Skip to main content
. 2025 Jun 3;10(23):24030–24049. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.4c08181

4.

4

(a) Binding energies of all odorants (key food odorants and molecules from M2OR db on each hybrid receptor model. (b) Representing the predicted binding interaction of propionate with OR51E2, CYS:178, and HIS:180, forming an H-bond is apparent in the 2-D diagram on the left, and the 3-D docking pose shows the formation of these interactions. (c) The left figure compares GNINA docking energies across four olfactory receptors, where lower scores indicate stronger binding. OR51E2 shows significantly weaker energies. Statistical analysis (Kruskal–Wallis, p = 1.72 × 10–12) confirms significant receptor differences, with Dunn’s test showing OR51E2 binds significantly weaker than OR51D1 and OR51G2 (p < 0.0001). The Plot on the right presents the ROC curves for OR51E1 and OR51E2, the predictive performance of GNINA docking scores for receptor responsiveness. OR51E1 achieves a high AUC of 0.78, showing a strong correlation between docking scores and experimental responsiveness, whereas OR51E2 shows a significantly lower AUC of 0.35.