1 1 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors Satellite DEVELOPMENT ...

125 Poster Chemosensory Coding and ClinicalCAN HETEROSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN DISCRIMINATEEACH OTHER FROM THEIR AXILLARY SECRETIONS? IFSO, DO THEY EXHIBIT A PREFERENCE?Reynolds D.J. 1 , Fisher R.J. 2 , Scott L. 1 , Kemp S. 3 1 Univ. of Chester,Chester, United Kingdom; 2 Consumer Science, Unilever R&D, Wirral,United Kingdom; 3 Unilever R&D, Bedfordshire, United KingdomHeterosexual participants (16 male; 24 female) identified the genderof an axillary sample (Study 1) and selected their preferred sample(Study 2) in a 2AFC task. Each study consisted of 25 intensity-matchedpairs (male and female samples). Prior to the study, fabric swatcheswere worn in the under-arm for a 24-hour period by 89 volunteers (40male; 49 female). Samples were coded and double-blind rated by 8odour assessors trained and experienced in evaluating axillary intensity.For Study 1 planned one sample t-tests (2-tail) were performed on meanaccuracy for each gender separately, revealing that males (57.3%accuracy) and females (55.2%) identified the gender of samplesignificantly above chance. Study 2 (preference) revealed that femalessignificantly preferred the swatches from female derived samples(56.7%). In contrast, males showed no preference for male or femalederived samples. Results from the gender identification study challengeobservations of near-universal superiority of females in olfactoryfunction (Koelega, 1994; Doty, 1991) and suggest that males can beequally sensitive to biologically relevant odours. The preference studybuilds on findings by Martins, Preti, Crabtree and Wysocki (2005) whorevealed patterns of preference that differed across groups ofindividuals having different sexual orientations. Our results now show asignificant heterosexual female preference for heterosexual femaleodours. Although contradicting a sexual orientation based explanationhormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, familiarity with owngenderrelevant odours, and mate search during the ovulatory periodonly may offer alternative interpretations of these results.126 Poster Chemosensory Coding and ClinicalWITHDRAWN127 Poster Chemosensory Coding and ClinicalLEPTIN, INSULIN AND SWEET TASTE IN GESTATIONALDIABETES MELLITUSBelzer L. 1 , Tepper B.J. 1 , Ranzini A. 2 , Smulian J. 3 1 Food Science,Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ; 2 Maternal & Fetal Medicine,St. Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ; 3 UMDNJ-RobertWood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJLeptin is the protein product of the LEP gene and is associated withadiposity, satiety and regulation of energy intake. The db/db mouse, agenetic model of diabetes that is hyperleptinemic but lacking afunctional leptin receptor, shows elevated behavioral responses to sweettaste (Ninomiya et al. 2002). Thus, leptin may exert effects on tastecells to modulate sweet taste. This relationship has not been studied indiabetic humans. This study assessed relationships between plasmaleptin and insulin, and sweet taste in women with gestational diabetesmellitus (GDM). We measured fasting plasma leptin and insulin in 12women with GDM at 24-28 wks gestation (at diagnosis), 68 pregnantwomen without GDM and 12 non-pregnant controls. Subjects also ratedsweetness intensity and liking of glucose solutions (0.01-0.16M) andcommercial fruit cocktail, using a 15-cm line scale. There were nogroup differences in sweetness intensity or liking for any of the stimuli.In women with GDM, leptin was correlated with sweetness intensity offruit cocktail (r = 0.58, p = 0.05) and insulin was correlated withsweetness liking of both the fruit cocktail (r = 0.61; p = 0.03) and theglucose solutions (averaged across concentrations) (r = 0.65, p = 0.02).These associations were not observed in the other study groups. Thesepreliminary findings are novel and suggest that leptin and insulin play arole in sweet taste disruptions in diabetic humans. Supported by NIHDC04702.128 Poster Chemosensory Coding and ClinicalREVISITING THE SWEET TOOTH: RELATIONSHIPSBETWEEN SWEETNESS PERCEPTION, SWEET FOODPREFERENCE, AND BMISnyder D.J. 1 , Duffy V.B. 2 , Moskowitz H. 3 , Hayes J.E. 2 , Bartoshuk L.M. 41 Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT; 2 Dietetics, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT; 3 Moskowitz-Jabobs, Inc., White Plains, NY;4 Center for Smell and Taste, University of Florida, Gainesville, FLAs Pangborn noted in 1958, an obese individual is commonly thoughtto have a sweet tooth, but an experiment in her lab with sweet foodsfailed to show any association between sweet liking and body size. Avariety of studies followed supporting the same conclusion. In addition,sensory studies suggest that perceived sweetness does not change withbody mass index (BMI). We have argued that across-group scalingcomparisons (e.g., obese vs. non-obese) are invalid unless investigatorsshow that scale labels denote the same experiences to all. We solve thisdilemma by asking subjects to rate sensory and hedonic experiences inlarger contexts (i.e., all sensation, all hedonic experience). Datacollected in this manner produced conclusions that differ from priorfindings. In particular, sucrose liking (measured with the hedonicgLMS) rises with rising BMI, but the perceived sweetness of a candy(measured with the gLMS) declines. Thus, to make valid comparisonsof sweet liking across BMI, sweet liking must be corrected for variationin perceived sweetness with BMI. Following Moskowitz´s lead, wecompared sucrose sweetness/liking functions for underweight, normal,overweight, and obese individuals. As BMI increases, the slope of thefunction increases; that is, for the same perceived sweetness, sweetliking increases with BMI. Funding: NIDCD 00028332