The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational screening of umami tastants using deep learning
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Umami, a fundamental human taste modality, refers to the savory flavors in meats and broths, often associated with monosodium glutamate and protein richness. With limited knowledge of umami molecules, the food industry seeks efficient approaches for identifying novel tastants. In this study, we have devised a virtual screening pipeline for identifying highly potent umami tastants from large molecular databases. We curated the most extensive classification dataset containing 439 umami and 428 non-umami molecules and trained a transformer-based architecture to differentiate between the two classes, achieving 93% accuracy. Additionally, we built a neural network model for predicting the potency of umami compounds, the first effort of its kind. The classification and potency prediction models were combined with similarity analysis and toxicity screening to build an end-to-end virtual framework for the rational discovery of novel tastants. We applied this framework to the FooDB database containing around 70,000 molecules as an illustrative use case for screening potent umami compounds. The screened molecules were validated using molecular docking with the umami taste receptor. This study demonstrates the potential of data-driven methods in discovering new tastants from structural and chemical features of molecules and proposes an efficient implementation for industrial applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water
Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W., & Klein, M. L. (1983) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.445869 · Cited by 41,298
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath
Berendsen, H. J. C., Postma, J. P. M., van Gunsteren, W. F., DiNola, A., & Haak, J. R. (1984) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.448118 · Cited by 30,700
Particle mesh Ewald: An N ⋅log( N ) method for Ewald sums in large systems
Darden, T., York, D., & Pedersen, L. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464397 · Cited by 30,546
Abraham, M. J., Murtola, T., Schulz, R., Páll, S., Smith, J. C., Hess, B., & Lindahl, E. (2015) · SoftwareX · doi:10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 · Cited by 27,190
AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility
Morris, G. M., Huey, R., Lindstrom, W., Sanner, M. F., Belew, R. K., Goodsell, D. S., & Olson, A. J. (2009) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21256 · Cited by 25,486
Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method
Parrinello, M., & Rahman, A. (1981) · Journal of Applied Physics · doi:10.1063/1.328693 · Cited by 19,790
Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling
Bussi, G., Donadio, D., & Parrinello, M. (2007) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2408420 · Cited by 18,089
CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: Validation based on comparison to NMR data
Huang, J., & MacKerell, A. D. (2013) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23354 · Cited by 4,430
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, "A unified approach to interpreting model predicitions," in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
Metadata
- Authors
- Dutta, P., Gajula, K., Verma, N., Jain, D., Gupta, R., & Rai, B.
- Affiliations
- Tata Consultancy Services (India) (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Gupta, Rakesh
- Venue
- Molecular Diversity
- Published
- 2024-10-18
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2979-2993
- ISSN
- 1381-1991 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-501X
- OpenAlex
- W4403541777
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (vor)
- Locations
- Molecular Diversity (publishedVersion)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Tata Consultancy Services
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Keywords
- umami taste, virtual screening, deep learning, transformer-based classification, potency prediction, similarity analysis, toxicity screening, umami taste receptor, molecular docking, monosodium glutamate
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Flavoring Agents, Humans, Taste, Neural Networks, Computer, Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled, Molecular Docking Simulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational screening of umami tastants using deep learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11030-024-11006-4
- The paper
- Dutta, P., Gajula, K., Verma, N., Jain, D., Gupta, R., & Rai, B. (2025). Computational screening of umami tastants using deep learning. Molecular Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11030-024-11006-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.