SMILES:
CC(=O)C1=CC=CC=C1
Aroma Description:
sweet, pungent, hawthorn, mimosa, almond, acacia, chemical1
| Receptor | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR1E3 | - | 10 6 | (insufficient data) | |
| OR5R1 | -5.6 3 | 7.8947 3 | spearmint, acacia, chemical, hawthorn, mimosa, tonka, almond, coumarinic | |
| OR11H12 | -5.4 3 | 7.8947 3 | spearmint, acacia, chemical, hawthorn, mimosa, almond, tonka | |
| OR2W1 | -4.37 5 | - | fatty, sweet, herbal, cucumber, orange, tart, mimosa, spicy, coumarinic, passionfruit | |
| OR5P3 | -3.9 5 | 9.6 5 | mimosa, hawthorn, coumarinic, hay, spearmint, caraway, orangeflower, naphthyl, acacia, blueberry | |
| OR1G1 | - | 7.1066 4 | waxy, tart, orange, sweet, aldehydic, fresh, citrus, clean, medicinal, anise | |
| OR4M1 | - | 5.5 8 | corn, hazelnut, acacia, pungent, chemical, hawthorn | |
| OR52D1 | - | 4.3655 4 | anise, cheesy, orange, sweet, dairy, sour, rancid, waxy, tart, sharp | |
| OR10H1 | -1.6 2 | 0.1064 2 | greasy, sandalwood | |
| OR10J5 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR1A1 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR2C1 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR2J2 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR51E1 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR51L1 | - | 0 5 | ||
| OR5A1 | - | 0 7 | ||
| OR5A2 | - | 0 7 | ||
| OR5AN1 | - | 0 7 |
SMILES:
CC(=O)C1=CC=CC=C1
Aroma Description:
sweet, pungent, hawthorn, mimosa, almond, acacia, chemical
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.) Xiaojing Cong, Wenwen Ren, Jody Pacalon, Claire A. de March, Lun Xu, Hiroaki Matsunami, Yiqun Yu, Jérôme Golebiowski Functions of olfactory receptors are decoded from their sequence https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.06.895540
4.) 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
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.) V. Matarazzo, O. Clot-Faybesse, B. Marcet, G. Guiraudie-Capraz, B. Atanasova, G. Devauchelle, M. Cerutti, P. Etiévant, C. Ronin, Functional Characterization of Two Human Olfactory Receptors Expressed in the Baculovirus Sf9 Insect Cell System, Chem. Sens. 30 (2005) 195-207.
7.) 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]
8.) 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.