Large-scale genome-wide association study of food liking reveals genetic determinants and genetic correlations with distinct neurophysiological traits.
May-Wilson, S.; Matoba, N.; Wade, K. H.; Hottenga, J.-J.; Concas, M. P.; Mangino, M.; Grzeszkowiak, E. J.; Menni, C.; Gasparini, P.; Timpson, N. J.; Veldhuizen, M. G.; de Geus, E. J.; Wilson, J. F.; Pirastu, N.
Show abstract
Variable preferences for different foods are among the main determinants of their intake and are influenced by many factors, including genetics. Despite considerable twins heritability, studies aimed at uncovering food-liking genetics have focused mostly on taste receptors. Here, we present the first results of a large-scale genome-wide association study of food liking conducted on 161,625 participants from UK Biobank. Liking was assessed over 139 specific foods using a 9-point hedonic scale. After performing GWAS, we used genetic correlations coupled with structural equation modelling to create a multi-level hierarchical map of food liking. We identified three main dimensions: high caloric foods defined as "Highly palatable", strong-tasting foods ranging from alcohol to pungent vegetables, defined as "Learned" and finally "Low caloric" foods such as fruit and vegetables. The "Highly palatable" dimension was genetically uncorrelated from the other two, suggesting that two independent processes underlie liking high reward foods and the Learned/Low caloric ones. Genetic correlation analysis with the corresponding food consumption traits revealed a high correlation, while liking showed twice the heritability compared to consumption. For example, fresh fruit liking and consumption showed a genetic correlation of 0.7 with heritabilities of 0.1 and 0.05, respectively. GWAS analysis identified 1401 significant food-liking associations located in 173 genomic loci, with only 11 near taste or olfactory receptors. Genetic correlation with morphological and functional brain data (33,224 UKB participants) uncovers associations of the three food-liking dimensions with non-overlapping, distinct brain areas and networks, suggestive of separate neural mechanisms underlying the liking dimensions. In conclusion, we created a comprehensive and data-driven map of the genetic determinants and associated neurophysiological factors of food liking beyond taste receptor genes.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comprehensive genomic analysis of dietary habits in UK Biobank identifies hundreds of genetic loci and establishes causal relationships between educational attainment and healthy eating 96%
- Epigenome-wide association meta-analysis of DNA methylation with coffee and tea consumption 94%
- Genetic analysis of blood molecular phenotypes reveals regulatory networks affecting complex traits: a DIRECT study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- An epigenome-wide association study of child appetitive traits and DNA methylation 92%
- Behavioral and neural alterations of the ventral tegmental area by exposure to junk food in rats 90%
- Unraveling Interoceptive Processing and Action Dynamics: Exploring Neural and Psychological Responses to Food Cues Using fMRI 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Controlling for background genetic effects using polygenic scores improves the power of genome-wide association studies 93%
- Quantifying genetic heterogeneity between continental populations for human height and body mass index 93%
- Genetic insights into smoking behaviours in 10,558 men of African ancestry from continental Africa and the UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Correction for participation bias in the UK Biobank reveals non-negligible impact on genetic associations and downstream analyses 94%
- Resource Profile and User Guide of the Polygenic Index Repository 93%
- Shared striatal activity in decisions to satisfy curiosity and hunger at the risk of electric shocks 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.