propanoic acid
SMILES:
CCC(=O)[O-]
Aroma Description:
acidic, cheesy, pungent, vinegar1
| Receptor | Expression | log10 EC50 | Adj. Top | Antagonist? | Correlated Perceptual Qualities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR51E2 | 96 | -3 2, -3.96 6, -3.6 7, -3 10 | 0.4844 2, 9 6, 10 7, 3.4 10 | sour, vinegar, sharp, cheesy | |
| OR51E1 | 100 | -4.97 5 | - | cheesy, sour, sweaty, sharp, acidic, dairy | |
| OR52D1 | 100 | - | 2.5381 3 | dairy, cheesy, anise, milky, creamy, sour, sharp, peach, lactonic, rancid | |
| OR12D2 | 96 | - | 1.9231 8 | vinegar, sour, pungent | |
| OR1G1 | 61 | - | 0.5076 3 | sweet, waxy, citrus, fresh, tart, orange, aldehydic, floral, rose, fatty | |
| OR10G3 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10G7 | 80 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR10J5 | 84 | - | 0 4, 0 6 | ||
| OR11A1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR1C1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2A25 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2B11 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2J2 | 92 | - | 0 4, 0 6 | ||
| OR2J3 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2W1 | 53 | - | 0 4, 0 6 | ||
| OR51L1 | 88 | - | 0 4, 0 6, 0 11 | ||
| OR56A4 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5K1 | 100 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR5P3 | 100 | - | 0 4, 0 6 | ||
| OR8D1 | 96 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR8K3 | 92 | - | 0 4 | ||
| OR2C1 | 100 | - | 0 6 | ||
| OR5I1 | 46 | - | 0 8 | ||
| OR1A1 | 73 | - | -1.2333 4, 0 6 |
propanoic acid
SMILES:
CCC(=O)[O-]
Aroma Description:
acidic, cheesy, pungent, vinegar
| 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.) Audouze K, Tromelin A, Le Bon AM, Belloir C, Petersen RK, et al. () Identification of Odorant-Receptor Interactions by Global Mapping of the Human Odorome. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093037
6.) 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.
7.) Aisenberg, W., Huang, J., Zhu, W. et al. Defining an olfactory receptor function in airway smooth muscle cells. Sci Rep 6, 38231 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38231
8.) Ashti Baghaei, K. (2015). Large scale analysis of olfactory receptors with highly genetically variations in relation with specific anosmia (Doctoral dissertation, Bochum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Diss., 2013).
9.) Halperin Kuhns, V. L., Sanchez, J., Sarver, D. C., Khalil, Z., Rajkumar, P., Marr, K. A., & Pluznick, J. L. (2019). Characterizing novel olfactory receptors expressed in the murine renal cortex. American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, 317(1), F172-F186.
10.) Christian B. Billesbølle, Claire A. de March, Wijnand J. C. van der Velden, Ning Ma, Jeevan Tewari, Claudia Llinas del Torrent, Linus Li, Bryan Faust, Nagarajan Vaidehi, Hiroaki Matsunami, Aashish Manglik. Structural basis of odorant recognition by a human odorant receptor. bioRxiv 2022.12.20.520951; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.20.520951
11.) Roger Emter, Christel Merillat, Fiona Buchli, Felix Flachsmann, Andreas Natsch. Decoding human olfaction by high heterologous expression of odorant receptors detecting signature odorants. Current Biology, October 10, 2025