Taste compounds, affecting factors, and methods used to evaluate chicken soup: A review (2024)

Most taste‐active compounds with taste descriptions and thresholds in chicken soup were summarized. The application of sensory evaluation, liquid chromatography, electronic tongue, and other evaluation methods in chicken soup taste analysis were elaborated. The effects of genetic constitution, preslaughter, processing, and storage on chicken soup taste had been discussed.

TABLE 1

Small molecular compounds have been reported in chicken/chicken soup

2.1. Sweet‐tasting compounds

Sweet taste is one of the basic taste sensations and the most predominant preference among individuals. Natural sweet substances mainly include aliphatic hydroxyl compounds such as alcohols and sugars. However, amino acids, amides, lipids, and other compounds also have a sweet taste. The main sweet‐tasting compounds reported in chicken/chicken soup include sugars, sugar alcohols, and sweet amino acids. In the study reported by Dunkel and Hofmann (²⁰⁰⁹), 4 sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, and lactose), 4 sugar alcohols (inositol, xylitol, ethylene glycol, and ribitol), and 7 sweet‐tasting amino acids (alanine, serine, glycine, proline, threonine, cysteine, and methionine) were quantified in double‐boiled chicken broth. The taste threshold concentrations (TCs) of the mentioned above 15 sweet‐tasting compounds were also determined in bottled water by means of a triangle test. Among them, cysteine had the lowest taste threshold (TC=2,000μM), followed by methionine (TC=5,000μM) and alanine (TC=8,000μM). Since the side chain of methionine contains a hydrophobic methylthio group (CH₃S‐), most researchers preferred to classify it as a bitter amino acid. In addition to inositol, glucose, and fructose, 4 free sugars (sedoheptulose, mannose (TC=199,822μM), ribose, and ribulose) were also identified in Single‐comb White Leghorn and New Hampshire chickens (Lilyblade & Peterson,¹⁹⁶²). The content of maltose (TC=31,259μM) was detected in the breast and thigh of Sanhuang chicken and Black‐bone silky fowl; however, the maltose content was found to be <0.1% in four samples (Wang etal.,²⁰¹⁸). In the study reported by Aliani and Farmer, two phosphorylated (ribose‐5‐phosphate [R‐5‐P] and glucose‐6‐phosphate [G‐6‐P]) sugars were quantified, which showed that their content in breast meat was higher than that in leg meat (Aliani & Farmer,^{2002, 2005}). Recently, two sweet‐tasting amino acid derivatives (sarcosine and β‐alanine) were studied in chicken (Hy‐line brown) soup (Zhang etal.,²⁰²⁰); however, the contribution of these two compounds to the sweetness of chicken soup is unclear due to the lack of data on their taste threshold. Alkaloid is a type of basic organic compound that contains nitrogen. Almost all alkaloids have a bitter taste, except betaine that has a sweet taste. It was found that the content of betaine (CT=50,021μM) in freeze‐dried chicken soup prepared with Korean native chicken (KNC) was significantly higher than that prepared with commercial broiler (CB) (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁴).

2.2. Sour‐tasting compounds

Sour taste is one of the earliest chemical taste senses in animal evolution. Sourness provides a refreshing and exciting feeling and increases appetite. The formation of sourness is due to the dissociation of hydrogen ions (H⁺) from acidic compounds in an aqueous solution, which stimulates the taste receptors in the mouth. Then, it transmits signals to the taste center of the brain through the sensory nervous system. Organic acids are the main sour‐tasting compounds present in chicken/chicken soup. Four sour‐tasting compounds (lactate, malate, citrate, and acetate) were quantified in double‐boiled chicken broth (Dunkel & Hofmann,²⁰⁰⁹). Among them, the taste threshold of acetate was the lowest (TC=2,000μM), followed by citrate (TC=2,600μM) and malate (TC=3,700μM). The contents of oxalic acid (TC=5,600μM), tartaric acid, formic acid (TC=4,345μM), pyroglutamic acid (TC=9,798μM), and fumaric acid were also determined in chicken/chicken soup (Horio & Kawamura,¹⁹⁹⁰; Norris etal.,¹⁹⁸⁴; Stark etal.,²⁰⁰⁶; Zhang etal.,²⁰²⁰). Presently, the sour‐tasting peptides reported in chicken or chicken soup include VE (TC=8,121μM), WVNEEDHL, NSLEGEFKG, and KDLFDPVIQD (Kong etal.,²⁰¹⁷; Zhang, Ma, etal.,²⁰¹⁹).

2.3. Salty compounds

Saltiness is the characteristic taste of neutral salt, which plays an essential role in cooking. As cations are easily adsorbed by the carboxyl group or phosphoric acid group of the taste receptor proteins, the salty taste perceived by the tongue is mainly attributed to metal cations, such as sodium ions and potassium ions. The metal cations in chicken/chicken soup include Na⁺, K⁺, NH4+, Ca²⁺, and Mg²⁺ (Choi, ²⁰¹¹). As the taste of divalent salts is complex and mainly characterized by bitterness and saltiness, the taste TC of CaCl₂ and MgCl₂ was found to be bitter in the study reported by Dunkel & Hofmann (²⁰⁰⁹; Lawless etal.,²⁰⁰³). The contribution of anions to saltiness has long been proven (Elliott & Simon,¹⁹⁹⁰; Roebber etal.,²⁰¹⁹). The study conducted by Lawless etal. (²⁰⁰³) have revealed that salts with larger anions are not effective stimulants because of their limited expansion at the tight junction and at the basolateral area of taste receptor channels. The anions reported in chicken/chicken soup mainly included Cl⁻, OH⁻, HPO42‐, and PO43‐ (Nishimura etal., ^{1988, 2016}; Qi etal.,²⁰¹⁷).

2.4. Umami‐tasting compounds

As the characteristic taste of chicken soup, umami is an important evaluation index of high‐quality chicken soup. The umami‐tasting compounds in chicken/chicken soup mainly include umami‐tasting amino acids, 5′‐nucleotides, and umami peptides. In the study reported by Dunkel and Hofmann (²⁰⁰⁹), 4 amino acids (glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glutamine, and asparagine), 1 organic acid (succinic acid), and 6 nucleosides (adenosine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐AMP], uridine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐UMP], guanosine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐GMP], xanthosine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐XMP], cytidine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐CMP], and inosine 5′‐monophosphate [5′‐IMP]) were quantified and their taste threshold was determined in double‐boiled chicken broth. Among them, the taste threshold of succinic acid was the lowest (TC=900μM), followed by glutamic acid (TC=1,100μM) and aspartic acid (TC=4,000μM). Several studies have shown that 5′‐IMP is responsible for the umami taste of chicken meat. The taste threshold of 5′‐IMP in bottled water was 5,000μM (Dunkel & Hofmann,²⁰⁰⁹). The contents of 5′‐IMP in chicken soup vary with the individual sample (variety, age, gender, and so on), feed nutrition, tissue position, cooking method, storage method, and evaluation method. The umami peptide is another type of umami‐tasting compound considered after free amino acids, nucleotides, and organic acids. As early as 1999, Maehashi et al. isolated the umami peptides, EE and EV, from the chicken protein hydrolysate. In addition to these two umami peptides, four other peptides (ADE, AED, DEE, and SPE) were proven to enhance the umami intensity of 5′‐IMP (Maehashi etal.,¹⁹⁹⁹). Presently, the umami peptides reported in chicken/chicken soup included AH, VE (8,121μM), AE (9,165μM), ED (7,627μM), AEA (10,000μM), TE (12,086μM), WVNEEDHL (umami‐enhancing), NSLEGEFKG (umami‐enhancing), and KDLFDPVIQD (umami‐enhancing) (Kong etal.,²⁰¹⁷; Zhang, Zhao, etal.,²⁰¹⁹).

2.5. Bitter‐tasting compounds

The bitter taste is easily perceived and lasts for a longer duration in the mouth. The taste threshold of caffeine was only 750μM (Stark etal.,²⁰⁰⁶). Bitter taste exerts a double effect on the quality of chicken soup. An ideal extent of bitter taste in chicken soup can help enrich and improve the taste of chicken soup. However, a considerable extent of bitter taste will affect the taste of chicken soup and result in consumer dissatisfaction. The bitter‐tasting compounds in chicken/chicken soup mainly include bitter amino acids, nucleotides, and bitter peptides. Strong hydrophobic sites reportedly exist in the molecular structure of several bitter organic compounds. The intensity of the hydrophobic interaction between hydrophobic sites and taste cell membrane may help determine the extent of bitterness (Katsuragi etal.,¹⁹⁹⁶). In Dunkel and Hofmann′s study, 16 bitter‐tasting amino acids and nucleosides (arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, valine, tryptophan, taurine, xanthine, hypoxanthine, inosine, guanosine, adenosine, and 3′:5′‐cAMP) were quantified in double‐boiled chicken broth. Among them, tyrosine and tryptophan had the lowest taste thresholds (TC=5,000μM), followed by isoleucine (TC=11,000μM) and leucine (TC=12,000μM) (Dunkel & Hofmann,²⁰⁰⁹). The bitter‐tasting methionine and creatine contents in freeze‐dried chicken soup prepared using CB were significantly higher than those prepared using KNC (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁵). The bitter peptides, AM and AD (5,975μM), were separated and identified in chicken enzymatic hydrolysate (Kong etal.,²⁰¹⁷). Owing to unclear quantitative information on the two peptides, their contribution to the bitterness of chicken enzymatic hydrolysate could not be ascertained. Additionally, the bitter‐tasting compounds, namely urea (96,570μM), methanol (1,677,903μM), uracil (24,980μM), and creatinine (25,018μM), were also observed in chicken/chicken soup (Xiao, Ge, etal.,²⁰¹⁹; Zhang etal.,²⁰²⁰).

3.1. Sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation using the human tongue as a detector can provide direct, effective, unique, and intuitive taste information for chicken soup. Moreover, it provides a human feeling and is considered to be the most direct and intuitive tool for such evaluation. The detection threshold of the human tongue (45years of age and below) for sodium chloride, quinine sulfate, sucrose, and citric acid was reported to be 2.49×10^–3M, 1.24×10^–6M, 5.92×10^–3M, and 1.04×10^–4M, respectively (Weiffenbach etal.,¹⁹⁸²). Thereby sensory evaluation becomes a valuable and sensitive method in analyzing chicken soup taste and taste‐active compounds. The sensory evaluation of chicken soup is usually conducted by directly tasting the warm chicken soup (45–60°C). A sensory panel often includes 6–19 well‐trained panelists. Linear scale (Li etal.,²⁰¹⁷), category scale (Kurobayashi etal.,²⁰⁰⁸), and quantity scale (Kong etal.,²⁰¹⁷) are widely used to evaluate the taste attribute strength of chicken soup.

Sensory evaluation is mainly performed to distinguish between the taste characteristics of different chicken soup or to score the taste attributes of chicken soup. The five sensory attributes (chicken meat‐like, fatty, off‐flavor, kokumi, and umami) of chicken soup prepared using traditional clay stew‐pot and commercial ceramic electrical stew‐pot could be distinguished based on the taste sensed (Zhang etal.,²⁰¹⁸). The overall acceptance of chicken soup subjected to refrigerated (4±1°C) and superchilled (−2.5±1°C) storage conditions could be identified by the human tongue (Li etal.,²⁰¹⁷). Umami and saltiness of chicken meat after stewing for 1 and 2hr could be distinguished based on the taste sensed (Qi etal.,²⁰¹⁸). The umami, saltiness, and sweetness of chicken broth containing a nonvolatile fraction of celery (7%) and chicken broth (control) could also be identified by the human tongue (Kurobayashi etal.,²⁰⁰⁸). The sensory evaluation of chicken soup taste analysis is fast; however, it is inevitably affected by the physiological, physical, psychophysical, and other factors of panelists. The sensory abilities of human tongue markedly vary among different individuals. Additionally, sensory evaluation is nonquantitative and markedly affected by individual subjectivity. Sensory fatigue, a source of error, also restricts the efficiency of intensive evaluation. Therefore, effective technical training of panelists, uniformity of the description, and consideration of reference standards for chicken soup taste are of significance in sensory evaluation.

The quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) method was performed to analyze the taste characteristics of chicken soup. In the QDA method, panelists were requested to describe the perceived sensory attributes and the intensities of the attributes. Many descriptive words have been reported, including taste, flavor, and mouthfeel (You etal.,²⁰¹⁹; Zhang etal.,²⁰¹⁸) (Table2), rendering the descriptive analysis more accurate and consistent. The descriptive words covered both positive taste attributes (sweet, salty, umami, chicken meat‐like, fatty, meaty, and kokumi) and negative ones (bitter, sour, greasy, rubbery, and warm‐over flavor) (Hooge & Chambers,²⁰¹⁰; Miyaki etal.,²⁰¹⁵; Zhan etal.,²⁰²⁰; Zhang etal.,²⁰¹⁸). The reference standard used for the identification of taste attributes is not unique. For example, caffeine and quinine were used to describe bitterness. The type of reference scale used in the QDA method influences the result. The partial least squares regression correlation model using three sensory descriptors (chicken meat‐like, fatty, and off‐flavor) was established (Zhang etal.,²⁰¹⁸). This model established an association between flavor‐active compounds and sensory data, which aided the prescreening of flavor‐related compounds in chicken soup (Zhang etal.,²⁰¹⁸). The results of Pearson correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) both show that the taste attributes of chicken soup are significantly correlated with 14 taste compounds (inosine, GMP, sarcosine, α‐aminobutyric acid, valine, leucine, asparagine, methionine, α‐aminoadipic acid, ornithine, lysine, histidine, tryptophan, and cystine) (Pérez‐Palacios etal.,²⁰¹⁷). Although the QDA method has been widely used in chicken soup taste evaluation, the unification of taste standards and scientific training remain the focus of future research.

3.2. Instrumental detection

4.1. Genetic factors

The taste of chicken is a markedly inherited trait. The genes controlling the taste trait have been studied. Based on findings reported by previous studies, the taste trait deemed is relatively complex and genetically controlled. There are different genes involved in the synthesis of taste compounds in chicken. 5′‐IMP, as an essential index for meat flavor determination (Fujimura,¹⁹⁹⁸; Kawai etal.,²⁰⁰²), has been systematically studied in the literature. The GPAT, AIRC, PurH, GARS‐AIRS‐GART, ADSL, and AMPD1 genes were identified as the most common candidate genes for 5′‐IMP content in chicken.

GPAT and AIRC encode two enzymes that catalyze step 1 and steps 6 plus 7, respectively, of the de novo purine biosynthetic pathway (Zhang etal.,²⁰⁰⁹). The chicken GPAT/AIRC genes are located on chromosome 6. The PurH gene is responsible for encoding the attic enzyme, a 64‐kDa bifunctional enzyme that catalyzes the final two reactions in de novo purine biosynthesis and possesses two enzymes, namely AICAR transformylase and 5′‐IMP cyclohydrolase (Asby etal.,²⁰¹⁵). The crystal structure of chicken ATIC showed the absence of an intermediate connecting channel between the N‐extremity and C‐extremity activity centers, which plays an important regulatory role in the synthesis of 5′‐IMP (Greasley etal.,²⁰⁰¹). Shu etal.(²⁰¹⁰) showed that the GPAT/AIRC and purH genes affected muscle 5′‐IMP content. As a result, they might be candidate loci or linked to major genes that affect muscle 5′‐IMP content; the epistatic effects were found to be higher than the single genotype effects in Chinese Baier chicken. Three SNPs in GPATgene (exon 2), AIRC gene (exon 3 and 8), purH gene (exon 16), and GPAT/AIRC (promoter region) were associated with muscle 5′‐IMP content in chickens (Shu etal.,^{2008, 2010}).

The GARS‐AIRS‐GART genes are located on chromosome 1, which catalyze steps 2, 3, and 5, respectively, of the de novo purine biosynthetic pathway. Chicken GARS‐AIRS‐GART gene has been studied as a candidate gene for determination of the effects on the 5′‐IMP content in the muscle (Shu etal.,²⁰⁰⁷; Ye etal.,²⁰¹⁰). Furthermore, a favorable association between genotypes and higher 5′‐IMP content has been demonstrated in several Chinese native chicken breeds.

The ADSL gene plays an important role in the biological pathways of purine nucleotide de novo synthesis, and its mutation can reduce the ability of 5′‐IMP synthesis in vivo (Lundy etal.,²⁰¹⁰). Studies have revealed no significant correlation between the content of exogenous 5′‐IMP and the expression of ADSL. This may be attributable to the purine biosynthetic pathway that is ultimately responsible for the generation of 5′‐IMP from α‐D‐ribose‐5‐phosphate (Zhang etal.,²⁰⁰⁸).

The AMPD1 gene is primarily expressed in muscle tissues and is involved in the metabolism of 5′‐IMP. Hu et al. revealed that animals with the hom*ozygous genotype AA at positions 4,064 and 6,805 presented with significantly higher 5′‐IMP contents than those with the GG genotype (p<.05). Further, they found that the hom*ozygous genotype AA at position 6,805 resulted in a significantly higher 5′‐IMP content than the genotype GG for both co*ck and hen (Hu etal.,²⁰¹⁵). Chen etal.(²⁰⁰⁸) estimated the genetic parameters of 1,069 purebred Beijing‐You full‐sib male chickens and found that the heritability of muscle 5′‐IMP content was moderate (0.23) (Chen etal.,²⁰⁰⁸). Therefore, 5′‐IMP content in chicken meat could be increased through genetic selection. Owing to the adequately high heritability of breast and fat yield characteristics (Le Bihan‐Duval etal.,¹⁹⁹⁸), poultry body composition has been substantially improved by selection.

4.2. Preslaughter factors

Many studies have shown that under the same cooking conditions, factors such as chicken breed, age, sex, and diet affect the content of taste substances in chicken and thus affect the quality of chicken soup (Jayasena etal.,^2013b; De Zwart etal.,²⁰⁰³). In Korea, KNC is more popular among consumers because of its characteristic flavor and texture compared to CB (Jayasena etal.,^2013b). As the production of KNC is insufficient to meet consumer demand (Jeon etal.,²⁰¹⁰), traditional dishes such as samgyetang and baeksuk are made with CB instead of KNC. Studies are underway to clarify the effect of chicken breed on the quality of soup, which is important for maintaining the characteristics of chicken soup. The analysis of the taste components in defatted freeze‐dried chicken soup (DFDS) prepared with KNC and CB showed that the DFDS prepared with KNC had higher contents of 5′‐IMP, betaine, inosine, cysteine, and carnitine (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁵). Additionally, the lipid layer isolated from KNC soup showed significantly higher levels of linoleic (C18:2), α‐linolenic (C18:3), arachidonic (C20:4), and docosahexaenoic acid (C22:6, DHA) and low saturated fatty acid (Choe et al., ²⁰¹⁰; Jeon etal.,²⁰¹⁰). In general, the DFDS prepared using KNC was superior to the DFDS prepared using CB in terms of nutrition and sensory quality (Jung etal.,²⁰¹¹).

The sex of KNC also significantly influences the taste characteristics of freeze‐dried broth (FDB) (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁴). A study conducted on the taste compounds of FDB samples prepared using 100‐day‐old male and female KNC showed that the 5′‐IMP and arachidonic acid (C20:4) contents in samples prepared using female FDB were significantly higher than those prepared using male FDB. The FDB samples prepared using male KNC contained higher levels of inosine, linoleic (C18:2), glycine, alanine, lysine, and serine (p<.05). However, the levels of betaine, carnitine, glutamic acid, creatine, oleic acid, and docosahexaenoic acids (C22:6; DHA) in FDB were not significantly different between the two sexes (p>.05) of KNC.

The content of taste‐active compounds in DFDS was significantly affected by the age of KNC (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁵). The study of taste‐active compounds in DFDS prepared with KNC of 5 ages (10, 11, 12, 13, and 14weeks of age) revealed that inosine and linoleic acid contents in DFDS increased with an increase in age. In contrast, the contents of 5′‐AMP, oleic acid, and hypoxanthine decreased. The 5′‐IMP content of DFDS fluctuated significantly with the increase in KNC age. Studies conducted by Jayasena et al. revealed that age exerted a significant effect on the content of oleic acid, arachidonic acid, and DHA in KNC meat. The content of free amino acids responsible for the umami taste (glutamic acid and aspartic acid), sweet taste (alanine, serine, and glycine), and bitter taste (valine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, methionine, arginine, and histidine) decreased significantly as the age of KNC increased. However, the age of KNC exerted a positive effect (p<.05) on lysine content that is also responsible for the sweet taste. Therefore, the effect of age on the content of 5′‐IMP and glutamate in meat depends on the state of slaughter and cooking status (Jayasena etal.,²⁰¹⁵). In cooked KNC leg meat, a positive correlation between bird age and reducing sugar content (p<.05) was observed. However, in KNC breast, there was a negative correlation between age and DHA content, especially after 13weeks.

Studies have shown that dietary nutrients play a significant part in determining taste compounds of chicken meat (Fujimura and Kadowaki, ²⁰⁰⁶). Fujimura and Kadowaki (²⁰⁰⁶) reported that free glutamic acid and sensory score in chicken meat were increased in high crude protein diet. The free glutamic acid content in chicken muscle was negatively correlated with the level of leucine in the diet (Fujimura and Kadowaki, ²⁰⁰⁶). Laksesvela (¹⁹⁶⁰) reported that the taste of chicken meat was significantly improved when the chicken were provided with 36.7mg/kg of d‐α‐tocopheryl acetate. In addition, reducing dietary lysine content was proved to increase the contents of free glutamic acid, glycine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, histidine, and threonine content in chicken meat and significantly improved the umami and kokumi tastes of chicken meat (Watanabe etal.,²⁰¹⁶).

Other preslaughter factors such as heat stress and preslaughter shackling also contribute to the taste quality of chicken. Ali etal.(²⁰⁰⁸) reported that chickens exposed to heat stress before slaughter showed the lowest limit pH, which had a negative impact on meat quality. The lactate concentration in chicken breast muscle was found to increase with struggling activity (Papinaho etal.,¹⁹⁹⁵).

4.3. Processing

4.4. Storage

With the degradation of ATP and protein, several taste compounds are produced during the postmortem storage of chicken, which significantly improves the taste of chicken soup. Furthermore, most free and combined amino acids, ammonia, inosine, and hypoxanthine increase during storage. Studies have shown that soup prepared from the chicken muscle stored for 7 or 8days at 0°C exhibited the highest taste intensity based on sensory evaluation (Sen & Endo,¹⁹⁹⁰). The chicken soup as a system is complicated. In fact, the chemical and biochemical changes caused by microorganisms during the storage process lead to the deterioration of the sensory properties of chicken soup. Studies have shown that chicken whey soup has a shelf life of 6days when refrigerated (Chidanandaiah etal., ²⁰⁰²). In the study reported by Gadekar etal.(²⁰⁰⁹), there was a significant (p<.05) interaction between the refrigerated storage period and treatments conducted for flavor and overall palatability of soup.

Generally, lower storage temperature and better packaging materials can help maintain the taste of chicken soup. Low temperature could inhibit the growth of microorganisms and enzyme activity, thereby extending the shelf life of chicken soup (Sivertsvik etal.,²⁰⁰³). Polypropylene/active zein bags (10% Lauroyl‐l‐arginine ethyl ester monohydrochloride [LAE]) were developed as the packaging material for chicken soup to control the growth of foodborne pathogens (Kashiri et al., ²⁰¹⁹). In the study reported by Kashiri etal.(²⁰¹⁹), the antimicrobial properties of the PP/LAE glycerol‐plasticized zein bags caused a reduction of 3.21 and 3.07 log against Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli, respectively, in chicken soup after 10days of storage (4°C). Thermal processing and the adoption of better sanitary procedures during soup processing could significantly inhibit the growth of coliforms, thereby prolonging the storage time of chicken soup (Gadekar etal.,²⁰⁰⁹).

• Ali, M. S., Kang, G. H., & Joo, S. T. (2008). A review: Influences of pre‐slaughter stress on poultry meat quality. Asian‐Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 21(6), 912–916. 10.5713/ajas.2008.r.06 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Aliani, M., & Farmer, L. J. (2002). Postcolumn derivatization method for determination of reducing and phosphorylated sugars in chicken by high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(10), 2760. 10.1021/jf011335i [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Aliani, M., & Farmer, L. J. (2005). Precursors of chicken flavor. I. determination of some flavor precursors in chicken muscle. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(15), 6067. 10.1021/jf050085t [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Al‐Khalifa, A. S., & Dawood, A. A. (1993). Effects of cooking methods on thiamin and riboflavin contents of chicken meat. Food Chemistry, 48(1), 69–74. 10.1016/0308-8146(93)90223-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Asby, D. J., Cuda, F., Beyaert, M., Houghton, F. D., Cagampang, F. R., & Tavassoli, A. (2015). AMPK activation via modulation of de novo purine biosynthesis with an inhibitor of ATIC hom*odimerization. Chemistry & Biology, 22(7), 838–848. 10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.06.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Beale, D. J., Pinu, F. R., Kouremenos, K. A., Poojary, M. M., Narayana, V. K., Boughton, B. A., Kanojia, K., Dayalan, S., Jones, O. A. H., & Dias, D. A. (2018). Review of recent developments in GC‐MS approaches to metabolomics‐based research. Metabolomics, 14, 152. 10.1007/s11306-018-1449-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cajka, T., Danhelova, H., Zachariasova, M., Riddellova, K., & Hajslova, J. (2013). Application of direct analysis in real time ionization–mass spectrometry (DART‐MS) in chicken meat metabolomics aiming at the retrospective control of feed fraud. Metabolomics, 9, 545–557. 10.1007/s11306-013-0495-z [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chen, J., Tang, X. Y., Li, G. G., Zhu, L. J., Dai, Y. F., & Xiong, Y. L. (2007). The effect of raw materials and processing conditions on the quality of home‐style chicken soup. International Congress on Meat Science and Technology (ICoMST). Retrieved from http://icomst‐proceedings.helsinki.fi/papers/2007_04_25.pdf
• Chen, J. L., Zhao, G. P., Zheng, M. Q., Wen, J., & Yang, N. (2008). Estimation of genetic parameters for contents of intramuscular fat and inosine‐5′‐monophosphate and carcass traits in Chinese Beijing‐You chickens. Poultry Science, 87(6), 1098–1104. 10.3382/ps.2007-00504 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chi, S. P., & Chen, T. C. (1992). Predicting optimum monosodium glutamate and sodium chloride concentrations in chicken broth as affected by spice addition. Journal of Food Processing & Preservation, 16(5), 313–326. 10.1111/j.1745-4549.1992.tb00212.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chiang, P. D., Yen, C. T., & Mau, J. L. (2007). Non‐volatile taste components of various broth cubes. Food Chemistry, 101(3), 932–937. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.02.041 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chidanandaiah, Sanyal, M. K., & Keshri, R. C. (2002). Changes in quality of chicken soup and chicken whey soup in laminated pouches during refrigerated storage. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 39, 288–291. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10325.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chiu, M. C., Grimaldi, R., & Gioielli, L. A. (2007). Dry fractionation of chicken fat in pilot scale. Revista Brasileira De Ciências Farmacêuticas, 43(3), 421–434. [Google Scholar]
• Choe, J. H., Nam, K., Jung, S., Kim, B., & Jo, C. (2010). Differences in the quality characteristics between commercial Korean native chickens and broilers. Hangug Chugsan Sigpum Haghoeji = Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 30(1), 13–19. 10.5851/kosfa.2010.30.1.13 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Choi, S. E. (2011). Optimization of preparation conditions and analysis of food components for chicken head soup base. Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture, 26(5), 468–477. 10.7318/KJFC.2011.26.5.468 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Das, S. R., & Das, A. K. (1989). Flame atomic absorption spectrometry determination of tin in canned foods after extraction with liquid chelating exchanger. Analytical Letters, 22(3), 741–750. 10.1080/00032718908051361 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• De Zwart, F. J., Slow, S., Payne, R. J., Lever, M., George, P. M., Gerrard, J. A., & Chambers, S. T. (2003). Glycine betaine and glycine betaine analogues in common foods. Food Chemistry, 83, 197–204. 10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00063-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2005). The economics of obesity: Dietary energy density and energy cost. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(1 Suppl), 265S–273S. 10.1079/PHN2005816 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dunkel, A., & Hofmann, T. (2009). Sensory‐directed identification of β‐alanyl dipeptides as contributors to the thick‐sour and white‐meaty orosensation induced by chicken broth. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57(21), 9867–9877. 10.1021/jf900948r [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Elliott, E. J., & Simon, S. A. (1990). The anion in salt taste: A possible role for paracellular pathways. Brain Research, 535(1), 9–17. 10.1016/0006-8993(90)91817-Z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Feng, Y. Z., Cai, Y., Fu, X., Zheng, L., Xiao, Z. B., & Zhao, M. M. (2018). Comparison of aroma‐active compounds in broiler broth and native chicken broth by aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA), odor activity value (OAV) and omission experiment. Food Chemistry, 265(Nov.1), 274. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.05.043 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fu, G. M., Chen, Y. F., & Li, W. J. (2006). Model of broiler industry for sustainable development. Guide to Chinese Poultry, 23(13), 9‐10. [Google Scholar]
• Fujimura, S. (1998). Identification of taste‐active components in the meat of Japanese native chicken, Hinai‐dori and broiler, and effect of feeding treatments on taste‐active components. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture ‐ Niigata University (Japan), 50(2), 99–158. [Google Scholar]
• Fujimura, S., & Kadowaki, M. (2006). Improvement of meat taste by dietary components. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture ‐ Niigata University (Japan), 58(2), 151–153. [Google Scholar]
• f*ckuuchi, T., Iyama, N., Yamaoka, N., & Kaneko, K. (2018). Simultaneous quantification by HPLC of purines in umami soup stock and evaluation of their effects on extracellular and intracellular purine metabolism. Nucleosides Nucleotides & Nucleic Acids, 37(5), 273–279. 10.1080/15257770.2018.1453074 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gadekar, Y. P., Anjaneyulu, A. S., Thomas, R., Mendiratta, S. K., & Kondaiah, N. (2009). Quality changes in soup from deboned chicken frames at refrigerated (4±1℃) and frozen (‐18±1℃) storage. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 44(9), 1763–1769. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.01994.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gault, N. F. S. (1985). The relationship between water‐holding capacity and cooked meat tenderness in some beef muscles as influenced by acidic conditions below the ultimate pH. Meat Science, 15(1), 15–30. 10.1016/0309-1740(85)90071-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Graham, S. F., Kennedy, T., Chevallier, O., Gordon, A., Farmer, L., Elliott, C., & Moss, B. (2010). The application of NMR to study changes in polar metabolite concentrations in beef longissimus dorsi, stored for different periods post mortem. Metabolomics, 6(3), 395–404. 10.1007/s11306-010-0206-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Greasley, S. E., Horton, P., Ramcharan, J., Beardsley, G. P., & Wilson, I. A. (2001). Crystal structure of a bifunctional transformylase and cyclohydrolase enzyme in purine biosynthesis. Nature Structural Biology, 8(5), 402–406. 10.1038/87555 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hooge, S., & Chambers, D. (2010). A comparison of basic taste modalities, using a descriptive analysis technique, for varying levels of sodium and KCl in two model soup systems. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25(4), 521–535. 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00284.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Horio, T., & Kawamura, Y. (1990). Studies on after‐taste of various taste stimuli in humans. Chemical Senses, 15(3), 271–280. 10.1093/chemse/15.3.271 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hu, J., Yu, P., Ding, X., Xu, M., Guo, B., & Xu, Y. (2015). Genetic polymorphisms of the AMPD1 gene and their correlations with IMP contents in Fast Partridge and Lingshan chickens. Gene, 574(2), 204–209. 10.1016/j.gene.2015.08.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jayasena, D. D., Ahn, D. U., Nam, K. C., & Jo, C. (2013a). Factors affecting cooked chicken meat flavor: A review. Worlds Poultry Science Journal, 69(3), 515–526. 10.1017/S0043933913000548 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jayasena, D. D., Ahn, D. U., Nam, K. C., & Jo, C. (2013b). Flavor chemistry of chicken meat: A review. Asian‐Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 26, 732–742. 10.5713/ajas.2012.12619 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jayasena, D. D., Jung, S., Kim, H. J., Alahakoon, A. U., Nam, K. C., & Jo, C. (2014). Effect of sex on flavor‐related and functional compounds in freeze‐dried broth made from Korean native chicken. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 34(4), 448. 10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.4.448 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jayasena, D. D., Jung, S., Kim, H. J., Yong, H. I., Nam, K. C., & Jo, C. (2015). Taste‐active compound levels in Korean native chicken meat: The effects of bird age and the cooking process. Poultry Science, 94(8), 1964–1972. 10.3382/ps/pev154 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jeon, H. J., Choe, J. H., Jung, Y., Kruk, Z. A., Lim, D. G., & Jo, C. (2010). Comparison of the chemical composition, textural characteristics, and sensory properties of North and South Korean native chickens and commercial broilers. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 30, 171–178. 10.5851/kosfa.2010.30.2.171 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jung, S., Lee, K. H., Nam, K. C., Jeon, H. J., Choe, J. H., & Jo, C. (2014). Quality assessment of the breast meat from WoorimatdagTM and broilers. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 34, 707–714. 10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.5.709 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jung, Y., Jeon, H. J., Jung, S., Choe, J. H., Lee, J. H., Heo, K. N., Kang, B. S., & Jo, C. (2011). Comparison of quality traits of thigh meat from Korean native chickens and broilers. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 31, 684–692. 10.5851/kosfa.2011.31.5.684 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kashiri, M., López‐Carballo, G., Hernández‐Muñoz, P., & Gavara, R. (2019). Antimicrobial packaging based on a LAE containing zein coating to control foodborne pathogens in chicken soup. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 306, 108272. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108272 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Katsuragi, Y., Sugiura, Y., Otsuji, K., & Kurihara, K. (1996). Characteristics of phosphatidic acid‐containing lipoproteins which selectively inhibit bitter taste: High affinity to frog tongue surface and hydrophobic model membranes. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) ‐ General Subjects, 1289(3), 322–328. 10.1016/j.disc.2004.03.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kawai, M., Okiyama, A., & Ueda, Y. (2002). Taste enhancements between various amino acids and IMP. Chemical Senses, 27, 739–745. 10.1093/chemse/27.8.739 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kiyohara, R., Yamaguchi, S., Rikimaru, K., & Takahashi, H. (2011). Supplemental arachidonic acid‐enriched oil improves the taste of thigh meat of Hinai‐jidori chickens. Poultry Science, 90(8), 1817–1822. 10.3382/ps.2010-01323 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kong, Y., Yang, X., Ding, Q., Zhang, Y. Y., Sun, B. G., Chen, H. T., & Sun, Y. (2017). Comparison of non‐volatile umami components in chicken soup and chicken enzymatic hydrolysate. Food Research International, 102, 559. 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.038 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Koriyama, T., Wongso, S., Watanabe, K., & Abe, H. (2002). Fatty acid compositions of oil species affect the 5 basic taste perceptions. Journal of Food Science, 67(2), 868–873. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10691.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kouguchi, T., Ito, A., Iwai, K., Shimizu, M., Takahata, Y., Suzuki, T., Morimatsuet, F., & Tanabe, S. (2012). Chicken collagen hydrolysate‐derived peptides inhibit tumor necrosis factor‐α‐induced inflammatory response in endothelial cells. Food Science and Technology Research, 18(5), 667–671. 10.3136/fstr.18.667 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kurobayashi, Y., Katsumi, Y., Fujita, A., Morimitsu, Y., & Kubota, K. (2008). Flavor enhancement of chicken broth from boiled celery constituents. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(2), 512–516. 10.1021/jf072242p [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Laksesvela, B. (1960). Supplementation of chick diets with vitamin E to improve meat quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 11(3), 128–133. 10.1002/jsfa.2740110302 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lawless, H. T., Rapacki, F., Horne, J., & Hayes, A. (2003). The taste of calcium and magnesium salts and anionic modifications. Food Quality & Preference, 14(4), 319–325. 10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00128-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Le Bihan‐duval, E., Mignon‐grasteau, S., Millet, N., & Beaumont, C. (1998). Genetic analysis of a selection experiment on increased body weight and breast muscle weight as well as on limited abdominal fat weight. British Poultry Science, 39(3), 346–353. 10.1080/00071669888881 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lee, D. E., Lee, S., Jang, E., Shin, H., Moon, B., & Lee, C. (2016). Metabolomic profiles of Aspergillus oryzae and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens during rice koji fermentation. Molecules, 21, 773. 10.3390/molecules21060773 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lei, Z., Huhman, D. V., & Sumner, L. (2011). Mass spectrometry strategies in metabolomics. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 286, 25435–25442. 10.1074/jbc.R111.238691 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li, M. Y., Wang, H. B., Zhao, G. M., Qiao, M. W., Li, M., Sun, L. X., Gao, X. P., & Zhang, J. W. (2014). Determining the drying degree and quality of chicken jerky by LF‐NMR. Journal of Food Engineering, 139, 43–49. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.04.015 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li, R., Kerr, W. L., Toledo, R. T., & Carpenter, J. A. (2000). 1H NMR studies of water in chicken breast marinated with different phosphates. Journal of Food Science, 65(4), 575–580. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2000.tb16051.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li, X., Zhu, J., Qi, J., Wang, P., & Zhou, G. (2017). Superchilled storage (2.5 ± 1℃) extends the retention of taste‐active and volatile compounds of yellow‐feather chicken soup. Animal Science Journal, 89(6), 906–918. 10.1111/asj.13004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li, Y. L., Fan, D. M., Zhao, Y. L., & Wang, M. F. (2020). Effects of quercetin and cinnamaldehyde on the nutrient release from beef into soup during stewing process. LWT, 131, 109712. 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109712 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lilyblade, A. L., & Peterson, D. W. (1962). Inositol and free sugars in chicken muscle post‐mortem. Journal of Food Science, 27(3), 245–249. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1962.tb00088.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lin, M. L., Wang, J., Liao, Y. H., & Zhou, X. H. (2016). Structure‐activity relationship between peptides and flavor in chicken broth. Food Science, 37(3), 12–16. [Google Scholar]
• Liu, D., Li, S., Wang, N., Deng, Y., Sha, L., Gai, S., Liu, H., & Xu, X. (2017). Evolution of taste compounds of Dezhou‐Braised chicken during cooking evaluated by chemical analysis and an electronic tongue system. Journal of Food Science, 82(5), 1076–1082. 10.1111/1750-3841.13693 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Liu, S. Y., Wang, G. Y., Xiao, Z. C., Pu, Y. H., Ge, C. R., & Liao, G. Z. (2019). 1H‐NMR‐based water‐soluble low molecular weight compound characterization and free fatty acid composition of five kinds of Yunnan dry‐cured hams. LWT, 108(12), 174–182. 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.03.043 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lundy, C. T., Jungbluth, H., Pohl, K. R. E., Siddiqui, A., Marinaki, A. M., Mundy, H., & Champion, M. P. (2010). Adenylosuccinate lyase deficiency in the United Kingdom pediatric population: First three cases. Pediatric Neurology, 43(5), 351–354. 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2010.06.007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Maehashi, K., Matsuzaki, M., Yamamoto, Y., & Udaka, S. (1999). Isolation of peptides from an enzymatic hydrolysate of food proteins and characterization of their taste properties. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 63(3), 555–559. 10.1271/bbb.63.555 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Makkliang, F., Kanatharana, P., Thavarungkul, P., & Thammakhet, C. (2015). Development of magnetic micro‐solid phase extraction for analysis of phthalate esters in packaged food. Food Chemistry, 166, 275–282. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.06.036 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mi, S., Shang, K., Jia, W., Zhang, C. H., Li, X., Fan, Y. Q., & Wang, H. (2018). Characterization and discrimination of Taihe black‐boned silky fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus Brisson) muscles using LC/MS‐based lipidomics. Food Research International, 109, 187–195. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.04.038 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Miyaki, T., Kawasaki, H., Kuroda, M., Miyamura, N., & Kouda, T. (2015). Effect of a kokumi peptide, γ‐glutamyl‐valyl‐glycine, on the sensory characteristics of chicken consommé. Flavor, 4(1), 17. 10.1186/2044-7248-4-17 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nakatani, Y., Fujita, T., Sawa, S., Otani, T., Hori, Y., & Takagahara, I. (1986). Changes in ATP‐related compounds of beef and rabbit muscles and a new index of freshness of muscle. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 50(7), 1751–1856. 10.1080/00021369.1986.10867652 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nishimura, T., Goto, S., Miura, K., Takakura, Y., Egusa, A. S., & Wakabayashi, H. (2016). Umami compounds enhance the intensity of retronasal sensation of aromas from model chicken soups. Food Chemistry, 196, 577–583. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.036 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nishimura, T., Rhue, M. R., Okitani, A., & Kato, H. (1988). Components contributing to the improvement of meat taste during storage. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 52(9), 2323–2330. 10.1080/00021369.1988.10869028 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Norris, M. B., Noble, A. C., & Pangborn, R. M. (1984). Human saliva and taste responses to acids varying in anions, titratable acidity, and pH. Physiology & Behavior, 32(2), 237–244. 10.1016/0031-9384(84)90136-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Papinaho, P. A., Fletcher, D. L., & Buhr, R. J. (1995). Effect of electrical stunning amperage and peri‐mortem struggle on broiler breast rigor development and meat quality. Poultry Science, 74, 1533–1539. 10.3382/ps.0741533 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pereira, A. S., Evans, R. W., & Stadelman, W. J. (1976). The effects of processing on some characteristics, including fatty acid composition, of chicken fat. Poultry Science, 55, 510–515. 10.3382/ps.0550510 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pérez‐Palacios, T., Eusebio, J., Ferro Palma, S., Carvalho, M. J., Mir‐Bel, J., & Antequera, T. (2017). Taste compounds and consumer acceptance of chicken soups as affected by cooking conditions. International Journal of Food Properties, 20, S154–S165. 10.1080/10942912.2017.1291678 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Piette, G., Hundt, M., Jacques, L., & Lapointe, M. (2001). Influence of extraction temperature on amounts and quality of rendered chicken fat recovered from ground or hom*ogenized skin. Poultry Science, 80, 496–500. 10.1093/ps/80.4.496 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pippen, E. L., Eyring, E. J., & Nonaka, M. (1960). The occurrence and flavor significance of acetoin in aqueous extracts of chicken. Poultry Science, 39(4), 922–924. 10.3382/ps.0390922 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Qi, J., Liu, D. Y., Zhou, G. H., & Xu, X. L. (2017). Characteristic flavor of traditional soup made by stewing Chinese yellow‐feather chickens. Journal of Food Science, 82(9), 2031–2040. 10.1111/1750-3841.13801 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Qi, J., Wang, H. H., Zhou, G. H., Xu, X. L., Li, X., Bai, Y., & Yu, X. B. (2018). Evaluation of the taste‐active and volatile compounds in stewed meat from the Chinese yellow‐feather chicken breed. International Journal of Food Properties, 20, S2579–S2595. 10.1080/10942912.2017.1375514 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rikimaru, K., & Takahashi, H. (2010). Evaluation of the meat from Hinai‐jidori chickens and broilers: Analysis of general biochemical components, free amino acids, inosine 5′‐monophosphate, and fatty acids. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 19(4), 327–333. 10.3382/japr.2010-00157 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Roebber, J. K., Roper, S. D., & Chaudhari, N. (2019). The role of the anion in salt (NaCl) detection by mouse taste buds. The Journal of Neuroscience, 39(32), 6224–6232. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2367-18.2019 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ruiz‐Aracama, A., Lommen, A., Huber, M., Van De Vijver, L., & Hoogenboom, R. (2012). Application of an untargeted metabolomics approach for the identification of compounds that may be responsible for observed differential effects in chickens fed an organic and a conventional diet. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 29(3), 323–332. 10.1080/19440049.2011.641163 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sen, H., & Endo, K. (1990). Changes of amino acids and ATP‐related compounds in chicken muscle during storage and their relationship to the taste of chicken soup. Journal of Home Economics of Japan, 41(10), 933–937. [Google Scholar]
• Shaarani, S. M., Nott, K. P., & Hall, L. D. (2006). Combination of NMR and MRI quantitation of moisture and structure changes for convection cooking of fresh chicken meat. Meat Science, 72(3), 398–403. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.07.017 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shi, H., & Ho, C. T. (1994). The flavour of poultry meat. In Shahidi F. (Ed.), Flavor of meat and meat products (pp. 52–70). Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4615-2177-8_4 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shu, J. T., Bao, W. B., Wang, K. H., Cheng, J. H., & Chen, G. H. (2007). Analysis of the correlation between microsatellite markers and meat quality traits in chicken. Research Journal of Animal Sciences, 1(3), 107–110. [Google Scholar]
• Shu, J. T., Bao, W. B., Zhang, X. Y., Zhang, H. X., & Chen, G. H. (2008). Association and haplotype analysis of purH gene with inosine monophosphate content in chickens. Animal Biotechnology, 19, 310–314. 10.1080/10495390802391785 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shu, J. T., Chen, G. H., Han, W., & Zhang, X. Y. (2010). Analysis of the genetic effects of three single nucleotide polymorphisms on inosine monophosphate content in Chinese Baier chicken. Avian Biology Research, 3(2), 75–80. 10.3184/175815510X12742871317581 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sivertsvik, M., Rosnes, J. T., & Kleiberg, G. H. (2003). Effect of modified atmosphere packaging and superchilled storage on the microbial and sensory quality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fillets. Journal of Food Science, 68, 1467–1472. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb09668.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stark, T., Bareuther, S., & Hofmann, T. (2006). Molecular definition of the taste of roasted cocoa nibs (Theobroma cacao) by means of quantitative studies and sensory experiments. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(15), 5530–5539. 10.1021/jf0608726 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sun, X. D., Lyu, G. Z., Luan, Y. S., Yang, H., & Zhao, Z. H. (2019). Metabolomic study of the soybean pastes fermented by the single species Penicillium glabrum GQ1‐3 and aspergillus oryzae HGPA20. Food Chemistry, 295, 622–629. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.162 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Tian, X., Wang, J., Shen, R., Ma, Z., & Li, M. (2019). Discrimination of pork/chicken adulteration in minced mutton by electronic taste system. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 54(3), 670–678. 10.1111/ijfs.13977 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Tikk, M., Tikk, K., Torngren, M. A., Meinert, L., Aaslyng, M., Karlson, H., & Andersen, H. J. (2006). Development of inosine monophosphate and its degradation products during aging of pork of different qualities in relation to basic taste and retro nasal flavor perception of the meat. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 7769–7777. 10.1021/jf060145a [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Triyannanto, E., & Lee, K. T. (2015). Effects of emulsifiers, precooking and washing treatments on the quality of retorted ginseng chicken soup. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 39(6), 1770–1777. 10.1111/jfpp.12409 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wang, L. H., Qiao, K. N., Ding, Q., Zhang, Y. Y., Sun, B. G., & Chen, H. T. (2018). Effects of two cooking methods on the taste components of Sanhuang chicken and Black‐bone silky fowl meat. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 42(3), e13772. 10.1111/jfpp.13772 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wang, T. Z., Tan, J., Du, W. B., Zhen, D. W., & Xie, J. C. (2020). Analysis of taste compounds in stewed chicken broth of Beijing Youji. Food Science, 41(8), 159–164. [Google Scholar]
• Wang, X., Fang, C., He, J., Dai, Q., & Fang, R. (2016). Comparison of the meat metabolite composition of Linwu and Pekin ducks using 600 MHz 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Poultry Science, 96(1), 192. 10.3382/ps/pew279 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Watanabe, G., Kobayashi, H., Shibata, M., Kubota, M., Kadowaki, M., & Fujimura, S. (2016). Reduction of dietary lysine increases free glutamate content in chicken meat and improves its taste. Animal Science Journal, 88(2), 300–305. 10.1111/asj.12577 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Weiffenbach, J. M., Baum, B. J., & Burghauser, R. (1982). Taste thresholds: Quality specific variation with human aging. Journal of Gerontology, 37(3), 372–377. 10.1093/geronj/37.3.372 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wood, J. D., & Enser, M. (1997). Factors influencing fatty acids in meat and the role of antioxidants in improving meat quality. British Journal of Nutrition, 78(1), S49–S60. 10.1079/BJN19970134 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Woźniak, E., Banaszewska, D., & Biesiada‐drzazga, B. (2016). Health‐promoting properties of poultry meat in the context of diseases of civilization. Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologiae Stetinensis Agricultura, Alimentaria, Piscaria et Zootechnica, 328, 235–246. 10.21005/AAPZ2016.39.3.21 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Xiao, W. U., Tahara, Y., Yatabe, R., & Toko, K. (2019). Taste sensor: Electronic tongue with lipid membranes. Analytical Sciences, 36(2), 10.2116/analsci.19R008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Xiao, Z. C., Ge, C. R., Zhou, G. H., Zhang, W. G., & Liao, G. Z. (2019). 1H NMR‐based metabolic characterization of Chinese Wuding chicken meat. Food Chemistry, 274(15), 574–582. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Xiao, Z. C., Luo, Y. T., Wang, G. Y., Ge, C. R., Zhou, G. H., Zhang, W. G., & Liao, G. Z. (2019). 1H‐NMR‐based water‐soluble low molecular weight compound characterization and fatty acid composition of boiled Wuding chicken during processing. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(1), 429–435. 10.1002/jsfa.9204 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yang, Y. X. (2018). China food composition tables standard edition (6th ed.). Peking University Medical Press. [Google Scholar]
• Yang, J., Sun‐Waterhouse, D. X., Cui, C., Zhao, H. F., & Dong, K. M. (2018). Gamma‐glutamylation of the white particulates of sufu and simultaneous synthesis of multiple acceptor amino acids‐containing γ‐glutamyl peptides: Favorable catalytic actions of glutaminase. LWT, 96, 315–321. 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.05.055 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ye, M. H., Chen, J. L., Zhao, G. P., Zheng, M. Q., & Wen, J. (2010). Correlation between polymorphisms in ADSL and GARS‐AIRS‐GART genes with inosine 5′‐monophosphate (IMP) contents in Beijing‐you chickens. British Journal of Nutrition, 51, 609–613. 10.1080/00071668.2010.508486 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yoneda, C., Okubo, K., Kasai, M., & Hatae, K. (2005). Extractive components of boiled‐dried scallop adductor muscle and effect on the taste of soup after mixing with chicken leg meat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85, 809–816. 10.1002/jsfa.2040 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• You, M., Yang, P., Song, H., Zhang, L., & Liu, P. (2019). Effects of three types of bone marrow extracts treated with different treatment methods on the taste of chicken soup. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 57(3), 638–649. 10.1007/s13197-019-04095-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhan, H., Khizar, H., Cui, H. P., Hussain, S., Ho, C. T., & Zhang, X. M. (2020). Characterization of flavor active non‐volatile compounds in chicken broth and correlated contributing constituent compounds in muscle through sensory evaluation and partial least square regression analysis. LWT, 118, 108786. 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108786 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, J., Yao, Y., Ye, X., Fang, Z., Chen, J., Wu, D., Liu, D. H., & Hu, Y. (2013). Effect of cooking temperatures on protein hydrolysates and sensory quality in crucian carp (Carassius auratus) soup. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(3), 542–548. 10.1007/s13197-011-0376-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, J., Zhao, Y. Y., Liu, R., Xiong, S. B., & Rong, J. H. (2019). Effects of cooking methods on the quality of broth made from spent laying hens. Meat Research, 33(8), 18–24. 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20190516-107 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, L., Duan, W., Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, B., Pu, D., Tang, Y., & Liu, C. (2020). Sensory taste properties of chicken (Hy‐Line brown) soup as prepared with five different parts of the chicken. International Journal of Food Properties, 23(1), 1804–1824. 10.1080/10942912.2020.1828455 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, M., Chen, X., Hayat, K., Duhoranimana, E., Zhang, X., Xia, S., Yu, J. Y., & Xing, F. (2018). Characterization of odor‐active compounds of chicken broth and improved flavor by thermal modulation in electrical stewpots. Food Research International, 109, 72–81. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.04.036 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, X. Y., Shu, J. T., Han, W., & Chen, G. H. (2009). Analysis of the genetic effects of GPAT/AIRC genes on IMP content in Baier chicken. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University, 24(4), 557–561. [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., Ahmed, Z., Geng, W., Tang, W., Liu, Y., Jin, H., Jiang, F., Wang, J., & Wang, Y. (2019). Purification and identification of kokumi‐enhancing peptides from chicken protein hydrolysate. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 54(6), 2151–2158. 10.1111/ijfs.14122 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Zhang, Y., Morar, M., & Ealick, S. E. (2008). Structural biology of the purine biosynthetic pathway. Cellular & Molecular Life Sciences, 65(23), 3699–3724. 10.1007/s00018-008-8295-8 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]