SMILES:
C1=CN=CC=N1
Aroma Description:
pungent, sweet, corn, roasted, hazelnut, barley1
| Receptor | Expression | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR4M1 | ? | - | 10 7 | corn, acacia, pungent, hazelnut, chemical, hawthorn, sweet, mimosa | |
| OR2B3 | 42 | -8.61 2 | 0.0638 2 | carnation, corn, malty, clove, sweet, pungent, hazelnut, vinegar | |
| OR1G1 | 61 | - | 4.0609 3 | sweet, waxy, citrus, tart, orange, fresh, aldehydic, rose, floral, fatty | |
| OR52D1 | 100 | - | 1.3198 3 | dairy, cheesy, anise, milky, creamy, sour, sharp, peach, rancid, lactonic | |
| OR51E1 | 100 | - | 0.5 4 | cheesy, sour, sweaty, sharp, acidic, dairy | |
| OR7D4 | 96 | - | 0.3 5 | animal, citrus, orange, peely, tart, aldehydic | |
| OR10G3 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10G7 | 80 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10J5 | 84 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR11A1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR1C1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2A25 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2J2 | 92 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2J3 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51L1 | 88 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR56A4 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5K1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8K3 | 92 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2W3 | 100 | - | 0 6 | ||
| OR8D1 | 96 | - | -0.0333 4 | ||
| OR2B11 | 100 | - | -0.6667 4 | ||
| OR2W1 | 53 | - | -1.3333 4 | ||
| OR1A1 | 73 | - | -1.5667 4 | ||
| OR5P3 | 100 | - | -1.5667 4 |
SMILES:
C1=CN=CC=N1
Aroma Description:
pungent, sweet, corn, roasted, hazelnut, barley
| 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.) 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.) Huang, J., Lam, H., Koziol-White, C., Limjunyawong, N., Kim, D., Kim, N., ... & An, S. S. (2020). The odorant receptor OR2W3 on airway smooth muscle evokes bronchodilation via a cooperative chemosensory tradeoff between TMEM16A and CFTR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(45), 28485-28495.
7.) Zhao W, Ho L, Varghese M, Yemul S, Dams-O'Connor K, Gordon W, Knable L, Freire D, Haroutunian V, Pasinetti GM. Decreased level of olfactory receptors in blood cells following traumatic brain injury and potential association with tauopathy. J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;34(2):417-429. doi: 10.3233/JAD-121894. PMID: 23241557; PMCID: PMC3968322.