ArticleFood chemistry: X2026
Interaction differences between selected sweet-fragrant aroma compounds and different salivary proteins: Effects of molecular structure.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The binding and activation of sweet-fragrant aroma compounds to sweet receptors in the oral cavity is considered to be an important mechanism for aroma to enhance sweet perception. However, the role of salivary proteins is ignored in this process. Therefore, this in vitro study systematically investigated the interactions between three key salivary proteins-mucin, α-amylase, and lactoferrin-and aromas. The results suggested that the interaction behavior was jointly determined by the molecular structure of proteins and aromas. Mucin exhibited a stronger adsorption capacity for aroma than α-amylase and lactoferrin. Salivary proteins showed relatively strong binding affinity for ethyl cinnamate and vanillin, but weak binding affinity for 3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one, isoamyl acetate, and γ-decalactone. Hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding were suggested to contribute substantially to protein-aroma interactions. These findings provide molecular evidence for the binding of sweet-fragrant aroma compounds to salivary proteins and guidance for selecting aromas with suitable oral interaction properties for reduced-sugar foods.
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.