SMILES:
CCCCCCCCCO
Aroma Description:
aldehydic, citrus, clean, dusty, fatty, floral, fresh, oily, orange, rose, sweet, tart, waxy, wet1
| Receptor | Expression | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR2W1 | 53 | -4.63 4, -5.05 7 | - | sweet, tart, hay, fatty, coumarinic, orange, peony, cinnamon, herbal, tonka | |
| OR1G1 | 61 | - | 9.8985 2, 7.0588 5 | sweet, waxy, citrus, tart, orange, fresh, aldehydic, rose, floral, fatty | |
| VN1R2 | ? | - | 9 6 | tart, orange | |
| OR1D2 | 100 | -4.26 8 | - | rose, citrus, fresh, floral, sweet, waxy, fatty, peach, bois_de_rose, blueberry | |
| OR2J2 | 92 | -4.16 4 | 8.4 4 | tart, sweet, carnation, hay, orange, warm, cinnamon, clove, coumarinic | |
| VN1R5 | ? | - | 7 6 | tart, orange_peel, aldehydic, spearmint, caraway, waxy, peely, citrus, blueberry, rose | |
| OR52D1 | 100 | - | 4.5685 2 | dairy, cheesy, anise, milky, creamy, sour, sharp, peach, rancid, lactonic | |
| OR10G3 | 96 | - | 0.01 3 | vanilla, carnation | |
| OR10G7 | 80 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR1A1 | 73 | - | 0 3, 0 4, 0 7 | ||
| OR2A25 | 100 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2B11 | 100 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2J3 | 100 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51E1 | 100 | - | 0 3, 0 4 | ||
| OR56A4 | 100 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR5K1 | 100 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR8D1 | 96 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR8K3 | 92 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR10J5 | 84 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2C1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51L1 | 88 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5P3 | 100 | - | 0 4 |
SMILES:
CCCCCCCCCO
Aroma Description:
aldehydic, citrus, clean, dusty, fatty, floral, fresh, oily, orange, rose, sweet, tart, waxy, wet
| Receptor | Expr.% | Agonist? | Dock Score | Known agonist | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|
Dock Score is a measure of how strongly the algorithm thinks the odorant is likely to be an agonist of the receptor.
Receptors in italics are "orphans", i.e. receptors whose agonists have not been identified experimentally.
1.) The Good Scents Company
2.) Guenhael Sanz, Claire Schlegel, Jean-Claude Pernollet and Loic Briand Comparison of Odorant Specificity of Two Human Olfactory Receptors from Different Phylogenetic Classes and Evidence for Antagonism Chemical Senses vol. 30 no. 1 (2005) doi:10.1093/chemse/bji002
3.) Adipietro KA, Mainland JD, Matsunami H (2012) Functional Evolution of Mammalian Odorant Receptors. PLoS Genet 8(7): e1002821. doi:10.1371/ journal.pgen.1002821
4.) Saito H, Chi Q, Zhuang H, Matsunami H, Mainland JD. Odor coding by a Mammalian receptor repertoire. Sci Signal. 2009 Mar 3;2(60):ra9. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2000016. PMID: 19261596; PMCID: PMC2774247.
5.) L. Charlier, J. Topin, C. Ronin, S.K. Kim, W.A. Goddard, 3rd, R. Efremov, J. Golebiowski, How broadly tuned olfactory receptors equally recognize their agonists. Human OR1G1 as a test case, Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 69 (2012) 4205-4213.
6.) Krautwurst D. Human olfactory receptor families and their odorants. Chem Biodivers. 2008 Jun;5(6):842-52. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.200890099. PMID: 18618407.
7.) Christiane Geithe, Franziska Noe, Johanna Kreissl, Dietmar Krautwurst, The Broadly Tuned Odorant Receptor OR1A1 is Highly Selective for 3-Methyl-2,4-nonanedione, a Key Food Odorant in Aged Wines, Tea, and Other Foods, Chemical Senses, Volume 42, Issue 3, 1 March 2017, Pages 181–193, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjw117
8.) Veithen, A.; Wilin, F.; Philippeau, M.; Chatelain, P. OR1D2 is a broadly tuned human olfactory receptor. Chem. Senses 2015, 40, 262–263.
9.) Franziska Haag, Antonella Di Pizio, Dietmar Krautwurst, The key food odorant receptive range of broadly tuned receptor OR2W1. Food Chemistry 375 (2022) 131680