Applications of quantitative structure-relative sweetness relationships in food chemistry

Chemometrics Applications and Research: QSAR in Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 317-340

  Duchowicz, Pablo R ^a   Rojas, Cristian ^b   Diez, Reinaldo Pis ^c   Tripaldi, Piercosimo ^b  

^a INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES FISICOQUÍMICAS TEÓRICAS Y APLICADAS INIFTA   (Argentina)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DEL AZUAY   (Ecuador)

^c FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS EXACTAS   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Molecular descriptors; QSAR QSPR theory; Relative sweetness; Sucrose; Sweeteners

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959436461     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (96)

1. Cooper, J.M., Sucrose, in Optimising sweet taste in foods. W.J. Spillane, Editor 2006, CRC Press.
2. Belitz, H.-D., W. Grosch, and P. Schieberle, Food Chemistry. 4th ed, 2009. Springer-Verlag.
3. Hugot, E. and G.H. Jenkins, Handbook of cane sugar engineering. Vol. 114. 1972: Elsevier.
4. Asadi, M., Beet-sugar handbook, 2006. John Wiley & Sons.
5. Singh, R.K., M.A. Khan, and P.P. Singh, Rating of sweetness by molar refractivity and ioniza-tion potential: QSAR study of sucrose and guanidine derivatives. South African Journal of Chemistry, 2014. 67: p. 12-20.
6. Bassoli, A., et al., Quantitative structure-activity relationships of sweet isovanillyl deriva-tives. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships, 2001. 20(1): p. 3-16.
7. Li, X., et al., Human receptors for sweet and umami taste. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences, 2002. 99(7): p. 4692-4696.
8. Lindemann, B., Taste reception. Physiological Reviews, 1996. 76(3): p. 719-766.
9. Lindemann, B., Receptors and transduction in taste. Nature, 2001. 413(6852): p. 219-225.
10. Margolskee, R.F., Molecular mechanisms of bitter and sweet taste transduction. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2002. 277(1): p. 1-4.
11. Nie, Y., et al., Distinct contributions of T1R2 and T1R3 taste receptor subunits to the detec-tion of sweet stimuli. Current Biology, 2005. 15(21): p. 1948-1952.
12. Sainz, E., et al., Identification of a novel member of the T1R family of putative taste receptors. Journal of Neurochemistry, 2001. 77(3): p. 896-903.
13. Zhao, G.Q., et al., The receptors for mammalian sweet and umami taste. Cell, 2003. 115(3): p. 255-266.
14. Yang, X., et al., In-silico prediction of sweetness of sugars and sweeteners. Food Chemistry, 2011. 128(3): p. 653-658.
15. Zhong, M., et al., Prediction of sweetness by multilinear regression analysis and support vec-tor machine. Journal of Food Science, 2013. 78(9): p. S1445-S1450.
16. Oertly, E. and R.G. Myers, A new theory relating constitution to taste. Simple relations be-tween the constitution of aliphatic compounds and their sweet taste. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1919. 41(6): p. 855-867.
17. Shallenberger, R.S. and T.E. Acree, Molecular theory of sweet taste. Nature, 1967. 216: p. 480-482.
18. Kier, L.B., A molecular theory of sweet taste. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1972. 61(9): p. 1394-1397.
19. Crosby, G.A., G.E. DuBois, and R.E. Wingard Jr, The design of synthetic sweeteners, in Drug design. E.J. Ariëns, Editor. 1979. Academic Press: New York. p. 215-310.
20. Nofre, C. and J.-M. Tinti, Sweetness reception in man: the multipoint attachment theory. Food Chemistry, 1996. 56(3): p. 263-274.
21. Nofre, C. and J.M. Tinti, In quest of hyperpotent sweeteners, in Sweet Taste Chemoreception. M. Mathlouthi, J.A. Kanters, and G.G. Birch, Editors. 1993. Elsevier Science Publishers: p. 205-236.
22. Nofre, C., J.M. Tinti, and D. Glaser, Evolution of the sweetness receptor in primates. II. Gusta-tory responses of non-human primates to nine compounds known to be sweet in man. Chemi-cal senses, 1996. 21(6): p. 747-762.
23. Deutsch, E.W. and C. Hansch, Dependence of relative sweetness on hydrophobic bonding. Nature, 1966. 211: p. 75.
24. Arnoldi, A., et al., Isovanillyl sweeteners. Synthesis, conformational analysis, and structure-activity relationship of some sweet oxygen heterocycles. Journal of the Chemical Society, Per-kin Transactions 2, 1991. (9): p. 1399-1406.
25. Barker, J.S., C.K. Hattotuwagama, and M.G.B. Drew, Computational studies of sweet-tasting molecules. Pure and applied chemistry, 2002. 74(7): p. 1207-1217.
26. Bassoli, A., et al., General pseudoreceptor model for sweet compounds: a semiquantitative prediction of binding affinity for sweet-tasting molecules. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2002. 45(20): p. 4402-4409.
27. Drew, M.G.B., et al., Quantitative structure-activity relationship studies of sulfamates RNH-SO3Na: distinction between sweet, sweet-bitter, and bitter molecules. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1998. 46(8): p. 3016-3026.
28. Hansch, C., Use of s+ in structure-activity correlations. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1970. 13(5): p. 964-966.
29. Iwamura, H., Structure-taste relationship of perillartine and nitro-and cyanoaniline deriva-tives. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1980. 23(3): p. 308-312.
30. Iwamura, H., Structure-sweetness relationship of L-aspartyl dipeptide analogs. A receptor site topology. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1981. 24(5): p. 572-583.
31. Katritzky, A.R., et al., A QSPR study of sweetness potency using the CODESSA program. Croatica Chemica Acta, 2002. 75(2): p. 475-502.
32. Pietrzycki, W., QSAR computational model of Nofre-Tinti theory on sweetness of mono- and disaccharides composed by pyranose units. Polish Journal of Chemistry, 2001. 75(10): p. 1569-1582.
33. Rao, M. and N. Kumar, Quantitative correlation between steric factors and the relative sweet-ness of 2-substituted 5-nitroanilines. Indian Drugs, 1986. 23: p. 35-38.
34. Spillane, W.J., Quantitative structure-taste relationship studies of sulphamate sweeteners. Chemistry and Industry 1983. p. 16-19.
35. Spillane, W.J. and G. McGlinchey, Structure-activity studies on sulfamate sweeteners II: Semiquantitative structure-taste relationship for sulfamate (RNHSO-3) sweeteners-the role of R. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1981. 70(8): p. 933-935.
36. Spillane, W.J., et al., Structure-activity studies on sulfamate sweetners III: Structure-taste relationships for heterosulfamates. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1983. 72(8): p. 852-856.
37. Spillane, W.J., et al., Development of structure-taste relationships for sweet and non-sweet heterosulfamates. Journal of the Chemical Society, Perkin Transactions 2, 2000. (7): p. 1369-1374.
38. Spillane, W.J., et al., Sulfamate sweeteners. Food Chemistry, 1996. 56(3): p. 255-261.
39. Spillane, W.J. and M.B. Sheahan, Semi-quantitative and quantitative structure-taste relation-ships for carboand hetero-sulphamate (RNHSO3-) sweeteners. Journal of Chemical Society, Perkin Transactions. 2, 1989. (7): p. 741-746.
40. van der Heijden, A., L.B.P. Brussel, and H.G. Peer, Quantitative structure-activity relation-ships (QSAR) in sweet aspartyl dipeptide methyl esters. Chemical Senses, 1979. 4: p. 141-152.
41. Walters, D.E., Genetically Evolved Receptor Models (GERM) as a 3D QSAR tool, in 3D QSAR in drug design. Recent Advances. H. Kubinyi, G. Folkers, and Y.C. Martin, Editors. 2002. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 159-166.
42. Walters, D.E. and R.M. Hinds, Genetically evolved receptor models: A computational ap-proach to construction of receptor models. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1994. 37(16): p. 2527-2536.
43. Walters, D.E., Analysing and predicting properties of sweet-tasting compounds, in Optimising Sweet Taste in Foods. W.J. Spillane, Editor. 2006. p. 283-291.
44. Consonni, V. and R. Todeschini, structure-activity relationships by autocorrelation descrip-tors and genetic algorithms, in Chemoinformatics and Advanced Machine Learning Perspec-tives: Complex Computational Methods and Collaborative Techniques. H. Lodhi and Y. Ya-manishi, Editors. 2010. IGI Global Publishers: Hershey. p. 60-93.
45. Duchowicz, P.R. and E.A. Castro, On applications of macromolecular QSAR theory, in Ad-vanced Methods and Applications in Chemoinformatics: Research Progress and New Applica-tions. E.A. Castro and A.K. Haghi, Editors. 2012. Engineering Science Reference. p. 219-228.
46. Kubinyi, H., QSAR: Hansch Analysis and Related Approaches 2008. Wiley-Interscience.
47. Puzyn, T., Leszczynski, J., Cronin. M. T., Recent Advances in QSAR Studies: Methods and Applications. First ed., 2009. New York: Springer.
48. Mercader, A.G. and E.A. Castro, Partial-order ranking and linear modeling: their use in predictive QSAR/QSPR studies, in Statistical Modelling of Molecular Descriptors in QSAR/QSPR. M. Dehmer, K. Varmuza, and D. Bonchev, Editors. 2012. Wiley-VCH. p. 149-174.
49. Diudea, M.V., QSPR/QSAR Studies by Molecular Descriptors, 2001. Nova Science Publish-ers.
50. Katritzky, A.R., Lobanov, V. S., Karelson, M., QSPR: the correlation and quantitative predic-tion of chemical and physical properties from structure. Chemical Society Reviews, 1995. 24: p. 279-287.
51. Todeschini, R., Consonni, V., Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics. 2009. Wiley-VCH.
52. Trinajstic, N., Chemical Graph Theory, 1992. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
53. Chicu, S.A., Putz, M. V., Köln-Timişoara Molecular Activity Combined Models toward Inter-species Toxicity Assessment. International Journal of Molecular Science, 2009. 10: p. 4474-4497.
54. Golbraikh, A., Tropsha, A., Beware of q2! Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, 2002. 20: p. 269-276.
55. Goodarzi, M., Duchowicz, P. R., Wu, C. H., Fernández, F. M., Castro, E. A., New hybrid ge-netic based support vector regression as QSAR approach for analyzing flavonoids-GABA(A) complexes. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2009. 49: p. 1475-1485.
56. Hawkins, D.M., Basak, S. C., Mills, D., Assessing model fit by cross validation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2003. 43: p. 579-586.
57. Lacrămă, A.M., Putz, M. V., Ostafe, V., A spectral-SAR model for the anionic-cationic in-teraction in ionic liquids: application to Vibrio fischeri ecotoxicity. International Journal of Molecular Science, 2007. 8: p. 842-863.
58. Putz, M.V., Putz, A. M., Lazea, M., Lenciu, L., Chiriac, A., Quantum-SAR extension of the spectral-SAR algorithm. Application to polyphenolic anticancer bioactivity, International Journal of Molecular Science, 2009. 10: p. 1193-1214.
59. Putz, M.V., Ionaşcu, C., Putz, A. M., Ostafe, V., Alert-QSAR. Implications for electrophilic theory of chemical carcinogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Science, 2011. 12: p. 5098-5134.
60. Putz, M.V., Residual-QSAR. Implications for genotoxic carcinogenesis. Chemistry Central Journal, 2011. 5: p. doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-5-29.
61. Consonni, V. and R. Todeschini, Multivariate analysis of molecular descriptors, in Statistical Modelling of Molecular Descriptors in QSAR/QSPR. M. Dehmer, K. Varmuza, and D. Bon-chev, Editors. 2012. Wiley-VCH. p. 111-147.
62. Kelly, D.P., W.J. Spillane, and J. Newell, Development of structure-taste relationships for monosubstituted phenylsulfamate sweeteners using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2005. 53(17): p. 6750-6758.
63. PC Spartan Pro '14. 1999. Wavefunction, Inc., http://www.wavefun.com/.
64. S-Plus 8.2 for Windows. 2010. Solution Metrics, Inc., http://www.solutionmetrics.com.au/.
65. Tarko, L., I. Lupescu, and D. Groposila-Constantinescu, Sweetness power QSARs by PRE-CLAV software. Arkivoc, 2005. 10: p. 254-271.
66. PCMODEL. 2014. Serena Software, Inc., http://www.serenasoft.com/.
67. MOPAC (Molecular Orbital PACkage) 2012. Stewart Computational Chemistry, Inc., http://openmopac.net/.
68. PRECLAV (Property Evaluation by Class Variables). 2006. Center of Organic Chemistry (CCO)-Bucharest: Bucharest.
69. Tarko, L., I. Lupescu, and D. Constantinescu-Groposila, QSAR Studies on amino-succinamic acid derivatives sweeteners. Arkivoc, 2006. 13: p. 22-40.
70. Spillane, W.J., et al., Structure-taste relationships for disubstituted phenylsulfamate tastants using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2006. 54(16): p. 5996-6004.
71. Birta, N. and N. Doca, Quantitative evaluation of sorbitol with other alcoholic sweeteners trough QSAR studies. Annals of West University of Timisoara. Series Chemistry, 2007. 16(1): p. 91-96.
72. ChemOffice Ultra 2000. 2001. Perkin Elmer, http://www.cambridgesoft.com/.
73. Lee, K., K. Cooper, and C. Kennedy, QSAR Analysis of artificial sweeteners. Journal of Stu-dent Computational Chemistry, 2007. 1: p. 8-12.
74. WebMO Pro. 2014. WebMO, LLC, Inc., http://www.webmo.net/.
75. Gaussian 09. 2009. Gaussian, Inc., http://www.gaussian.com/.
76. Vepuri, S.B., N.R. Tawari, and M.S. Degani, Quantitative structure-activity relationship study of some aspartic acid analogues to correlate and predict their sweetness potency. QSAR & Combinatorial Science, 2007. 26(2): p. 204-214.
77. Cerius2. 1997. Laboratory for molecular simulation, Inc., http://lms.chem.tamu.edu/.
78. Spillane, W.J., et al., Development of structure-taste relationships for thiazolyl-, benzothiazo-lyl-, and thiadiazolylsulfamates. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009. 57(12): p. 5486-5493.
79. HyperChem. 2008. Hypercube, Inc., http://www.hyper.com.
80. Minitab 17. 2010. Minitab, Inc., www.minitab.com.
81. MDL ISIS DRAW/BASE. 2005. MDL Information Systems, Inc.
82. CORINA - Fast Generation of High-Quality 3D Molecular Models. 2010. Molecular Net-works, Inc., http://www.molecular-networks.com/.
83. ADRIANA.Code - Calculation of Molecular Descriptors. 2009. Molecular Networks, Inc., http://www.molecular-networks.com/.
84. Teckentrup, A., H. Briem, and J. Gasteiger, Mining high-throughput screening data of combi-natorial libraries: development of a filter to distinguish hits from nonhits. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences, 2004. 44(2): p. 626-634.
85. Wagener, M., J. Sadowski, and J. Gasteiger, Autocorrelation of molecular surface properties for modeling corticosteroid binding globulin and cytosolic Ah receptor activity by neural net-works. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1995. 117(29): p. 7769-7775.
86. SONNIA - Self-Organizing Neural Network Package. 2008. Molecular Networks, Inc., http://www.molecular-networks.com/.
87. Tetko, I., et al., Virtual Computational Chemistry Laboratory - Design and Description. Jour-nal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2005. 19(6): p. 453-463.
88. Chang, C.-C. and C.-J. Lin, LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transac-tions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 2011. 2(3).
89. MOE (Molecular Operating Environment). 2013. Chemical Computing Group, Inc., http://www.chemcomp.com/.
90. Nunes, C.A. and M.P. Freitas, aug-MIA-QSPR on the modeling of sweetness values of disac-charide derivatives. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2013. 51(2): p. 405-408.
91. ChemSketch. 2013, ACD Labs, Inc., http://www.acdlabs.com/.
92. Kennard, R.W. and L.A. Stone, Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics, 1969. 11(1): p. 137-148.
93. Nunes, C.A., et al., Chemoface: a novel free user-friendly interface for chemometrics. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society, 2012. 23(11): p. 2003-2010.
94. Nunes, C.A. and M.P. Freitas, aug-MIA-QSPR study of guanidine derivative sweeteners. Eu-ropean Food Research and Technology, 2013. 237(4): p. 565-570.
95. Mitra, I., A. Saha, and K. Roy, Exploring quantitative structure-activity relationship studies of antioxidant phenolic compounds obtained from traditional Chinese medicinal plants. Molecu-lar Simulation, 2010. 36(13): p. 1067-1079.
96. Ghose, A.K., A. Pritchett, and G.M. Crippen, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three dimensional structure directed quantitative structure-activity relationships III: Modeling hy-drophobic interactions. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 1988. 9(1): p. 80-90.