)50.4216.303.0344.2356.61
Uncontrolled eating (%)53.5213.282.4748.4758.56
Emotional eating (%)51.9417.963.3445.1258.77
Appetite suppression (AUC)154.09106.9919.53115.80192.38
Cravings suppression (AUC)101.2082.8415.1271.55130.84
Eating behavior traits (CR, UE, EE) were derived from TFEQ-R18 questionnaire scores, rescaled to percentages. Appetite suppression was computed as the mean of satiety, fullness, PFC, and (100–hunger). Cravings suppression was computed as the mean of sweet, salty, savory, and fatty cravings. For each variable, VAS data were summarized as baseline-adjusted incremental AUC (t0–t240, trapezoidal method).
Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for genotype differences across eating-behavior outcomes (N = 30).
Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for genotype differences across eating-behavior outcomes (N = 30).
SNP (rs ID)OutcomeF-Valuep Valueη2
FTO rs9939609Emotional eating4.160.027 *0.236
CLOCK rs1801260Uncontrolled eating5.610.009 **0.294
CLOCK rs1801260Cravings suppression3.630.040 *0.212
MC4R rs17782313Cognitive restraint2.730.0830.168
MC4R rs17782313Cravings suppression2.650.0890.164
CD36 rs1761667No significant differences observed
Values are from one-way ANOVA with df = (2,27). η2 values calculated as SS between/SS total representing the proportion of variance explained by genotype. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.
Table 5. Linear regression analysis for FTO rs9939609 T>A, CD36 rs1761667 G>A, MC4R rs17782313 T>C, and the CLOCK rs1801260 (3111T>C) SNPs with eating behavior outcomes (N = 30).
Table 5. Linear regression analysis for FTO rs9939609 T>A, CD36 rs1761667 G>A, MC4R rs17782313 T>C, and the CLOCK rs1801260 (3111T>C) SNPs with eating behavior outcomes (N = 30).
OutcomeSNPβ Unstd. (Unadjusted)95% CI (Unadjusted)p (Unadjusted)β Unstd. (Adjusted)95% CI (Adjusted)p (Adjusted)
Cognitive restraintFTO2.13[−6.30, 10.55]0.6102.04[−6.39, 10.48]0.623
CD36−6.02[−15.18, 3.15]0.189−7.61[−18.04, 2.82]0.146
MC4R5.06[−5.01, 15.12]0.3125.53[−4.83, 15.89]0.282
CLOCK−3.78[−13.92, 6.37 ]0.452−2.96[−13.46, 7.54]0.567
Uncontrolled eatingFTO3.94[−2.78, 10.67]0.2403.76[−2.79, 10.31]0.249
CD360.18[−7.52, 7.88]0.962−1.49[−10.10, 7.12]0.726
MC4R1.58[−6.75, 9.91]0.7012.72[−5.62, 11.06]0.508
CLOCK−3.54[−11.78, 4.70]0.387−3.51[−11.78, 4.75]0.390
Emotional eatingFTO11.67[3.50, 19.83]0.007 *11.41[3.58, 19.23]0.006 *
CD365.38[−4.82, 15.59]0.2894.30[−7.22, 15.81]0.450
MC4R1.49[−9.79, 12.77]0.7893.20[−8.08, 14.47]0.565
CLOCK−4.42[−15.59, 6.74]0.424−4.58[−15.74, 6.59]0.407
Appetite suppressionFTO−28.52[−82.03, 24.99]0.284−27.27[−81.12, 26.59]0.308
CD36−21.28[−81.73, 39.17]0.477−13.71[−84.00, 56.58]0.692
MC4R1.83[−64.32, 67.98]0.955−5.88[−74.55, 62.80]0.862
CLOCK−4.45[−70.58, 61.69]0.891−4.08[−72.58, 64.42]0.904
Cravings suppressionFTO−10.60[−52.70, 31.50]0.610−9.57[−51.58, 32.44]0.644
CD36−35.91[−81.05, 9.24]0.114−25.18[−78.33, 27.98]0.339
MC4R30.27[−19.59, 80.14]0.22422.84[−29.09, 74.78]0.374
CLOCK−59.17[−104.98,
−13.35]		0.013 *−53.24[−101.26, −5.23]0.031
Appetite suppression was calculated from hunger, satiety, fullness, and prospective food consumption scores, and cravings suppression from sweet, salty, savory, and fatty scores. The primary models were unadjusted, with sensitivity analysis adjusted for age and BMI. Unstandardized coefficient (β), 95% CI, and p are reported. Asterisks (*) indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05).
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

Brown, J.E.; Hedges, C.P.; Plank, L.D.; Braakhuis, A.J. Associations of FTO and CLOCK Genetic Variants with Emotional Eating and Reward-Related Appetite Regulation Among Healthy Young Adult Males: An Exploratory Secondary Analysis. Nutrients 2026, 18, 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18030400

AMA Style

Brown JE, Hedges CP, Plank LD, Braakhuis AJ. Associations of FTO and CLOCK Genetic Variants with Emotional Eating and Reward-Related Appetite Regulation Among Healthy Young Adult Males: An Exploratory Secondary Analysis. Nutrients. 2026; 18(3):400. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18030400

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brown, Julie E., Christopher P. Hedges, Lindsay D. Plank, and Andrea J. Braakhuis. 2026. "Associations of FTO and CLOCK Genetic Variants with Emotional Eating and Reward-Related Appetite Regulation Among Healthy Young Adult Males: An Exploratory Secondary Analysis" Nutrients 18, no. 3: 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18030400

APA Style

Brown, J. E., Hedges, C. P., Plank, L. D., & Braakhuis, A. J. (2026). Associations of FTO and CLOCK Genetic Variants with Emotional Eating and Reward-Related Appetite Regulation Among Healthy Young Adult Males: An Exploratory Secondary Analysis. Nutrients, 18(3), 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18030400

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