4 ms·

A new basic taste joins sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami

41 points by Gaishan 3y ago

compressedgas 3y ago
The article actually says that sour receptors detect ammonium chloride. This means that there is no new taste. For there to be a new one, there would need to be a kind of receptor which is activated while the rest of them are inactive.
- vlz 3y ago
  Yes, is this just a baseless headline? From the articles descriptions and from the abstract of the linked paper here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 I would have thought this is about how tasting sour works not about a completely new taste.
  - lvncelot 3y ago
    > sour detector > baseless heh.
- A_No_Name_Mouse 3y ago
  If the same receptor can distinguish between 2 distinct tastes I would consider it a different basic taste. In my experience ammonium chloride does not taste sourat all, so this might be the case. The article does not mention that though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
pitdicker 3y ago
Better link: https://neurosciencenews.com/ammonium-sixth-taste-25922/ https://neurosciencenews.com/ammonium-sixth-taste-25922/
tpmx 3y ago
The paper: The proton channel OTOP1 is a sensor for the taste of ammonium chloride https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 (web layout) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4.epdf (print layout)
GolDDranks 3y ago
In Finland, we call this taste the taste of "salmiakki" or "salmiak salt" in English. It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies, but it's an acquired taste. Most people who taste it for the first time as adults, hate it.
- the-dude 3y ago
  Salmiak was sold as a powder in a tube as candy in The Netherlands ( at least in 70s and 80s ).
  - eterps 3y ago
    It's difficult to find pictures of it, but this one is close to how I remember it: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23af3922b5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23...
    - the-dude 3y ago
      Except for the pixelation! That didn't exist back then. But this is the stuff I was talking about, thanks.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  I love it. It's my favourite type of sweet but it's quite hard to find in the UK (not that I go to great lengths to find such things). I find it funny that in British English we would call such a thing a "sweet" even though it's not actually very sweet (which is why I like it). Sweet is roughly equivalent to candy in American English, but with a notable exception: chocolate is not considered a sweet but falls instead into the broader category of confectionery.
- qball 3y ago
  >It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies It's also the "salt" in salted licorice. >but it's an acquired taste Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it). Of course, that's not to say it's pointless to add it- provided it's done properly you can add a salty flavor to places it can't normally be (chocolate covered black licorice being one of those places)- but it's also a taste that imposes a relatively small n where (enjoyment gained from eating n+1 pieces) < (enjoyment gained from eating n pieces) compared to candy that's actually designed to taste good.
Gaishan 3y ago
Thanks for the cleaner links, @tpmx & @pitdicker I'm surprised there hasn't been a rush to claim the rights to naming this basic taste something more "palatable" <ducks>
truculent 3y ago
> which gives it its distinct flavor: bitter, salty, and a little bit sour. Doesn't describing it in terms of the other basic tastes undermine the main point somewhat? Is this a limitation of using language to describe a new sensory channel? Or is it somehow different to the other basic tastes (it seems like the mechanism is slightly different)?
- graypegg 3y ago
  Yeah it does to me at least. When people try to describe umami without being self-referential, they’ll say “meaty” which in my mind, really does stand separately from the rest of the other tastes. I don’t really have a good sense of a unique taste from salty liquorice in the same way I do something “meaty”.
eps 3y ago
The very notion of "base tastes" is confusing. It's not like you can decompose every taste into just these 5 base tastes, i.e. a strawberry taste. Yes, they are omnipresent and prominent, but why single them out?
- akdor1154 3y ago
  They are singled out because there are identifiable receptors for them on your tongue. Strawberry is distinct from honey because of your olfactory sense, which is separate.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  It's the same as rods and cones in the eye. You don't just see by magic, there are few specific and finite sensors, which you process into a combined perception. When you see a chair or a lake, no matter how different those things are, the sensory mechanism is the same and quite limited in a way. It's also like language, or arabic numerals. You can express any number or any idea, to infinity, but they are all composed out of a tiny alphabet of only 10 digits or 26 letters. And it's not some desire to reduce or deconstruct anything, because anyone just hates calling a strawberry a strawberry for some reason. It's simply what actually IS. Our perception of the taste of strawberry, and everything else, IS composed of only a few "base tastes". You don't have a whole sensor cell just for strawberries, and an infinite number of others for the infinite number of other things. You have a few senor types which are general purpose, and can compose a perception for strawberry, or anything else, even if strawberries were invented today and none of your evolutionary history never encountered a strawberry before.
  - lesam 3y ago
    Except you do have hundreds of distinct smell receptors that can detect complex chemical signals, which contribute greatly to what we colloquially call ‘taste’. Which is why food tastes very different if you lose your sense of smell, and why making artificial flavours is not just a matter of mixing a few base flavours.
    - 3y ago

41 points by Gaishan 3y ago

The article actually says that sour receptors detect ammonium chloride. This means that there is no new taste. For there to be a new one, there would need to be a kind of receptor which is activated while the rest of them are inactive.

vlz 3y ago
Yes, is this just a baseless headline? From the articles descriptions and from the abstract of the linked paper here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 I would have thought this is about how tasting sour works not about a completely new taste.
- lvncelot 3y ago
  > sour detector > baseless heh.
A_No_Name_Mouse 3y ago
If the same receptor can distinguish between 2 distinct tastes I would consider it a different basic taste. In my experience ammonium chloride does not taste sourat all, so this might be the case. The article does not mention that though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

pitdicker 3y ago

Better link: https://neurosciencenews.com/ammonium-sixth-taste-25922/ https://neurosciencenews.com/ammonium-sixth-taste-25922/

tpmx 3y ago

The paper: The proton channel OTOP1 is a sensor for the taste of ammonium chloride https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4 (web layout) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41637-4.epdf (print layout)

GolDDranks 3y ago

In Finland, we call this taste the taste of "salmiakki" or "salmiak salt" in English. It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies, but it's an acquired taste. Most people who taste it for the first time as adults, hate it.

the-dude 3y ago
Salmiak was sold as a powder in a tube as candy in The Netherlands ( at least in 70s and 80s ).
- eterps 3y ago
  It's difficult to find pictures of it, but this one is close to how I remember it: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23af3922b5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23...
  - the-dude 3y ago
    Except for the pixelation! That didn't exist back then. But this is the stuff I was talking about, thanks.
globular-toast 3y ago
I love it. It's my favourite type of sweet but it's quite hard to find in the UK (not that I go to great lengths to find such things). I find it funny that in British English we would call such a thing a "sweet" even though it's not actually very sweet (which is why I like it). Sweet is roughly equivalent to candy in American English, but with a notable exception: chocolate is not considered a sweet but falls instead into the broader category of confectionery.
qball 3y ago
>It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies It's also the "salt" in salted licorice. >but it's an acquired taste Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it). Of course, that's not to say it's pointless to add it- provided it's done properly you can add a salty flavor to places it can't normally be (chocolate covered black licorice being one of those places)- but it's also a taste that imposes a relatively small n where (enjoyment gained from eating n+1 pieces) < (enjoyment gained from eating n pieces) compared to candy that's actually designed to taste good.

Gaishan 3y ago

Thanks for the cleaner links, @tpmx & @pitdicker I'm surprised there hasn't been a rush to claim the rights to naming this basic taste something more "palatable" <ducks>

truculent 3y ago

> which gives it its distinct flavor: bitter, salty, and a little bit sour. Doesn't describing it in terms of the other basic tastes undermine the main point somewhat? Is this a limitation of using language to describe a new sensory channel? Or is it somehow different to the other basic tastes (it seems like the mechanism is slightly different)?

graypegg 3y ago
Yeah it does to me at least. When people try to describe umami without being self-referential, they’ll say “meaty” which in my mind, really does stand separately from the rest of the other tastes. I don’t really have a good sense of a unique taste from salty liquorice in the same way I do something “meaty”.

eps 3y ago

The very notion of "base tastes" is confusing. It's not like you can decompose every taste into just these 5 base tastes, i.e. a strawberry taste. Yes, they are omnipresent and prominent, but why single them out?

akdor1154 3y ago
They are singled out because there are identifiable receptors for them on your tongue. Strawberry is distinct from honey because of your olfactory sense, which is separate.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
It's the same as rods and cones in the eye. You don't just see by magic, there are few specific and finite sensors, which you process into a combined perception. When you see a chair or a lake, no matter how different those things are, the sensory mechanism is the same and quite limited in a way. It's also like language, or arabic numerals. You can express any number or any idea, to infinity, but they are all composed out of a tiny alphabet of only 10 digits or 26 letters. And it's not some desire to reduce or deconstruct anything, because anyone just hates calling a strawberry a strawberry for some reason. It's simply what actually IS. Our perception of the taste of strawberry, and everything else, IS composed of only a few "base tastes". You don't have a whole sensor cell just for strawberries, and an infinite number of others for the infinite number of other things. You have a few senor types which are general purpose, and can compose a perception for strawberry, or anything else, even if strawberries were invented today and none of your evolutionary history never encountered a strawberry before.
- lesam 3y ago
  Except you do have hundreds of distinct smell receptors that can detect complex chemical signals, which contribute greatly to what we colloquially call ‘taste’. Which is why food tastes very different if you lose your sense of smell, and why making artificial flavours is not just a matter of mixing a few base flavours.
  - 3y ago