RESUMEN
Trained sensory panels are regularly used to rate food products but do not allow for data-driven approaches to steer food product development. This study evaluated the potential of a molecular-based strategy by analyzing 27 tomato soups that were enhanced with yeast-derived flavor products using a sensory panel as well as LC-MS and GC-MS profiling. These data sets were used to build prediction models for 26 different sensory attributes using partial least squares analysis. We found driving separation factors between the tomato soups and metabolites predicting different flavors. Many metabolites were putatively identified as dipeptides and sulfur-containing modified amino acids, which are scientifically described as related to umami or having "garlic-like" and "onion-like" attributes. Proposed identities of high-impact sensory markers (methionyl-proline and asparagine-leucine) were verified using MS/MS. The overall results highlighted the strength of combining sensory data and metabolomics platforms to find new information related to flavor perception in a complex food matrix.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The relationship between the chemical composition of food products and their sensory profile is a complex association confronting many challenges. However, new untargeted methodologies are helping correlate metabolites with sensory characteristics in a simpler manner. Nevertheless, in the pilot phase of a project, where only a small set of products are used to explore the relationships, choices have to be made about the most appropriate untargeted metabolomics methodology. OBJECTIVE: To provide a framework for selecting a metabolite-sensory methodology based on: the quality of measurements, the relevance of the detected metabolites in terms of distinguishing between products or in terms of whether they can be related to the sensory attributes of the products. METHODS: In this paper we introduce a systematic approach to explore all these different aspects driving the choice for the most appropriate metabolomics method. RESULTS: As an example we have used a tomato soup project where the choice between two sampling methods (SPME and SBSE) had to be made. The results are not always consistently pointing to the same method as being the best. SPME was able to detect metabolites with a better precision, SBSE seemed to be able to provide a better distinction between the soups. CONCLUSION: The three levels of comparison provide information on how the methods could perform in a follow up study and will help the researcher to make a final selection for the most appropriate method based on their strengths and weaknesses.
