Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24733839›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of general physiology2014

The state of the art of odorant receptor deorphanization: a report from the orphanage.

Zita Peterlin, Stuart Firestein, Matthew E Rogers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of general physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Microbial volatile organic compounds and olfactory receptors in wound malodor.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Image-Based cAMP Sensor Assay for Analyzing Odorant Receptor Activity.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zita PeterlinCorporate Research and Development, Firmenich Incorporated, Plainsboro, NJ 08536.
Stuart Firestein
Matthew E Rogers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The odorant receptors (ORs) provide our main gateway to sensing the world of volatile chemicals. This involves a complex encoding process in which multiple ORs, each of which detects its own set of odorants, work as an ensemble to produce a distributed activation code that is presumably unique to each odorant. One marked challenge to decoding the olfactory code is OR deorphanization, the identification of a set of activating odorants for a particular receptor. Here, we survey various methods used to try to express defined ORs of interest. We also suggest strategies for selecting odorants for test panels to evaluate the functional expression of an OR. Integrating these tools, while retaining awareness of their idiosyncratic limitations, can provide a multi-tiered approach to OR deorphanization, spanning the initial discovery of a ligand to vetting that ligand in a physiologically relevant setting.

Indexed as

AnimalsCloning, MolecularHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansLigandsProtein BindingReceptors, OdorantLigandsReceptors, Odorant

Identifiers

PMID24733839
PMCPMC4003190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.