SMILES:
CC(C)C(=O)OCC
Aroma Description:
alcoholic, ethereal, fruity, fusel, rummy, sweet1
| Receptor | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR1G1 | - | 9.5431 2, 3.9241 4 | waxy, tart, orange, sweet, aldehydic, fresh, citrus, clean, medicinal, anise | |
| OR2W1 | -3.268 5 | - | fatty, sweet, herbal, cucumber, orange, tart, mimosa, spicy, coumarinic, passionfruit | |
| OR52D1 | - | 0.6091 2 | anise, cheesy, orange, sweet, dairy, sour, rancid, waxy, tart, sharp | |
| OR10J5 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR1A1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2C1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR2J2 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51E1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR51L1 | - | 0 3 | ||
| OR5P3 | - | 0 3 |
SMILES:
CC(C)C(=O)OCC
Aroma Description:
alcoholic, ethereal, fruity, fusel, rummy, sweet
| 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.) 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.) 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.
4.) J. Topin, C.A. de March, L. Charlier, C. Ronin, S. Antonczak, J. Golebiowski, Discrimination between Olfactory Receptor Agonists and Non-agonists, Chem. Eur. J. 20 (2014) 10227-10230.
5.) Franziska Haag, Antonella Di Pizio, Dietmar Krautwurst, The key food odorant receptive range of broadly tuned receptor OR2W1. Food Chemistry 375 (2022) 131680