SMILES:
CC(C)(CCCC1=CCC(CC1)C=O)O
Aroma Description:
aquatic, clean, cyclamen, floral, muguet, rhubarb, watery, waxy, woody1
| Receptor | Expression | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR10J5 | 84 | -5 2, -2.16 4, -3.49 5, -5.14 10 | 4.4374 2, 3.1667 4, 10 6 | cyclamen, watery, rhubarb | |
| OR10A6 | 100 | -5.59 9 | - | peach, sweet, coconut, lactonic, floral, cyclamen, waxy, neroli, dairy, honey | |
| OR1G1 | 61 | - | 5.0761 3 | sweet, waxy, citrus, tart, orange, fresh, aldehydic, rose, floral, fatty | |
| OR2W3 | 100 | - | 4.186 8 | sweet, lemon, citrus, clove | |
| OR6P1 | 65 | -2.86 2 | 0.4408 2 | hyacinth, honey, hawthorn, sweet, mimosa, vanilla, floral, coumarinic, cocoa, anise | |
| OR13C4 | 88 | -2.85 2 | 0.408 2 | (insufficient data) | |
| OR5M9 | 88 | -2.84 2 | 0.412 2 | (insufficient data) | |
| OR52D1 | 100 | - | 1.269 3 | dairy, cheesy, anise, milky, creamy, sour, sharp, peach, rancid, lactonic | |
| OR5K1 | 100 | - | 0.2333 4 | hazelnut, nutty, peanut, roasted, almond | |
| OR10G3 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10G7 | 80 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR11A1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR1C1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2A25 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2B11 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2J2 | 92 | - | 0 4, 0 5 | ||
| OR2J3 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2W1 | 53 | - | 0 4, 0 5 | ||
| OR51E1 | 100 | - | 0 4, 0 5 | ||
| OR51L1 | 88 | - | 0 4, 0 5 | ||
| OR56A4 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8D1 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8K3 | 92 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2C1 | 100 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR51B4 | 100 | - | 0 7 | ||
| OR11H4 | 100 | - | 0 9 | ||
| OR2AG2 | 100 | - | 0 9 | ||
| OR1A1 | 73 | - | -0.5 4, 0 5 | ||
| OR5P3 | 100 | - | -1.3333 4, 0 5 |
SMILES:
CC(C)(CCCC1=CCC(CC1)C=O)O
Aroma Description:
aquatic, clean, cyclamen, floral, muguet, rhubarb, watery, waxy, woody
| 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.) 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.
6.) Tong, T., Ryu, S., Min, Y. et al. Olfactory receptor 10J5 responding to α-cedrene regulates hepatic steatosis via the cAMP–PKA pathway. Sci Rep 7, 9471 (2017).
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.) 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.
9.) Duroux R, Mandeau A, Guiraudie-Capraz G, Quesnel Y, Loing E. A Rose Extract Protects the Skin against Stress Mediators: A Potential Role of Olfactory Receptors. Molecules. 2020 Oct 16;25(20):4743. doi: 10.3390/molecules25204743. PMID: 33081083; PMCID: PMC7587601.
10.) 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.