I work in this field[0] and in situations like this always point out that "discover" in this sense is like Amerigo Vespucci "discovering America".
There were people here before it was "discovered" and there were people using this taste receptor before we knew of its existence.
This is an important distinction because what we've learned is not about new flavors or aromas - but the psychophysical pathway that activates perception of that flavor.
This doesn't allow for us humans to perceive anything new but it could allow for the synthesis of new flavors or better modulation of natural or synthesized flavors.
I work on the modeling and prediction side of human sensory perception, but do have prior knowledge of psychophysics and am happy to answer further questions.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you are right...but the title seems pretty self explanatory that it's the actual receptors being discovered, rather than that perception of taste. Unless I'm biased to read the title in that way.
I point this out because in every conversation about new receptor sites for taste, I see questions about what new flavors or experiences the "discovery" could create - which is (probably) not the _direction_ that implications from this discovery will flow.
For example, MSG was first "discovered" (more correctly, synthesized) in 1908 but the receptor sites (such as mGlu4) were not identified until much later. Glutamic acid was already being added to tons of foodstuff (kombu, mushrooms, stock, gravy, etc) even if the compound and reasoning was unknown. Isolating the compound "making stuff taste good" came before determining the receptor site.
These articles always omit the most interesting part:
> Montell and lead author Nicole Leung, who recently completed her predoctoral studies at UC Santa Barbara, suspected opsin molecules might be at work in detecting subtle chemical signals as well, via a signal amplification process.
Yeah, but why did that formulate that hypothesis? What was the line of reasoning?
The summary seems to be that opsins (proteins normally known for their role in vision) are acting to boost the signal on certain flavors indicative of potentially harmful compounds, flavors that might need to be picked up in much smaller concentrations than other flavors.
If I'm understanding it properly, not sure if it's a different "class" but rather a specialization for tasting bitter flavors. Wouldn't be surprised if there were similar specializations for other tastes e.g. sweetness, such as a mechanism to trigger insulin production without involving the brain.
There were people here before it was "discovered" and there were people using this taste receptor before we knew of its existence.
This is an important distinction because what we've learned is not about new flavors or aromas - but the psychophysical pathway that activates perception of that flavor.
This doesn't allow for us humans to perceive anything new but it could allow for the synthesis of new flavors or better modulation of natural or synthesized flavors.
I work on the modeling and prediction side of human sensory perception, but do have prior knowledge of psychophysics and am happy to answer further questions.
[0] www.gastrograph.com
I point this out because in every conversation about new receptor sites for taste, I see questions about what new flavors or experiences the "discovery" could create - which is (probably) not the _direction_ that implications from this discovery will flow.
For example, MSG was first "discovered" (more correctly, synthesized) in 1908 but the receptor sites (such as mGlu4) were not identified until much later. Glutamic acid was already being added to tons of foodstuff (kombu, mushrooms, stock, gravy, etc) even if the compound and reasoning was unknown. Isolating the compound "making stuff taste good" came before determining the receptor site.
> Montell and lead author Nicole Leung, who recently completed her predoctoral studies at UC Santa Barbara, suspected opsin molecules might be at work in detecting subtle chemical signals as well, via a signal amplification process.
Yeah, but why did that formulate that hypothesis? What was the line of reasoning?
If I'm understanding it properly, not sure if it's a different "class" but rather a specialization for tasting bitter flavors. Wouldn't be surprised if there were similar specializations for other tastes e.g. sweetness, such as a mechanism to trigger insulin production without involving the brain.