Sweet Liking

Introduction

Sweet liking, or the preference for sweet tastes, is a fundamental human sensory experience with complex underlying mechanisms. This preference is observable from birth and plays a significant role in dietary choices and overall health. Understanding the genetic and environmental factors influencing sweet liking is crucial for addressing public health challenges related to diet.

Biological Basis

The perception of sweetness is primarily mediated by taste receptors located on the tongue. These receptors are proteins that bind to sweet compounds, triggering signals that are sent to the brain, where they are interpreted as a sweet taste. Individual variations in the genes encoding these taste receptors, as well as genes involved in signaling pathways, can influence an individual’s sensitivity to sweetness and their overall preference for sweet foods. Research in complex human diseases often investigates how genetic variations, such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), contribute to quantitative traits, which can include aspects of taste perception.^[1] Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) examine common genetic variations across the entire human genome to identify associations with various traits.^[2]

Clinical Relevance

Sweet liking is closely linked to dietary intake, particularly the consumption of sugars and high-calorie foods. A strong preference for sweet tastes can contribute to higher sugar intake, which is a known risk factor for several health conditions. These include metabolic traits such as obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes.^[3]Studies have identified genetic variations associated with diabetes-related traits and metabolic profiles, highlighting the interplay between genetics, diet, and disease risk.^[1]For instance, genetic factors influencing lipid concentrations and dyslipidemia, which are related to cardiovascular disease, are also a focus of genetic research that could be indirectly linked to dietary habits.^[2]

Social Importance

The prevalence of sweet liking has significant social and economic implications. It drives a substantial portion of the food industry, influencing product development and marketing strategies. From a public health perspective, understanding the genetic basis of sweet liking can inform personalized dietary recommendations and targeted interventions to promote healthier eating habits. This knowledge can contribute to strategies aimed at reducing the burden of diet-related diseases on healthcare systems and improving overall population well-being. Genetic studies often leverage large cohorts, such as the TwinsUK registry, to ensure findings are representative of broader populations, enhancing the societal impact of such research.^[2]

Methodological and Statistical Considerations

Research into sweet liking faces several methodological and statistical constraints that can impact the interpretation and generalizability of findings. Many studies are limited by moderate sample sizes, which can lead to insufficient statistical power and an increased risk of false negative findings, where true associations might be missed.^[4] Furthermore, the use of only a subset of available genetic markers in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) means that some relevant genes or causal variants may be overlooked due to incomplete genomic coverage, hindering a comprehensive understanding of candidate genes.^[5]The decision to perform sex-pooled analyses, while mitigating the multiple testing problem, might obscure sex-specific genetic associations that could influence sweet liking differently in males and females.^[5] Moreover, the lack of consistent replication for many identified genetic associations across different cohorts highlights the challenge of distinguishing true positives from false positives, emphasizing the need for robust validation in independent samples.^[4]

Population Specificity and Phenotype Characterization

The generalizability of findings concerning sweet liking is often restricted due to the demographic characteristics of study populations. Many cohorts are predominantly composed of individuals of European descent and specific age ranges, such as middle-aged to elderly participants, which limits the applicability of the results to younger populations or diverse ethnic and racial groups.^[4] Phenotype measurement strategies can also introduce limitations; for instance, averaging phenotypic traits over extended periods, sometimes spanning decades, can mask age-dependent genetic effects and potentially introduce misclassification due to changes in measurement equipment over time.^[6] Additionally, reliance on DNA collected at later examinations in longitudinal studies may introduce a survival bias, impacting the representativeness of the study population.^[4]Careful consideration of these population and measurement biases is crucial for accurate interpretation of genetic influences on sweet liking.

Unaccounted Variability and Remaining Knowledge Gaps

Despite identifying genetic contributions to complex traits, a substantial portion of the heritability for sweet liking, as with many phenotypes, often remains unexplained by identified genetic variants. Even when traits exhibit modest to high heritability, individual genetic markers may not achieve genome-wide significance, indicating that the full genetic architecture involves many small effects or complex interactions yet to be fully elucidated.^[6]Environmental factors and gene-environment interactions also play a significant, yet often unquantified, role in modulating sweet liking, and these confounders can obscure or modify genetic associations.^[6] Therefore, current research primarily generates hypotheses that require extensive replication in diverse cohorts and subsequent functional studies to validate genetic associations and explore underlying biological mechanisms.^[4] Addressing these gaps requires a move beyond initial association studies to comprehensive investigations into gene function, environmental influences, and their intricate interplay.

Variants

Genetic variations play a crucial role in shaping individual preferences, including the perception and liking of sweet tastes. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their associated genes contribute to the complex interplay of biological pathways that influence how individuals experience sweetness. These genes are involved in diverse functions, from metabolic processes and cellular transport to neuronal development and sensory signal transduction.

Variations in genes like ALDH2 (Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 2) and RGS9(Regulator of G-protein Signaling 9) may impact sweet liking through their roles in metabolic and sensory pathways.ALDH2 is primarily known for its critical function in metabolizing acetaldehyde, a byproduct of alcohol. The rs671 variant, a common polymorphism in ALDH2, can alter metabolic rates.^[7] which might indirectly affect overall metabolic health and taste perception. RGS9 plays a vital role in modulating G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling, a fundamental mechanism for taste reception. Variants such as rs16961868 , rs7213152 , and rs7212442 within the RGS9 region, including the nearby long intergenic non-coding RNA LINC02563, could influence the sensitivity and duration of taste signals, thereby impacting the perception of sweetness. Similarly, ATP10B (ATPase Aminophospholipid Translocase 10B) variants like rs4552669 and rs10037124 may affect the transport of molecules across cell membranes, a process essential for the proper functioning of taste receptor cells and the transduction of sweet stimuli.^[8]Other genetic loci involved in sweet liking include those associated with regulatory RNAs and transmembrane proteins. The region encompassingLINC02064 and UBL5P1 (Ubiquitin-Like 5 Pseudogene 1), with variants like rs13347339 and rs13182470 , highlights the potential influence of non-coding RNAs and pseudogenes on gene expression relevant to taste bud development or neural processing of taste information. TMEM63C (Transmembrane Protein 63C) is a transmembrane protein, and its variant rs74340145 might affect ion channels or transporters critical for the electrical signaling within taste receptor cells. Furthermore, variants like rs55940710 near DCC(Deleted in Colorectal Carcinoma) andRPS8P3 (Ribosomal Protein S8 Pseudogene 3) could have significant implications. DCC is a crucial receptor for netrin guidance cues, playing a role in neuronal migration and axon guidance during development.^[9] Alterations in these pathways could subtly reshape the neural circuits responsible for processing sweet tastes, influencing an individual’s preference.

Finally, genes involved in intracellular transport, metabolism, and developmental regulation also contribute to the genetic landscape of sweet liking.KIF16B (Kinesin Family Member 16B), a motor protein, is essential for the intracellular transport of vesicles and organelles, a process vital for the maintenance and function of taste receptor cells and their associated neurons. The rs56404116 variant in KIF16B could affect this transport efficiency. The region spanning AGMO (Alkylglycerol Monooxygenase) and MEOX2 (Mesenchyme Homeobox 2), with variant rs12699747 , suggests a link between lipid metabolism and developmental processes. AGMO is involved in ether lipid metabolism, which can influence membrane composition and signaling, while MEOX2 is a transcription factor critical for development.^[10] Similarly, the rs2448140 variant associated with SNORD3H (Small Nucleolar RNA H/ACA Box 3) and MTDH (Metadherin) could impact cellular functions ranging from RNA processing to stress responses, which are integral to the health and responsiveness of taste buds. LINC01934 with variant rs13029040 represents another long intergenic non-coding RNA that may regulate gene expression pathways influencing taste perception.^[1]Collectively, these variants highlight the broad genetic underpinnings of sweet liking, touching upon fundamental biological processes that converge to shape this complex human trait.

Key Variants

RS ID	Gene	Related Traits
rs671	ALDH2	body mass index erythrocyte volume mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration mean corpuscular hemoglobin coronary artery disease
rs16961868 rs7213152 rs7212442	RGS9 - LINC02563	sweet liking measurement
rs4552669 rs10037124	ATP10B	sweet liking measurement
rs13347339 rs13182470	LINC02064 - UBL5P1	sweet liking measurement
rs74340145	TMEM63C	sweet liking measurement
rs55940710	RPS8P3 - DCC	sweet liking measurement
rs56404116	KIF16B	sweet liking measurement
rs12699747	AGMO - MEOX2	sweet liking measurement
rs2448140	SNORD3H - MTDH	sweet liking measurement
rs13029040	LINC01934	sweet liking measurement

Operational Definitions and Measurement of Traits in Metabolic Research

The scientific understanding of complex traits, such as those that might influence “sweet liking,” relies on precise operational definitions and standardized measurement approaches, as exemplified by metabolic phenotypes. Research studies frequently define traits like “waist circumference,” “insulin resistance,” “body mass index (BMI),” “glucose,” “insulin,” “total cholesterol,” “high-density lipoprotein (HDL),” “low-density lipoprotein (LDL),” “triglycerides,” and “C-reactive protein (CRP)” with rigorous criteria.^{[3], [4], [10], [11]} For instance, “BMI” is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters (kg m−2), while “waist circumference” is measured anthropometrically.^[10]These quantitative traits are often measured using specific clinical or laboratory methods, such as radioimmunoassay for “insulin” and glucose dehydrogenase methods for “glucose” from “fasting blood samples”.^[10] Measurement approaches for “lipid traits” (e.g., triglycerides, HDL, LDL) also require “fasting blood” collection and enzymatic analysis, with specific exclusion criteria for individuals who have not fasted or are diabetic to ensure data quality.^[10] Continuous traits are commonly assessed for normality and may undergo “natural log transformation” for statistical analysis to meet model assumptions.^[10] Furthermore, researchers frequently adjust for significant covariates like “age,” “gender,” “BMI,” “oral-contraceptive use,” and “pregnancy status” to isolate the genetic or environmental effects on the trait of interest.^[10] This meticulous approach to defining and measuring traits is fundamental for robust genetic association studies.

Classification Systems and Conceptual Frameworks for Metabolic Health

The researchs utilize established classification systems and conceptual frameworks for related metabolic conditions. For instance, “metabolic syndrome” is a clinically recognized cluster of risk factors defined by a consensus statement from the International Diabetes Federation.^[12] Similarly, “type 2 diabetes” is a well-defined diagnostic category, and individuals with this condition are often treated as a distinct group or excluded from certain analyses to focus on pre-diabetic or non-diabetic populations.^[10] These classifications typically involve specific “diagnostic criteria” and “thresholds” for various metabolic parameters.

The understanding of metabolic traits often incorporates both “categorical” and “dimensional” approaches. While conditions like “diabetes” are categorical (present or absent), underlying “metabolic risk factors” and “insulin resistance” are recognized to “worsen continuously across the spectrum of nondiabetic glucose tolerance”.^[1] This dimensional perspective allows for severity gradations and highlights the continuum of metabolic health. “Dyslipidemia,” characterized by abnormal “lipid” levels, is also understood as a complex, “polygenic” trait, implying that its classification and risk assessment integrate multiple genetic and environmental factors.^[11] Such frameworks are critical for both clinical management and advancing scientific inquiry into complex traits.

Terminology and Clinical Significance in Genetic and Metabolic Research

The terminology used in genetic and metabolic research underscores the clinical and scientific significance of the studied traits. Traits such as “waist circumference” and “insulin resistance” are considered important “phenotypes” due to their strong associations with adverse health outcomes like “metabolic syndrome” and “cardiovascular disease”.^[3]“Insulin resistance” itself is a key concept, frequently quantified using standardized measures like “Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA)” or various “insulin sensitivity indices (ISI)”.^[13]The term “genetic variation” refers to differences in DNA sequences, particularly “single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs),” which are investigated for their role in “genetic predisposition to disease”.^[3]Certain traits are also termed “biomarkers” or “intermediate phenotypes,” indicating their utility as measurable indicators that reflect underlying biological processes or disease pathways. For example, “C-reactive protein” is identified as an “intermediate phenotype” for inflammation, suggesting its value in understanding disease progression.^[14] The identification of specific “genetic markers,” such as common variants near MC4Rassociated with “waist circumference” and “insulin resistance”.^[3] or variants near MLXIPL associated with “triglycerides”.^[15] contributes to elucidating the “heritability” of these complex traits. This precise nomenclature facilitates clear communication and a deeper understanding of the genetic and physiological underpinnings of metabolic health.

Causes of Sweet Liking

Sweet liking, a complex trait influenced by both biological and environmental factors, plays a significant role in dietary choices and metabolic health. Its origins are multifaceted, encompassing genetic predispositions, environmental exposures, the interplay between genes and environment, and the impact of various health conditions. Understanding these causal factors provides insight into individual variations in taste preferences and their broader implications for health.

Genetic Predisposition to Metabolic and Appetite Traits

An individual’s genetic makeup significantly contributes to their liking for sweet tastes, alongside their metabolic profiles. Complex traits, such as sweet liking, are often polygenic, meaning multiple genes with small, additive effects collectively influence the phenotype . A highly conserved hydrophobic motif within its exofacial vestibule is critical for its substrate selectivity, particularly for fructose.^[16]This transporter plays a significant role in renal urate transport, influencing serum urate concentrations, urate excretion, and the risk of developing gout.^[17]The efficient processing and transport of sugars like fructose through these mechanisms are fundamental to cellular energy balance and systemic metabolic health.

Genetic Regulation of Metabolic Homeostasis

Genetic variations exert substantial influence on how an individual’s body processes sugars and maintains overall metabolic balance. Common variants in genes encoding pancreatic beta-cell KATP channel subunits, specifically KCNJ11 (Kir6.2) and ABCC8(SUR1), are confirmed to be associated with type 2 diabetes, impacting the crucial processes of insulin secretion and glucose regulation.^[18] Furthermore, a common PPARpolymorphism has been linked to a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, highlighting its role in the complex regulatory networks governing glucose and lipid metabolism.^[19] Genetic variations near MC4Rare associated with waist circumference and insulin resistance, demonstrating the gene’s involvement in energy expenditure and the predisposition to adiposity, which can be exacerbated by dietary sugar intake.^[3] These genetic underpinnings underscore the personalized nature of metabolic responses to sweet substances and their implications for long-term health.

Lipid Metabolism and Systemic Consequences

The consumption and metabolism of sugars are intimately connected with lipid synthesis and transport, profoundly affecting cardiovascular health and systemic physiological functions. Elevated dietary sugar intake can contribute to increased triglyceride levels, a trait influenced by genetic variants at numerous loci identified through genome-wide association studies.^[7] Key biomolecules such as Lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) are essential enzymes in cholesterol esterification and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) metabolism; inherited deficiencies inLCAT lead to specific dyslipidemic syndromes.^[20] Similarly, Cholesterol Ester Transfer Protein (CETP) is a critical component in the transfer of lipids between lipoproteins, and genetic markers influencing CETP are associated with variations in HDL-cholesterol levels.^[21]These intricate molecular and cellular interactions illustrate how sugar metabolism impacts the lipid profile, thereby contributing to the risk of conditions like coronary artery disease.^[22]

Pathophysiology of Metabolic Dysregulation

Chronic disruptions in glucose and lipid homeostasis, often influenced by genetic predispositions and sustained consumption of sweet substances, drive several pathophysiological processes that can lead to significant health burdens. Insulin resistance, a central feature of type 2 diabetes, involves a diminished cellular response to insulin, resulting in persistently high blood glucose levels.^[1]This metabolic imbalance is frequently observed as part of the metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors including abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, and abnormal lipid profiles.^[23] The combined impact of genes like SLC2A9, which affects urate and fructose metabolism, alongside those governing lipid and glucose handling, creates a complex network where dietary sweet intake can exacerbate these homeostatic disruptions, increasing susceptibility to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.^[24] These systemic consequences highlight the profound and interconnected effects of sugar metabolism on overall human health.

Sugar Transport and Early Metabolic Processing

The physiological processing of sweet substances begins with their cellular uptake and initial metabolic steps. A key player in this process is SLC2A9, also known as GLUT9, a member of the facilitative glucose transporter family.^[25]While primarily recognized for its role in influencing serum urate concentration and excretion,SLC2A9is also involved in the transport of sugars, particularly fructose.^{[16], [24], [26], [27]}The efficient transport of fructose bySLC2A proteins is determined by highly conserved hydrophobic motifs that dictate substrate selectivity, highlighting the specific molecular interactions governing sugar entry into cells.^[16] This initial transport is critical for making sweet-tasting carbohydrates available for subsequent metabolic pathways.

Metabolic Regulation and Intermediary Pathways

Following cellular uptake, sweet compounds like fructose and glucose enter complex metabolic pathways that are tightly regulated to maintain energy homeostasis. Fructose metabolism, in particular, has significant implications for uric acid levels, withSLC2A9acting as a key regulator of uric acid concentrations.^{[16], [24], [26], [27]} This highlights a crucial metabolic crosstalk where the processing of sweet sugars can directly influence other metabolic products. Beyond individual pathways, transcription factors like PPAR-gamma and HNF-1 play roles in broader metabolic regulation, with variants in PPAR-gamma being associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes.^{[19], [28]}These factors orchestrate gene expression, influencing the flux through various metabolic routes, including those involved in glucose and lipid metabolism.

Genetic and Post-Translational Regulatory Mechanisms

The efficiency and specificity of sugar metabolism are subject to intricate genetic and post-translational regulatory mechanisms. For instance, the SLC2A9 gene exhibits alternative splicing, a post-translational regulatory mechanism that alters the trafficking of the GLUT9 protein, thereby affecting its functional properties.^{[25], [29]}This molecular adaptability allows for fine-tuning of sugar and urate transport depending on cellular needs. Furthermore, common genetic variants within gene clusters likeFADS1 and FADS2are associated with variations in the fatty acid composition of phospholipids, demonstrating how genetic predispositions can influence lipid biosynthesis, a pathway often impacted by carbohydrate intake.^{[30], [31]} These genetic and post-translational controls are crucial for shaping an individual’s metabolic response to sweet substances.

Integrated Metabolic Networks and Disease Implications

The pathways involved in processing sweet substances are not isolated but form an integrated network, with significant implications for systemic health and disease. Metabolomics studies have revealed complex metabolite profiles in human serum, indicating extensive network interactions and emergent metabolic phenotypes.^{[8], [32], [33], [34]}Dysregulation within these interconnected pathways, such as altered glucose and lipid metabolism, is strongly associated with conditions like type 2 diabetes and various forms of dyslipidemia.^{[1], [7], [11], [22]}For example, the interplay between uric acid, metabolic syndrome, and renal disease underscores how the metabolic consequences of sweet intake can contribute to a spectrum of health issues.^[23] Understanding these integrated networks also highlights potential therapeutic targets, such as the KATP channel subunits (KCNJ11 and ABCC8) relevant to type 2 diabetes, and transcription factors like PPAR-gamma.^{[18], [19]}

References

[1] Meigs JB. Genome-wide association with diabetes-related traits in the Framingham Heart Study. BMC Med Genet. 2007;8 Suppl 1:S13. PMID: 17903298.

[2] Wallace, C et al. “Genome-wide association study identifies genes for biomarkers of cardiovascular disease: serum urate and dyslipidemia.”Am J Hum Genet, 2008.

[3] Chambers, J. C. “Common genetic variation near MC4R is associated with waist circumference and insulin resistance.”Nat Genet, vol. 40, no. 6, 2008, pp. 716-718. PMID: 18454146.

[4] Benjamin, E. J. “Genome-wide association with select biomarker traits in the Framingham Heart Study.” BMC Med Genet, vol. 8 Suppl 1, 2007, p. S11. PMID: 17903293.

[5] Yang, Q., et al. “Genome-wide association and linkage analyses of hemostatic factors and hematological phenotypes in the Framingham Heart Study.”BMC Med Genet, vol. 8 Suppl 1, 2007, S10.

[6] Vasan, R. S. “Genome-wide association of echocardiographic dimensions, brachial artery endothelial function and treadmill exercise responses in the Framingham Heart Study.”BMC Med Genet, vol. 8 Suppl 1, 2007, p. S2. PMID: 17903301.

[7] Saxena R. Genome-wide association analysis identifies loci for type 2 diabetes and triglyceride levels. Science. 2007;316(5829):1331-6. PMID: 17463246.

[8] Gieger C. Genetics meets metabolomics: a genome-wide association study of metabolite profiles in human serum. PLoS Genet. 2008;4(11):e1000282. PMID: 19043545.

[9] Wilk JB. Framingham Heart Study genome-wide association: results for pulmonary function measures. BMC Med Genet. 2007;8 Suppl 1:S8. PMID: 17903307.

[10] Sabatti C. Genome-wide association analysis of metabolic traits in a birth cohort from a founder population. Nat Genet. 2008;40(12):1395-402. PMID: 19060910.

[11] Kathiresan, S et al. “Common variants at 30 loci contribute to polygenic dyslipidemia.” Nat Genet, 2008.

[12] Alberti, K. G., P. Zimmet, and J. Shaw. “Metabolic syndrome-a new world-wide definition. A Consensus Statement from the International Diabetes Federation.” Diabet. Med., vol. 23, 2006, pp. 469–480.

[13] Matthews, D. R., et al. “Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man.”Diabetologia, vol. 28, no. 7, 1985, pp. 412-419.

[14] Wessel, J., et al. “C-reactive protein, an ‘intermediate phenotype’ for inflammation: human twin studies reveal heritability, association with blood pressure and the metabolic syndrome, and the influence of common polymorphism at catecholaminergic/beta-adrenergic pathway loci.”J. Hypertens., vol. 25, 2007, pp. 329–343.

[15] Kooner, J. S., et al. “Genome-wide scan identifies variation in MLXIPL associated with plasma triglycerides.” Nat Genet, vol. 40, no. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 149-51.

[16] McArdle, P. F. “Association of a common nonsynonymous variant in GLUT9 with serum uric acid levels in old order amish.”Arthritis Rheum, vol. 58, no. 8, 2008, pp. 2536-2544. PMID: 18759275.

[17] Anzai, N., et al. “New insights into renal transport of urate.”Curr Opin Rheumatol, vol. 19, no. 2, 2007, pp. 151–7. PMID: 17278930.

[18] Gloyn, A. L., et al. “Large-scale association studies of variants in genes encoding the pancreatic b-cell KATP channel subunits Kir6.2 (KCNJ11) and SUR1 (ABCC8) confirm that the KCNJ11 E23K variant is associated with type 2 diabetes.” Diabetes, vol. 52, no. 2, 2003, pp. 568-572.

[19] Altshuler, D., et al. “The common PPAR- polymorphism associated decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.” Nat Genet, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 76-80.

[20] Kuivenhoven, J. A., et al. “The molecular pathology of lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) deficiency syndromes.” J Lipid Res, vol. 38, no. 2, 1997, pp. 191-205. PMID: 9162740.

[21] Hiura, Y et al. “Identification of genetic markers associated with high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol by genome-wide screening in a Japanese population: the Suita study.”Circ J, 2009.

[22] Willer, C. J. “Newly identified loci that influence lipid concentrations and risk of coronary artery disease.”Nat Genet, vol. 40, no. 2, 2008, pp. 161-169. PMID: 18193043.

[23] Cirillo, P., et al. “Uric Acid, the metabolic syndrome, and renal disease.”J Am Soc Nephrol, vol. 17, no. 12 Suppl 3, 2006, pp. S165-S168.

[24] Vitart, V. “SLC2A9 is a newly identified urate transporter influencing serum urate concentration, urate excretion and gout.”Nat Genet, vol. 40, no. 4, 2008, pp. 432-437. PMID: 18327257.

[25] Phay, J.E., et al. “Cloning and expression analysis of a novel member of the facilitative glucose transporter family, SLC2A9 (GLUT9).”Genomics, vol. 66, no. 2, 2000, pp. 217-220.

[26] Döring, A., et al. “SLC2A9 influences uric acid concentrations with pronounced sex-specific effects.”Nat Genet, vol. 40, 2008, pp. 430–436.

[27] Li, S., et al. “The GLUT9Gene Is Associated with Serum Uric Acid Levels in Sardinia and Chianti Cohorts.”PLoS Genet, 2007.

[28] Ridker, Paul M., et al. “Loci related to metabolic-syndrome pathways including LEPR, HNF1A, IL6R, and GCKR associate with plasma C-reactive protein: the Women’s Genome Health Study.”Am J Hum Genet, vol. 82, no. 5, 2008, pp. 1185-1192.

[29] Augustin, R., et al. “Identification and characterization of human glucose transporter-like protein-9 (GLUT9): alternative splicing alters trafficking.”J Biol Chem, vol. 279, no. 16, 2004, pp. 16229-16236.

[30] Schaeffer, L., et al. “Common genetic variants of the FADS1 FADS2 gene cluster and their reconstructed haplotypes are associated with the fatty acid composition in phospholipids.” Hum Mol Genet, vol. 15, no. 10, 2006, pp. 1745-1756.

[31] Malerba, G., et al. “SNPs of the FADS Gene Cluster are Associated with Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in a.” Hum Mol Genet, vol. 17, 2008, pp. 3044-3052.

[32] Assfalg, Michael, et al. “Evidence of different metabolic phenotypes in humans.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 105, 2008, pp. 1420-1424.

[33] Dumas, Marc-Emmanuel, et al. “Direct quantitative trait locus mapping of mammalian metabolic phenotypes in diabetic and normoglycemic rat models.” Nat Genet, vol. 39, 2007, pp. 666-672.

[34] Nicholson, Jeremy K., et al. “Metabonomics: a platform for studying drug toxicity and gene function.” Nat Rev Drug Discov, vol. 1, 2002, pp. 153-161.