(R)-(+)-limonene
SMILES:
CC1=CC[C@@H](CC1)C(=C)C
Aroma Description:
citrus, orange, fresh, sweet1
| Receptor | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR2W1 | -4.95 6, -3.983 9 | 4.3333 3 | fatty, sweet, herbal, cucumber, orange, tart, mimosa, spicy, coumarinic, passionfruit | |
| OR1A1 | -4.5 5, -4.73 6 | 5.3333 3, 4.1667 5 | herbal, caraway, passionfruit, spearmint, weedy, orange, hay, fresh, waxy, citrus | |
| OR1G1 | - | 4.5685 2 | waxy, tart, orange, sweet, aldehydic, fresh, citrus, clean, medicinal, anise | |
| OR2B11 | - | 4.1667 3 | tonka, medicinal, rubbery, coumarinic, hay, tobacco, candy, seafood, earthy, coffee | |
| OR5K1 | - | 0.7 3 | hazelnut, nutty, peanut, roasted, cocoa | |
| OR52D1 | - | 0.4569 2 | anise, cheesy, orange, sweet, dairy, sour, rancid, waxy, tart, sharp | |
| OR7D4 | - | 0.3 4 | animal | |
| OR10G3 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR10G7 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR10J5 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR11A1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR1C1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2A25 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2J2 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2J3 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51E1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51L1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR56A4 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR8D1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR8K3 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51B4 | - | 0 7 | ||
| OR5A1 | - | 0 8 | ||
| OR5A2 | - | 0 8 | ||
| OR5AN1 | - | 0 8 | ||
| OR5P3 | - | -2 3 |
(R)-(+)-limonene
SMILES:
CC1=CC[C@@H](CC1)C(=C)C
Aroma Description:
citrus, orange, fresh, sweet
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.) 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.) 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.
5.) Jabeen A, de March CA, Matsunami H, Ranganathan S. Machine Learning Assisted Approach for Finding Novel High Activity Agonists of Human Ectopic Olfactory Receptors. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(21):11546. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222111546
6.) 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
7.) Weber, Lea et al. “Activation of odorant receptor in colorectal cancer cells leads to inhibition of cell proliferation and apoptosis.” PloS one vol. 12,3 e0172491. 8 Mar. 2017, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172491
8.) Keiichi Yoshikawa, Jun Deguchi, Hu Jieying et al. Diverse yet selective tuning of an odorant receptor for sensing four classes of musk compounds, 03 August 2022, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1916850/v1]
9.) Franziska Haag, Antonella Di Pizio, Dietmar Krautwurst, The key food odorant receptive range of broadly tuned receptor OR2W1. Food Chemistry 375 (2022) 131680