4.5 Article

Conservation of Indole Responsive Odorant Receptors in Mosquitoes Reveals an Ancient Olfactory Trait

期刊

CHEMICAL SENSES
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 149-160

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjq105

关键词

Aedes aegypti; Anopheles gambiae; indole; mosquito; odorant-receptor; olfaction; oviposition

资金

  1. Vanderbilt University
  2. National Institutes of Health [AI056402]
  3. Foundation for the National Institutes of Health through the Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aedes aegypti and Anopheles gambiae are among the best-characterized mosquito species within the Culicinae and Anophelinae mosquito clades which diverged similar to 150 million years ago. Despite this evolutionary distance, the olfactory systems of these mosquitoes exhibit similar morphological and physiological adaptations. Paradoxically, mosquito odorant receptors, which lie at the heart of chemosensory signal transduction pathways, belong to a large and highly divergent gene family. We have used 2 heterologous expression systems to investigate the functional characteristics of a highly conserved subset of Ors between Ae. aegypti and An. gambiae to investigate whether protein homology correlates with odorant-induced activation. We find that these receptors share similar odorant response profiles and that indole, a common and ecologically relevant olfactory cue, elicits strong responses from these homologous receptors. The identification of other highly conserved members of this Or clade from mosquito species of varying phylogenetic relatedness supports a model in which high sensitivity to indole represents an ancient ecological adaptation that has been preserved as a result of its life cycle importance. These results provide an understanding of how similarities and disparities among homologous OR proteins relate to olfactory function, which can lead to greater insights into the design of successful strategies for the control of mosquito-borne diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据