SMILES:
CC(=CCC/C(=C/COC(=O)C)/C)C
Aroma Description:
floral, rose, lavender, green, waxy, herbal, cooling, oily, soapy, citrus, winey, rummy1
| Receptor | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR2A25 | -8.06 2, -2.57 4, -6.09 7 | 2.2637 2, 1.4333 4 | lavender, rummy, cooling, medicinal, rubbery, winey, soapy | |
| OR2J3 | -3 2, -4.71 7 | - | passionfruit, foliage, blackcurrant, currant, grassy, juicy, tart, warm, soapy, cinnamon | |
| OR1D2 | -4 2, -2.91 6 | 0.9405 2 | rose, peach, bois_de_rose, citrus, floral, fresh, lactonic, waxy, lime, blueberry | |
| OR10H2 | -3 2 | - | candy, warm, lavender, cinnamon, rummy | |
| OR2F1 | -3.59 2 | 0.9378 2 | acetone, carnation, malty | |
| OR2M2 | -0.57 2 | 1.5506 2 | leathery, terpenic, rose | |
| OR52D1 | - | 1.269 3 | anise, cheesy, orange, sweet, dairy, sour, rancid, waxy, tart, sharp | |
| OR1G1 | - | 0.7107 3 | waxy, tart, orange, sweet, aldehydic, fresh, citrus, clean, medicinal, anise | |
| OR7D4 | - | 0.4 5 | animal | |
| OR10G3 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10G7 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10J5 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR11A1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2B11 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2J2 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2W1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51E1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51L1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR56A4 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5K1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8D1 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8K3 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR1A1 | - | -1.1667 4 | ||
| OR5P3 | - | -2.6333 4 |
SMILES:
CC(=CCC/C(=C/COC(=O)C)/C)C
Aroma Description:
floral, rose, lavender, green, waxy, herbal, cooling, oily, soapy, citrus, winey, rummy
| Receptor | Dock Score | Affinity | A100 | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|
Dock Score: This is a measure of whether the algorithm thinks the odorant is an agonist of the receptor.
Affinity: The binding affinity, in kJ/mol, of the ligand docked in the active or inactive model, whichever is greater.
A100: A measure of the degree of activation of the receptor. See
Ibrahim et al (2019).
1.) The Good Scents Company
2.) Mainland JD, Li YR, Zhou T, Liu WL, Matsunami H. Human olfactory receptor responses to odorants. Sci Data. 2015 Feb 3;2:150002. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2015.2. PMID: 25977809; PMCID: PMC4412152.
3.) 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
4.) Adipietro KA, Mainland JD, Matsunami H (2012) Functional Evolution of Mammalian Odorant Receptors. PLoS Genet 8(7): e1002821. doi:10.1371/ journal.pgen.1002821
5.) Keller A, Zhuang H, Chi Q, Vosshall LB, Matsunami H. Genetic variation in a human odorant receptor alters odour perception. Nature. 2007 Sep 27;449(7161):468-72. doi: 10.1038/nature06162. Epub 2007 Sep 16. PMID: 17873857.
6.) Veithen, A.; Wilin, F.; Philippeau, M.; Chatelain, P. OR1D2 is a broadly tuned human olfactory receptor. Chem. Senses 2015, 40, 262–263.
7.) Dunkel, A.; Steinhaus, M.; Kotthoff, M.; Nowak, B.; Krautwurst, D.; Schieberle, P.; Hofmann, T. Nature’s chemical signatures in human olfaction: A foodborne perspective for future biotechnology. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2014, 53, 7124–7143.