In-silico prediction of sweetness using structure-activity relationship models.

Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models appear to be an ideal tool for quick screening of promising candidates from a vast library of molecules, which can then be further designed, synthesized and tested using a combination of rigorous first principle simulations, such as molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation and experiments. In this study, QSAR models have been built with an extensive dataset of 487 compounds to predict the sweetness potency relative to sucrose (ranging 0.2-220,000). The whole dataset was randomly split into training and test sets in a 70:30 ratio. The models were developed using Genetic Function Approximation (Rtest2 = 0.832) and Artificial Neural Network (Rtest2 = 0.831). Our models thus offer a convenient route for fast screening of molecules prior to synthesis and testing. Additionally, this study can supplement a molecular modelling approach to improve binding of molecules with sweet taste receptors, leading to design of novel sweeteners.

[1]  B. Trzaskowski,et al.  Action of Molecular Switches in GPCRs - Theoretical and Experimental Studies , 2012, Current medicinal chemistry.

[2]  L B Ellwein,et al.  The health risks of saccharin revisited. , 1990, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[3]  G. Dubois,et al.  Non-caloric sweeteners, sweetness modulators, and sweetener enhancers. , 2012, Annual review of food science and technology.

[4]  Y. Kusakabe,et al.  Molecular genetic identification of a candidate receptor gene for sweet taste. , 2001, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[5]  A. Kinghorn,et al.  Discovery of terpenoid and phenolic sweeteners from plants , 2002 .

[6]  Channa K. Hattotuwagama,et al.  Computational studies of sweet-tasting molecules , 2002 .

[7]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Development of a robust and validated 2D-QSPR model for sweetness potency of diverse functional organic molecules. , 2017, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[8]  N. Ryba,et al.  The Receptors for Mammalian Sweet and Umami Taste , 2003, Cell.

[9]  The use of substituent constants in the study of structure-activity relationships in cholinesterase inhibitors. , 1966, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[10]  Aixia Yan,et al.  Prediction of sweetness by multilinear regression analysis and support vector machine. , 2013, Journal of food science.

[11]  P. Temussi,et al.  From small sweeteners to sweet proteins: anatomy of the binding sites of the human T1R2_T1R3 receptor. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Molecular mechanism of the sweet taste enhancers , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  J. Tinti,et al.  Interaction of suosan with the sweet taste receptor , 1982 .

[14]  J. Tinti,et al.  Evolution of the sweetness receptor in primates. II. Gustatory responses of non-human primates to nine compounds known to be sweet in man. , 1996, Chemical senses.

[15]  T. Acree,et al.  Molecular structure and sweet taste , 1969 .

[16]  Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Study of Some Aspartic Acid Analogues to Correlate and Predict their Sweetness Potency , 2007 .

[17]  J F Battey,et al.  Identification of a novel member of the T1R family of putative taste receptors , 2001, Journal of neurochemistry.

[18]  L. Schmidt,et al.  Public health: The toxic truth about sugar , 2012, Nature.

[19]  Gordon G. Birch,et al.  Novel aspects of structure-activity relationships in sweet taste chemoreception , 1994 .

[20]  N. Lambert,et al.  Some G protein heterotrimers physically dissociate in living cells , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  L. Kier.  A molecular theory of sweet taste. , 1972, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[22]  M. Dewar,et al.  Ground States of Molecules. 38. The MNDO Method. Approximations and Parameters , 1977 .

[23]  In-silico prediction of sweetness of sugars and sweeteners , 2011 .

[24]  J. Dearden,et al.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Interpreting Computational Neural Network Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models: A Detailed Interpretation of the Weights and Biases , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  G. Morini,et al.  Lost and found in sweeteners : forgotten molecules and unsolved problems in the chemistry of sweet compounds , 2011 .

[27]  S. Parfitt.  An introduction to neural computing by Igor Aleksander and Helen Morton, Chapman and Hall, London, 1990, pp 255, £15.95 , 1991, Knowl. Eng. Rev..

[28]  Gareth R. H. Wilden,et al.  Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationship Studies of Sulfamates RNHSO3Na: Distinction between Sweet, Sweet-Bitter, and Bitter Molecules , 1998 .