SMILES:
CC(CC1=CC2=C(C=C1)OCO2)C=O
Aroma Description:
cyclamen, fresh, green, hay, ozone, watery1
| Receptor | Expression | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR3A1 | 92 | -2.69 2, -5.01 6, -5.01 7, -5.01 10 | 0.3715 2, 10 5, (agonist) 6, (agonist) 7, (agonist) 10, 10 11, 8.0769 12 | cork_taint | |
| OR1A1 | 73 | -6.59 7, -6.59 8, -6.59 10 | 4 4, (agonist) 7, 5 8, (agonist) 10 | sweet, citrus, fresh, rose, herbal, waxy, orange, spearmint, floral, aldehydic | |
| OR1A2 | 19 | -6.47 7, -6.47 8, -6.47 10 | - | citrus, waxy, aldehydic, orange, fresh, orange_peel, tart, rose, sweet, floral | |
| OR2W1 | 53 | - | 4.6 4 | sweet, tart, hay, fatty, coumarinic, orange, peony, cinnamon, herbal, tonka | |
| OR52D1 | 100 | - | 2.3858 3 | dairy, cheesy, anise, milky, creamy, sour, sharp, peach, lactonic, rancid | |
| OR2J3 | 100 | - | 1.3333 4 | tart, hay, sweet, foliage, passionfruit, cinnamon, warm, blackcurrant, coumarinic, candy | |
| OR2J2 | 92 | - | 0.6 4 | tart, sweet, carnation, hay, orange, warm, cinnamon, clove, coumarinic | |
| OR1G1 | 61 | - | 0.3046 3 | sweet, waxy, citrus, fresh, tart, orange, aldehydic, floral, rose, fatty | |
| OR10G3 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10G7 | 80 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10J5 | 84 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR11A1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR1C1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2A25 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2B11 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51E1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR51L1 | 88 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR56A4 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8K3 | 92 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5A1 | 100 | - | 0 9 | ||
| OR5AN1 | 100 | - | 0 9 | ||
| OR2AG1 | 100 | - | 0 12 | ||
| OR8D1 | 96 | - | -0.025 4 | ||
| OR5K1 | 100 | - | 0 4, -0.3571 13 | ||
| OR5P3 | 100 | - | -2.3833 4 | ||
| TAAR5 | ? | -5 14 | -5 14 | Y |
SMILES:
CC(CC1=CC2=C(C=C1)OCO2)C=O
Aroma Description:
cyclamen, fresh, green, hay, ozone, watery
| 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.) Christian H. Wetzel, Markus Oles, Christiane Wellerdieck, Michael Kuczkowiak, Günter Gisselmann, Hanns Hatt Specificity and Sensitivity of a Human Olfactory Receptor Functionally Expressed in Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells andXenopus Laevis Oocytes Journal of Neuroscience 1 September 1999, 19 (17) 7426-7433; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-17-07426.1999
6.) Jacquier V, Pick H, Vogel H. Characterization of an extended receptive ligand repertoire of the human olfactory receptor OR17-40 comprising structurally related compounds. J Neurochem. 2006 Apr;97(2):537-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03771.x. Epub 2006 Mar 15. PMID: 16539658.
7.) Silva Teixeira CS, Silva Ferreira AC, Cerqueira NM. Studying Haloanisoles Interaction with Olfactory Receptors. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2016 Jul 20;7(7):870-85. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00335. Epub 2016 May 9. PMID: 27092849.
8.) Schmiedeberg K, Shirokova E, Weber HP, Schilling B, Meyerhof W, Krautwurst D. Structural determinants of odorant recognition by the human olfactory receptors OR1A1 and OR1A2. J Struct Biol. 2007 Sep;159(3):400-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2007.04.013. Epub 2007 May 25. PMID: 17601748.
9.) 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]
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.
11.) Lee, S. H., Kwon, O. S., Song, H. S., Park, S. J., Sung, J. H., Jang, J. and Park, T. H. (2012), Mimicking the human smell sensing mechanism with an artificial nose platform, Biomaterials, 33: 1722- 1729.
12.) Kwon, O. S., Song, H. S., Park, S. J., Lee, S. H., An, J. H., Park, J. W., Yang, H. H., Yoon, H., Bae, J., Park, T. H. and Jang, J. (2015), An Ultrasensitive, Selective, Multiplexed Superbioelectronic Nose That Mimics the Human Sense of Smell, Nano Lett., 15: 6559-6567.
13.) Aya Kato, Naoko Saito, Michiaki Inoue, Kayoko Nomizu (2015) Method of identifying an agent for inhibiting odor of pyrazine derivatives US9057090B2
14.) Reina Kanemaki Kahori Kishigami, Mei Saito, Masafumi Yohda, and Yosuke Fukutani. Harnessing Odorant Receptor Activation to Suppress Real Malodor. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 1566.