ArticleFood chemistry: X2026
A sensory-computational framework to decipher and predict binary aroma interactions: A case study of furaneol with five Co-odorants.
Article in Food chemistry: X, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the critical role of aroma interactions in shaping food flavor, their molecular mechanisms remain elusive. Here, binary interactions between furaneol and five co-odorants (guaiacol, acetylpyrazine, eugenol, 2-phenylethanol, valeric acid) with OR5M3 were investigated using an integrated sensory-computational approach. Sensory analysis classified furaneol-eugenol as synergistic, furaneol-valeric acid as masking, and the remaining pairs as additive or indifferent. Docking revealed that the synergistic pair had the most favorable binding energy (-10.11 kcal/mol), while the masking pair had the weakest (-7.95 kcal/mol). MD simulations showed synergy correlated with low RMSD and sustained H-bonds, whereas masking involved large RMSD fluctuations, fewer H-bonds. MM/PBSA quantified these differences: the synergistic complex displayed the strongest binding affinity (-23.64 kcal/mol), the masking complex the weakest (-4.24 kcal/mol) due to a large solvation penalty. This work establishes a predictive strategy based on the OR5M3 receptor model for decoding and designing aroma interactions at the molecular level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.