Structure-dependent effects of sweet and sweet taste affecting compounds on their sensorial properties

Abstract

A reduction in sugar consumption is desirable from a health point of view. However, the sensory profiles of alternative sweet tasting compounds differ from sucrose regarding their temporal profile and undesired side tastes, reducing consumers’ acceptance. The present study describes a sensory characterization of a variety of sweet and sweet taste affecting compounds followed by a comparison of similarity to sucrose and a multivariate regression analysis to investigate structural determinants and possible interactions for the temporal profile of the sweetness and side-tastes. The results of the present study suggest a pivotal role for the number of ketones, aromatic rings, double bonds and the M LogP in the temporal profile of sweet and sweet taste affecting compounds. Furthermore, interactions between aggregated physicochemical descriptors demonstrate the complexity of the sensory response, which should be considered in future models to predict a comprehensive sensory profile of sweet and sweet taste affecting compounds.

Individual Sweet Taste Perception Influences Salivary Characteristics After Orosensory Stimulation With Sucrose and Noncaloric Sweeteners

“…The concentration of the test compounds was selected to reach the sweet taste level equivalent to 5% sucrose, based on the rating of trained panelists, according to Karl et al ( 28 ). However, the sensorially naïve test subjects in this study rated NHDC and RebM to be sweeter than sucralose and sucrose ( Figure 3B ).…”

“…Four structurally and sensorially diverse sweet-tasting compounds, namely, NHDC (>96%, FG; Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany), RebM (90%; Symrise AG, Holzminden, Germany), sucralose (>98%; Symris AG, Holzminden, Germany), and sucrose (AGRANA Zucker GmbH, Vienna, Austria) were selected as test compounds (refer to Table 1 for the corresponding IUPAC nomenclature and structures). The compounds and their concentrations were selected based on a previous sensory study by Karl et al ( 28 ), in which sweet taste affecting compounds were sorted into three main clusters based on their sensory properties ( 28 ). For the present study, a representative compound was selected from each cluster in addition to the sweet reference compound, sucrose.…”

Reducing the Bitter Taste of Pharmaceuticals Using Cell-Based Identification of Bitter-Masking Compounds

“…Concentrations of hesperitin, eriodictyol and homoeriodictyol, ranging from 7 ppm to 100 ppm, were chosen according to previously published sensory results pertaining to their bitter-masking properties on caffeine [ 34 ]. Phyllodulcin, however, though structurally similar to hesperitin, has not been described for its bitter-masking effects; it has been shown to elicit sweet taste perception while tasting bitter at higher concentrations of 75 ppm [ 35 , 36 ]. For eriodictyol and homoeriodictyol, reduction in the bitter response evoked by caffeine in the HGT-1 cell model has been shown for concentrations of 3, 30 and 300 µM [ 10 ].…”

VirtualTaste: a web server for the prediction of organoleptic properties of chemical compounds

“…Chemoinformatic-based analysis of chemical features present in bitter and sweet compounds revealed significant information ( 9 ). The chemical structure of sweet tasting compounds is known to be incredibly diverse ( 10 ). The list of chemically diverse sweet tasting compounds is long and it includes structural classes like heterocyclics (saccharin, acesulfame K); amino acids (glycine, D-tryptophan), dipeptides (aspartame, neotame), sulfamates (cyclamate), halogenated sugars (sucralose), terpenes and terpene glycosides (hernandulcin, stevioside, rebaudiosides), polyols (sorbitol, maltitol, lactitol), urea derivatives (dulcin, superaspartame, suosan), oximes (perillartine) and nitroanilines ( 11 ).…”