A comparative study of odorant binding protein genes: differential expression of the PBP1-GOBP2 gene cluster in Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera) and the organization of OBP genes in Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera)
Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 USA
Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
Present address: Department of Biology, Regis College, 3333 Regis Boulevard, Denver, CO 80221, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: vogt{at}biol.sc.edu)
Accepted 10 December 2001
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Manduca sexta, Drosophila melanogaster, odorant binding protein, olfactory receptor, odor degrading enzyme, gene expression, olfactory sensilla, olfaction.
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Insect OBPs are small, globular, water-soluble proteins that are expressed in the support cells of olfactory sensilla and are secreted into the extracellular fluid occupying the lumen of the sensilla hairs and surrounding the ciliary dendrite projections of olfactory receptor neurons (Vogt and Riddiford, 1981; Steinbrecht et al., 1992
, 1995
; Leal et al., 1999
; Sandler et al., 2000
). OBPs are the first gene products in the biochemical pathway detecting diverse environmental odorants, and are thought to transport odor molecules from the inner openings of pores that penetrate the sensillum cuticle to receptor proteins (ORs) located in the membranes of the olfactory receptor neurons (Vogt et al., 1985
, 1999
; Krieger and Breer, 1999
; Wojtasek and Leal, 1999
; Kaissling, 2001
). The insect behaviors associated with specific odor molecules have presumably subjected the OBP gene family to selective pressures that have driven the diversification of this family. OBP homologues have been identified in numerous species of holometabolous and hemipteran insects; if they are shown also to exist in orthopteroids they would arguably be represented throughout the Neoptera, or in more than 98 % of all insect species (Vogt et al., 1999
). Seven OBP sequences have been published for Manduca sexta (Györgyi et al., 1988
; Vogt et al., 1991b
; Robertson et al., 1999
). Previous studies identified six OBPs in D. melanogaster (McKenna et al., 1994
; Pikielny et al., 1994
; Kim et al., 1998
), and as many as 32 have been suggested to be present in the fully sequenced D. melanogaster genome (Kim and Smith, 2001
).
OBPs are differentially expressed among diverse classes of sensilla, which have unique odor specificities. This was first suggested by the identification of three distinct OBP classes in lepidopteran species, based on N-terminal sequence analysis: the pheromone binding proteins (PBPs) and the general odorant binding proteins GOBP1 and GOBP2 (Vogt et al., 1991a). PBPs were specific to or highly enriched in male antennae, while GOBP1 and GOBP2 proteins were more equivalently expressed in antennae of both sexes. These patterns suggest that PBPs are associated with sex-pheromone-specific trichoid sensilla and GOBPs are associated with plant volatile sensitive basiconic sensilla (Vogt et al., 1991a
). Differential expression of OBPs was subsequently substantiated by a series of elegant electron microscopical (EM) immunocytochemical studies in the lepidoptera Antheraea polyphemus and Bombyx mori (Laue and Steinbrecht, 1997
; Maida et al., 1997
, 1999
; Steinbrecht, 1996
, 1999
; Steinbrecht et al., 1992
, 1995
, 1996
) and in the dipteran D. melanogaster (Hekmat-Scafe et al., 1997
; Park et al., 2000
). These EM studies demonstrated both unique and combinatorial expression of different OBPs in association with morphologically and functionally distinct classes of olfactory sensilla.
The current study examines the genomic organization and patterns of expression of a subset of OBP genes of M. sexta: pbp1Msex, gobp1Msex and gobp2Msex. Previous studies suggested that these three genes are differentially expressed among distinct classes of olfactory sensilla (Györgyi et al., 1988; Vogt et al., 1991b
), and as such are suitable models for elucidating genetic regulatory mechanisms underlying the determination of diverse sensillum phenotypes. The characterization of these OBP genes establishes the necessary background for investigating regulatory elements that control their spatial and temporal expression. The study concludes with an examination of the genomic organization and relationships of 25 OBP homologues in D. melanogaster, utilizing the completely characterized genome of this species, and a comparison between these D. malanogaster OBPs and 14 M. sexta OBPs.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
For the experiment examining GOBP2 expression through a larval molt cycle (Fig. 8), larvae were staged from Dr Riddifords colony with his assistance, after the protocols of Curtis et al. (1984) and Langelan et al. (2000
). Five individuals were taken and analyzed from each stage. Staging was based on morphological characteristics as follows. Spiracle apolysis (SA): an area of clear cuticle is visible surrounding the abdominal spiracles, indicating that epidermal retraction has begun (Langelan et al., 2000
). Slipped head (SH): a zone of clear cuticle is visible just behind the fourth instar head capsule, revealing the underlying fifth instar head capsule. The head cap slips downward further to finally lie on top of the mandibles of the fifth instar larva. SH+22 and SH+30 were based on the appearance of the fifth instar mandibles viewed through the cuticle of the fourth instar head capsule. Approximately 22 h after SH, the head capsule is still fluid-filled and the mandibles have acquired a yellow appearance from the tanning process. Approximately 30 h after SH, the fluid within the fourth instar head capsule is reabsorbed, leaving them air-filled, and the mandibles appear dark brown.
|
Southern blot analysis
Genomic DNA (SDS-proteinase K isolation from a single M. sexta larva) was digested with EcoRV, ClaI, HincII, ScaI, HaeII or BglII restriction enzymes. Digested DNAs were electrophoresed overnight on a 0.8 % agarose gel (10 µg per lane), and depurinated (0.25 mol l1 HCl, 25 min), denatured (0.5 mol l1 NaOH, 1.5 mol l1 NaCl, 45 min) and neutralized (1.0 mol l1 Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 1.5 mol l1 NaCl, 45 min) on soaked Whatman paper. Digested DNAs were then transferred onto nylon membrane (Amersham; Hybond-N). A lane containing molecular mass marker was excised and stained with Methylene Blue (0.02 % in 300 mmol l1 sodium acetate). The nylon membrane was prehybridized for 2.5 h at 50°C (50°C in 5x SSC, 0.1 % N-lauroylsarcosine, 0.02 % SDS, 2x Denhardts solution, 100 µg l1 herring sperm DNA) (1x SSC is 0.15 mol l1 NaCl, 0.015 mol l1 sodium citrate) and hybridized with a digoxigenin-labeled antisense RNA probe for 16 h (20 ng l1; 50°C in prehybridization solution containing 50 % formamide) under the same conditions in a solution containing 50 % formamide, followed by washing at room temperature in 2x SSC, 0.1 % SDS (500 ml, 5 min wash) and twice at 60°C in 0.5x SSC, 0.1 % SDS (500 ml wash, 15 min first wash, 1 h second wash). The same membrane was hybridized three separate times with individual OBP probes (PBP1Msex, GOBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex) and visualized by luminous detection (Roche Biochemicals; Lumiphos-530) on X-ray film. Between hybridizations, the membrane was stripped of probe (0.2 mol l1 NaOH, 0.1 % SDS, 37°C, 30 min), equilibrated in 2x SSC (5 min), and rehybridized with a different OBP probe following a prehybridization step.
Isolation of M. sexta OBP genomic clones
A M. sexta genomic library in EMBL3 (generously provided by Dr F. Horodyski, University of Ohio) was plated at a density of 6.3x104 plaque-forming units (p.f.u.) per 150 mm Petri dish on a layer of Escherichia coli LE392 (Promega). DNA was transferred to nylon membrane (ICN), denatured (5 min) and neutralized (5 min) as above, and UV-crosslinked (in 10x SSC) on soaked Whatman paper. Membranes were prehybridized for 2.5 h at 68°C (5x SSC, 0.1 % N-lauroylsarcosine, 2x Denhardts solution, 0.02 % SDS, 100 µg l1 herring sperm DNA) and hybridized with a mixture of digoxigenin-labeled PBP1, GOBP2 and GOBP1 antisense RNA probes (25 ng ml1 probe1) under the same conditions in a solution containing 50 % formamide. Following washes (twice at 60°C in 0.5x SSC, 0.1 % SDS), hybridized probe was visualized by luminous detection (Roche Biochemicals; Lumiphos 530) on X-ray film (Kodak, X-OMAT). Positive plaques were isolated and rescreened at low density under identical conditions. DNA from select positive clones was isolated using the Wizard Lambda Prep Kit (Promega) following recommended protocols.
Clone identities were determined by dot blot hybridization. 1 µl of each DNA sample was spotted onto dry nylon membrane (ICN) and consecutively hybridized with individual PBP1, GOBP1 and GOBP2 RNA probes following the same procedure outlined for the genomic DNA library screen (see above). After each hybridization, the membrane was stripped of probe (0.2 mol l1 NaOH, 0.1 % SDS, 37°C, 30 min), equilibrated in 2x SSC (5 min), and rehybridized with a different OBP probe following the prehybridization step. A clone that was positive for both PBP1 and GOBP2, designated M2-1S, was chosen for further analysis.
Subcloning M. sexta genomic clone M2-1S by polymerase chain reaction
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to generate four subclones of the M2-1S insert. Several primers were designed from published cDNA sequences for PBP1 (Györgyi et al., 1988) and GOBP2 (Vogt et al., 1991b
), and the left and right arm sequences of the EMBL3 cloning vector (Stratagene). All PCR reactions were performed using the Expand Long Template PCR System (Roche Biochemicals). Each reaction (4x50 µl) used the supplied enzyme mix (1.75 U; mixture of Taq and Pwo DNA polymerases) and buffer no. 3, with 350 µmol l1 dNTP, 300 nmol l1 of each primer, and 20 ng M2-1S DNA. PCR was performed on a Cetus Thermocycler under oil overlay: the sequence was 3 min at 94°C followed by 30 cycles at 94°C (25 s), 60°C (40 s), 68°C (12 min for 10 cycles + a 20 s extension for each remaining cycle), and 1 cycle at 68°C (7 min). Pooled samples were purified by phenolchloroform extraction and precipitation (Maniatis et al., 1982
). Resuspended PCR products were reamplified by PCR using primers containing either EcoRI or BamHI sites at the 5' end of the same gene-specific sequence. The resulting products were purified as above, digested with the appropriate restriction enzyme, and cloned into pBluescript (SK+; Stratagene).
Sequencing M2-1S subclones
All clones were fully sequenced in both directions using vector primers or primers designed to internal sequence. Sequencing was done at the University of Florida DNA Sequencing Core Laboratory (Gainesville, FL, USA) using ABI Prism Dye Terminator cycle sequencing protocols (part number 402078) developed by Applied Biosystems (Perkin Elmer Corp., Foster City, CA, USA). The fluorescently labeled extension products were analyzed on an Applied Biosystems Model 373 Stretch DNA Sequencer (Perkin Elmer Corp.). Oligo primers were designed using OLIGO 4.0 (National BioSciences, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA) and synthesized at the DNA Synthesis Core Laboratory (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA). Nucleotide sequences were aligned and assembled using programs in the Sequencer 3.0 package (Gene Codes Corp., Ann Arbor, MI, USA).
Histological analyses
Adult tissue was prepared as described above (Animals); tissue for analysis was selected from 70 % methanol stocks. For larval tissues, heads were rehydrated to PBS, and the majority of tissue cut away from the larval antenna and maxillary palps, leaving enough head tissue for handling and orientation. For whole-mount analysis, sensory appendages (antenna, palp, galea) were cut open longitudinally by a single passage of a micro-scalpel (blade breaker, George Tiemann, Hauppauge, NY, USA) to allow probe access.
Whole-mount in situ hybridizations (for adult and larval tissues) were done as described by Byrd et al. (1996) and Rogers et al. (1999
). Tissue was prehybridized overnight at 55°C (in 0.6 mol l1 NaCl, 10 mmol l1 Tris, pH 7.5, 2 mmol l1 EDTA, 1x Denhardts, 50 µg ml1 herring sperm DNA and 50 µg ml1 tRNA) and hybridized for at least 24 h at 60°C with 100 ng ml1 digoxigenin-labeled probes in the pre-hybridization solution containing 50 % formamide. After washing, tissue was incubated in blocking solution alone (5 % non-fat dry milk in PBS-Tw, 2 h, 20°C) followed by blocking solution containing alkaline phosphatase-coupled anti-digoxigenin antibody (RocheBoehringer Mannheim; dilution 1:5000, overnight, 4°C). Hybridized probe was visualized using Nitroblue Tetrazolium (NBT) and 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate (BCIP) at 20°C following the recommended protocol (RocheMannheim). Tissue was photographed in whole mount under dark field illumination.
Sectioned in situ hybridizations were done as described by Byrd et al. (1996) and Rogers et al. (1997
). Tissue was dehydrated through a graded series of ethanol and toluene (tissue stored in 70 % methanol was transferred to 70 % ethanol and carried forward), and incubated in melted paraffin (Periplast +) for 24 h before being embedded in plastic molds. Paraffin was additionally hardened on dry ice after trimming; sections (10 µm) were taken using razor blades mounted on top of a microtome blade, and transferred to water drops on electrostatically charged microscope slides (SuperFrost II, Fisher). After drying, slides were dewaxed by immersion in xylene, and sections were treated with Proteinase K [5 µg ml1 in PBS-Tw, 15 min, room temperature (RT)]. Tissue was then treated with fix and acetic anhydride as described above. Slides were washed twice with glycine/PBS-Tw (2 mg glycine ml1, 5 min per wash) between treatments. Sections were prehybridized overnight at 42°C (0.6 mol l1 NaCl, 10 mmol l1 Tris, pH 7.5, 2 mmol l1 EDTA, 1x Denhardts solution, 50 µg ml1 herring sperm DNA and 50 µg ml1 tRNA; 1 ml per slide) and hybridized with 100 ng ml1 digoxigenin-labeled probes under the same conditions but in the presence of 50 % formamide. Following hybridization, sections were washed as described above. Tissue sections were then blocked, treated with alkaline phosphatase-coupled anti-digoxigenin antibody and stained as described above. Coverslips were placed on slides with Aquamount mounting medium (Lerner Laboratories) and samples photographed with differential interference contrast (DIC) optics. For pre-hybridization and hybridizations, slides were placed on parallel glass rods mounted on the floor of plastic Petri dish (four slides per dish) containing wet tissue and sealed with parafilm to maintain humidity; temperature-controlled incubations and washes were performed in a bacterial incubator.
Immunocytochemistry of whole-mount and sectioned material was done as described in Rogers et al. (1997) and Callahan et al. (2000
). Tissues were prepared as described above for in situ analysis. Whole-mount tissue or dewaxed sections were blocked in 3 % non-fat dry milk (NFDM), incubated with primary antiserum (diluted 1:500, overnight, 4°C) followed by goat IgGhorseradish peroxidase conjugate (ICN; diluted 1:100, 2 h, RT) and stained with VIP substrate (Vector) following the recommended protocols. For a negative control, sections were incubated with pre-immune serum under identical conditions. All washes and antibody treatments included 3 % NFDM in PBS-Tx (PBS containing 0.1 % Triton X-100). Permount (Fisher) was used to place coverslips on slides, which were photographed using brightfield or DIC optics. Antisera were immunohistochemically active at dilutions to 1:10,000. Primary antisera were anti-PBPMsexta (Györgyi et al., 1988
) or anti-rGOBP2Msexta. rGOBP2Msexta was expressed from cDNA (Vogt et al., 1991b
; Feng and Prestwich, 1997
) and antiserum was generated in a rabbit using rGOBP2Msexta dissolved in 50 % Freunds Complete Adjuvant (University of South Carolina Institute for Biological Research Technology Antibody Facility).
Analysis of Drosophila OBP genes
Twenty five OBP homologues were identified from the D. melanogaster genome data base using the Blast network servers at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project (BDGP, http://www.fruitfly.org/blast/) (see Table 1). The database was initially screened using six previously identified OBP sequences: OS-E, OS-F(PBPRP3), PBPRP1, PBPRP2, PBPRP5 and LUSH (McKenna et al., 1994; Pikielny et al., 1994
; Kim et al., 1998
), and rescreened using newly identified sequences. Criteria for selecting candidate OBPs were based on Blast e-values <0.05, a cutoff considered to be statistically significant (Karlin and Altschul, 1990
). Data associated with the gene product accession number (AAF#) include the gene product sequence as well as a locus accession number (AE#) referencing a gene scaffold, with annotations describing the coding regions and their orientation within the scaffold sequence. Gene loci were determined using the NCBI Entrez Genome Web Server for D. melanogaster (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMGifs/Genomes/7227.html) and using the gene product identifier (CG# or specific name) noted in the sequence reference file or scaffold annotation. Introns and exons of D. melanogaster genes were identified by comparing translations of genomic nucleotide sequences with predicted amino acid sequences, both obtained from the gene scaffold data entries for the respective genes.
|
|
AAF50909 (gene scaffold AE003571)
Annotation suggested three exons. A truncation of the first exon was required to permit alignment using a start ATG situated mid-exon 1 (scaffold nucleotide modification: <97221..97368, 97434..97656, 98027..98227>).
AAF51918 (gene scaffold AE003600)
Annotation suggested three exons, but Blast analysis indicated that only exons 1 and 2 are OBP-related. The stop codon used was seven codons downstream from the annotated end of exon 2, adding six amino acid residues to the exon 2 domain (scaffold nucleotide modification: <70038..70376, 70440..70499>). Searching with AAF51918 identified AAF51919 as a significant homologue, but significance was only in the rejected exon 3 and AAF51519 was thus rejected as an OBP-related homologue.
AAF57521 (gene scaffold AE003795)
Annotation suggested four exons, but Blast analysis indicated that only exons 3 and 4 are OBP-related. The start ATG used was from the middle of exon 3 (scaffold nucleotide modification: complement <250658..251011, 251074..251133>).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Isolation and characterization PBP1 and GOBP2 genes
A genomic DNA library (8x105 plaques) was screened with a single mixture of digoxigenin-labeled PBP1Msex, GOBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex antisense RNA probes. 19 positive clones were subjected to dot blot hybridization with individual probes to determine their identity (Fig. 1B): PBP1Msex probe hybridized to five clones; GOBP1Msex probe hybridized to eight clones; GOBP2Msex probe hybridized to five clones. Two clones were positive to both PBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex (arrows). One of these clones (no. 2, Fig. 1B) was designated M2-1S and sequenced.
A physical map of the fully sequenced M2-1S insert (9186 bp, GenBank accession number AF323972) is presented in Fig. 2A. The translational initiation and termination codons and the exon/intron boundaries of each gene were determined by alignment with published cDNA sequences for GOBP2Msex (Vogt et al., 1991b) and for PBP1Msex (Györgyi et al., 1988
). Gobp2Msex spans 1492 bp from start codon to polyadenylation signal and pbp1Msex spans 1747 bp from start codon to polyadenylation signal. Both genes are oriented in the same direction, with gobp2 upstream (5') of pbp1Msex; 2741 bp separate the polyadenylation signal of gobp2Msex and the initiation codon of pbp1Msex. The coding region of each gene contains three exons, the first encoding at least part of the 5' UTRs and the amino acid signal peptides (Vogt et al., 1991a
). TATA box motifs reside 292 bp and 508 bp upstream from the respective gobp2Msex and pbp1Msex initiation codons. Also, the octamer PyCATTTPuPy, which may represent an enhancer motif (Hekmat-Scafe et al., 1997
), was found 318 bp and 439 bp upstream from the respective gobp2Msex and pbp1Msex initiation codons.
|
Expression of PBP1Msex, GOBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex in adult male and female antennae
In a previous study, PBP1Msex, GOBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex proteins were partially sequenced directly from both male and female antennae (Vogt et al., 1991a). PBP1Msex was more abundant in male antennae than female antennae, and was shown to associate with pheromone-sensitive long trichoid sensilla of male antennae. In females, it was not determined whether the expression of PBP1Msex was restricted to a subset of sensilla or occurred at low levels in the general population of sensilla. Both GOBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex were present at similar levels in male and female antennae but neither associated with pheromone-sensitive trichoid sensilla isolated from male antennae, suggesting that both GOBPs associated with sensilla involved in the detection of plant volatiles. To clarify these general observations, in situ hybridization and immunocytochemical studies were performed on male and female antennae.
The anatomy of male and female adult antennae is reviewed in Fig. 3. Both male and female M. sexta adults have flagellum-shaped antennae, which are subdivided into approximately 80 segment-like annuli (Sanes and Hildebrand, 1976; Keil, 1989
; Lee and Strausfeld, 1990
; Shields and Hildebrand, 1999a
,b
). Fig. 3AD shows male (A,C) and female (B,D) antennae; single annuli are represented in the inserts. Each annulus is divided into a sensory region rich in olfactory sensilla (arrows 1 and 2 in Fig. 3A) and a largely non-sensory region (marked by asterisks) containing scales and very few sensory structures (Fig. 3F). In male antennae, the sensory region of an annulus is divided into two zones. A peripheral sensory zone (Fig. 3E, left) contains the single class of long trichoid sensilla (type I); these sensilla appear to form a horseshoe pattern when the antenna is viewed from the side as in Fig. 3E. A mid-annular sensory zone (Fig. 3E, right) contains several types of short sensilla, intermixed, including many short trichoid (type II) and basiconic (type I and II) sensilla, and a few coeloconic and styliform sensilla (Fig. 3E, right). In general, a sensillum contains 13 sensory neurons plus three supporting cells (thecogen, trichogen and tormogen cells). Each male antenna contains about 100,000 sensilla and 250,000 sensory neurons (Sanes and Hildebrand, 1976
; Lee and Strausfeld, 1990
); the long type I trichoid sensilla contain neurons that respond specifically to sex pheromone, while the mid-annular mixture of sensilla contain neurons thought to respond to plant volatiles. In female antennae, the sensory region is constructed of a single sensory zone of intermixed sensilla types, which include all those of the male antenna except for the long trichoid sensilla (Fig. 3B,D,F); a recent study identified two classes of trichoid sensilla on female antennae, suggesting that one of these classes (type A) is the equivalent of the male type I trichoid sensilla, though much shorter (Shields and Hildebrand, 2001
). Several publications suggest that the total number of sensilla on female and male is similar (Sanes and Hildebrand, 1976
; Lee and Strausfeld, 1990
; Shields and Hildebrand, 1999a
,b
); Oland and Tolbert (1988
) estimated that a female antenna contained 300,000340,000 neurons.
|
|
|
Expression of GOBP1Msex is shown in Fig. 6. GOBP1Msex expression occurred in the same region as GOBP2Msex in both adult male (Fig. 6AD) and female (Fig. 6DF) antennae. In male whole mounts, cells expressing gobp1Msex appear to be somewhat smaller than those expressing gobp2Msex, suggesting that these two genes are differentially expressed within a common region. Double-labeling experiments would be necessary to confirm differential expression. GOBP1Msex probes consistently produced high background staining relative to the GOBP2Msex or PBP1Msex probes. This difference is evident in Fig. 6A and B; while full-length GOBP1Msex probe stained discrete cells in the mid-annular region (Fig. 6B), a more diffuse staining was also observed in the peripheral regions (asterisks, Fig. 6B) at a notably higher level than observed for the GOBP2Msex probe (asterisks, Fig. 6A). To improve specificity, probes were generated to specific subregions of the GOBP1Msex cDNA. A probe encoding the 5' third of the coding region (G115, Fig. 6C) displayed reduced cross-reactivity with cells of the periphery (asterisks). In contrast, a probe encoding the middle third of the coding region (G128, Fig. 6D) displayed increased cross-reactivity with the periphery (asterisks).
|
|
The identity of GOBP2Msex in antenna was confirmed using the polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) (data not shown). Antennal mRNA was isolated, converted to cDNA, amplified with GOBP2-specific primers and the resulting product cloned and sequenced (Rogers et al., 1999). The resulting sequence exactly matched that of the adult antennal-derived GOBP2Msex sequence (Vogt et al., 1991b
). Similar efforts using PBP1 specific primers yielded no product, supporting the negative histology which suggests that PBP1 is not expressed in larval antennae.
Cells in the maxillary palp express GOBP2 but not PBP1 (Fig. 7KN,P). Each maxilla consists of two lobes, the galea and palp; the palp consists of three segments with candidate volatile-sensitive sensilla on segment III (Fig. 7C,J). Whole-mount in situ hybridizations of fifth and fourth instar maxillary palps revealed a single cluster of at least two cells expressing GOBP2 mRNA (Fig. 7K,L). Immunocytochemical detection in sectioned tissue suggests that this cluster is located within segment II of the palp (arrows) but makes contact with the cuticle near the base of the segment III (arrowheads) (Fig. 7M,N). GOBP2Msex was not detected in the galea, and PBP1Msex expression was not detected in the maxilla (Fig. 7P).
GOBP2Msex expression in the maxillary palp may associate with pore plate sensilla in the side of segment III. Several reports have characterized sensory structures on the maxillary palps. Schoonhoven and Dethier (1966) described eight peg-shaped sensilla at the tip of segment III and four campaniform sensilla on the side of segment III in the region where GOBP2 immunoreactivity was observed to make cuticle contact (Fig. 7M,N). Several (24) of the tip sensilla were thought to be olfactory, on the basis of electrophysiological responses to plant volatiles, and the remainder were identified as gustatory or contact chemoreceptors (Schoonhoven and Dethier, 1966
). Keil (1989
) presented an ultrastructural analysis of the maxillary palp sensory structures in the moth Helicoverpa armigera and suggested that none of the tip sensilla were olfactory. Of the eight tip sensilla, five had single tip pores and three had both tip and side-wall pores; however, only the tip pores appeared not to penetrate the cuticle, suggesting that all eight sensilla were contact chemoreceptors. On the side of the palp (third segment), Keil (1989
) described one singly innervated campaniform sensillum (proprioceptive), a large singly innervated digitiform organ, and two multiply innervated pore-plate sensilla. Based on structure and innervation, the digitiform organ is a candidate CO2 detector, and the pore-plate sensilla might be olfactory detectors (Keil, 1989
). The location of expressed GOBP2Msex suggests that it associates with one of these side-wall sensilla, possibly one or both of the multiply innervated pore-plate sensilla described by Keil. These observations further suggest that a re-evaluation of the function and identity of M. sexta maxillary palp sensory structures is in order.
Downregulation of GOBP2Msex expression during the larval molt
During a larval molt, the outer cuticle, including the sensillum cuticle ensheathing chemosensory neurons, is lost. OBPs are secreted into the extracellular lumen of the sensillum and are thus subject to loss during the molt; continued secretion of OBPs in the absence of sensilla cuticle would result in an energetic loss. Also, the support cells that express OBPs alter their program during a molt to extend a protrusion, which molds the new sensillum hair, and to express and secrete the cuticular proteins, which form the sensillum hair. Coexpression of OBPs at this time might strain this hair-forming process. We therefore hypothesized that OBP expression would be downregulated during the molting process. Because larval molts are regulated by ecdysteroids (Fig. 8A), and because the M. sexta OBPs were previously shown to be regulated by ecdysteroids in the developing adult antenna (Fig. 8B) (Vogt et al., 1993), we further hypothesized that the downregulation of larval OBP expression would correspond temporally to changes in larval ecdysteroid levels. To explore these possibilities, the larval expression of GOBP2 was examined through the molt from fourth to fifth instar, selecting animals staged relative to known ecdysteroid levels.
Expression of GOBP2Msex was observed to be downregulated during the larval molt, corresponding temporally to the rise and fall of larval ecdysteroids (Fig. 8A,C). Fig. 8C shows a developmental series of larval antennae, subjected to in situ hybridization with antisense GOBP2Msex probe in whole mount; the relative age of these tissues is indicated graphically in Fig. 8A. The presence of GOBP2Msex mRNA was detected strongly at SA 35 (Fig. 8Cb), weakly at SA 15-16 (Fig. 8Cc), but not detected at stages SH or SH+3 (Fig. 8Cd,e). GOBP2Msex mRNA was clearly visible again at SH+30 (Fig. 8Cg); under direct observation, staining was faintly apparent at SH+22 (Fig. 8Cf). This study indicates that GOBP2Msex expression is downregulated during a molt, turned off by SH but reinitiated by SH+22 (summarized in Fig. 8A). The temporal expression of GOBP2Msex correlates with the rise and fall of ecdysteroid levels as well as with expression of several other genes, which are known to be regulated by ecdysteroid levels and juvenile hormone (JH) (Fig. 8A).
Analysis of OBP gene loci in Drosophila
The full characterization of the Drosophila genome (Adams et al., 2000) affords the opportunity to assess the genomic organization of a large set of OBP genes within a single species. To that end, we analysed 19 potential homologues of the six previously identified Drosophila OBPs. Note that only the six previously identified OBPs are known from cDNAs; the coding regions of the additional OBP homologues were identified by the algorithms used by Celera Genomics (Adams et al., 2000
) to characterize coding regions and intron/exon boundaries and are thus subject to the errors that may be inherent within this approach. Several of these entries were modified, as indicated in Materials and methods.
All 25 Drosophila OBP homologues are listed in Table 1. These genes distribute among 12 loci on the three euchromatic chromosomes (Fig. 9A). Five of the 12 loci include multiple OBP genes, ranging from 2 to 6 (Fig. 9B). Many of the genes from a given multi-OBP locus are sequentially arranged; gene orientation within a multi-OBP locus appears to be arbitrary (Fig. 9B). Members of a locus tend to share significant similarity with each other based on Blast e-values; only the members of locus 2 shared no significant sequence similarity with other members of that locus. Further analysis might identify additional OBP homologues within the Drosophila genome but, for those identified here, multi-OBP loci are not the rule, but are not uncommon.
|
|
The chromosomal locus positions of the D. melanogaster OBP genes were compared with those of 61 candidate D. melanogaster OR (DOR) genes (Fig. 9A). The combinatorial expression of specific OBPs and DORs may contribute to the functional phenotypes of descrete olfactory sensilla; the relative proximity of these genes might suggest a possible mechanism for such coregulation. 61 DOR genes have been identified in D. melanogaster (reviewed by Vosshall, 2000, 2001
). In general, DOR genes are distributed throughout the genome; some reside in multi-gene loci, but most are relatively isolated from one another. Furthermore, there appears to be no consistent association between OBP and DOR loci in D. melanogaster, as at least 500 kbp separate most of them and there are many intervening and unrelated genes. There are closer physical associations: OBP locus 2 is about 100 kbp from DOR 19a, OBP locus 4 is about 200 kbp from DOR 43b, and OBP locus 5 is about 350 kbp from DOR 47a. OBP loci 10 and 11 are about 130 kbp apart, with OR83c situated between, about 100 kbp from locus 10 and 30 kbp from locus 11. The most striking relationship is seen in OBP locus 6 (Fig. 9B). Locus 6 encompasses eight genes including six OBP homologues and two non-OBP genes, the odor receptor OR56a (CG12501) and a gene with significant similarity to mitochondrial thioredoxin (CG8517, mtr). Excluding locus 6, the distances between DOR and OBP genes make it highly unlikely that coregulation occurs through shared regulatory sites.
A sequence comparison was made between the 25 D. melanogaster OBP (Table 1) and 14 M. sexta OBP amino acid sequences (Fig. 11C). While only six of the D. melanogaster genes have been shown to express in antennae (OS-E, OS-F, PBPRP1, PBPRP2, PBPRP5, LUSH), all 14 M. sexta genes were identified from antennal cDNA libraries of either male or female adult antennae (see Robertson et al., 1999). With few exceptions, the OBP sequences segregate by species, consistent with the estimated divergence between the dipteran and lepidopteran lineages about 250 million years ago (see Discussion). Also, and with few exceptions, the OBPs show considerable sequence diversity, indicated by the consistently long branch lengths. Several distinct similarity groups are evident in addition to those mentioned above, notably the PBP/GOBP1/GOBP2 group of M. sexta, and the PBPRP2/PBPRP5/CRKBP of D. melanogaster and the blowfly Phormia regina.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Adult expression of PBP and GOBP2 proteins has been previously studied in antennae of the moths A. polyphemus and B. mori by immunodetection in EM sections of identifiable olfactory sensilla (Steinbrecht et al., 1992, 1995
, 1996
; Steinbrecht, 1996
, 1999
; Laue and Steinbrecht, 1997
; Maida et al., 1997
, 1999
). In these other studies, PBP was consistently detected in long trichoid sensilla, and GOBP2 was detected in basiconic sensilla. Both PBP and GOBP2 were detected in short trichoid sensilla but were never colocalized. There is as yet little information regarding the expression of GOBP1, except that its distribution among male and female antennae closely matches that of GOBP2 (Vogt et al., 1991a
,b
). One conference abstract report noted immunodetection of GOBP1 in at least some long trichoid sensilla of B. mori, suggesting that GOBP1 and PBP may occasionally coexpress (Maida et al., 1999
). We also observed GOBP1 probe hybridizing to long trichoid sensilla, but suggest instead that the target being detected is a different OBP protein that is similar to GOBP1 and that coexpresses with PBPs in the pheromone-sensitive long trichoid sensilla.
Larval expression of OBPs has already been shown by northern blot in the dipteran D. melanogaster (PBPRP5) (Park et al., 2000), and at the immunohistological EM level in the antenna of the lepidopteran B. mori (GOBP2) (Laue, 2000
). In the current study, GOBP2Msex hybridizations were positive in sensilla of the larval maxillary palp and antenna, but PBP1Msex hybridizations were negative; PCR-based cloning and sequencing confirmed the presence of GOBP2 transcript in antennal-derived mRNA but failed to identify any PBP1 transcript in the same mRNA sample.
Thus, this study has identified a pair of homologous OBPs that are tandemly arranged on the chromosome, but are differentially expressed between male and female adults as well as between larvae and adults. The patterns of expression of these two genes support their original naming: PBP1Msex is adult-specific, primarily associating with sex-pheromone sensitive neurons, whereas GOBP2Msex is present in a wide variety of olfactory sensilla in males, females and larvae, associating with a population of neurons that are presumed to respond to a wide range of odorants. It is worth noting that the adult sensory epithelia of female antennae and the mid-annular region of the male antennae contain a diverse and intermingling population of sensilla phenotypes, both with respect to morphology and odor responsiveness (Lee and Strausfeld, 1990; Shields and Hildebrand, 1999a
,b
, 2001
). These diverse sensilla provide a considerable landscape for the differential or combinatorial expression of a large number of OBP genes.
Female expression of PBPs
PBP expression in female antennae conflicts with the generalized dogma that female moths do not display any physiological or behavioral response to their own sex pheromone (Schweitzer et al., 1976; Boeckh and Boeckh, 1979
; Koontz and Schneider, 1987
; Hildebrand, 1996
; Christensen et al., 1990
; Chen et al., 1997
). The first PBP was identified in A. polyphemus, and it appeared to be uniquely expressed in male antenna; it was isolated directly from receptor lymph of pheromone-sensitive long trichoid sensilla, and was shown to bind pheromone (Vogt and Riddiford, 1981
). PBPs do in fact continue to be observed associating with sex-pheromone-sensitive sensilla of adult male antennae (e.g. Laue and Steinbrecht, 1997
). However, PBP expression in female antennae has now been observed in many moth species. PBP is more abundantly expressed in male antennae than female antennae of saturniid, bombycid and sphingid families, but more equivalently expressed in male and female antennae of noctuiids (Györgyi et al., 1988
; Vogt et al., 1991a
; Steinbrecht et al., 1992
, 1995
; Laue and Steinbrecht, 1997
; Nagnan-LeMeillour et al., 1996
; Maïbèche-Coisné et al., 1998
; Callahan et al., 2000
). Female expression of PBPs has led to suggestions that female sensilla expressing these PBPs may be detecting and monitoring some component of the female-released sex pheromone or that PBPs may have broader functions than the detection of sex-pheromone odorants.
Autodetection of sex pheromone by females does in fact occur. A recent report by Schneider et al. (1998) presents data of female autodetection of sex pheromone in the tiger moth, and includes an excellent review of the literature of female autodetection. Nevertheless, in those species where female expression of PBP has been demonstrated, pheromone detection by female olfactory sensilla has not. It might make sense for female moths to have the capability of monitoring their release through an antennal feedback system, and it may be that there are a small subset of olfactory sensilla on female antennae that respond in a specific manner to at least one component of the sex pheromone.
Assays of female response to sex pheromone have often been at the behavioral or whole antenna (electroantennogram) level. In these studies, the relevant behavior or physiological response may not have been recognized, or an electroantennogram signal may have been below the level of detection if only a small number of sensilla were involved. However, a recent study examined the odor responsiveness of 125 individual type-A trichoid sensilla from female M. sexta antennae to 105 different odorants (Shields and Hildebrand, 2001). Neurons from these sensilla project to a region in the female olfactory lobe which is similar to that receiving pheromonal inputs in the male olfactory lobe. Electrical responses were elicited for about 60 % of the tested odors. No responses were observed for two pheromone components that were tested, E10,E12-hexadecadienal and E11,Z13-pentadecadienal. A failure to elicit a response to pheromone may have been because no female sensilla detect pheromone, or because only one class of sensilla was tested (an annulus has about 1,100 olfactory sensilla), or because the wrong pheromone components were tested. In another recent study, 200 olfactory sensilla were arbitrarily selected from either female antennae or the mid-annular region of male antennae in M. sexta, and tested for their responses to eight pheromone components and 24 host plant-related compounds (Kalinová et al., 2001
). A small and scattered population of sensilla from the female antenna and from the mid-annular region of the male antenna responded to the pheromone component Z11-hexadecadienal; no other pheromone component responses were observed for these sensilla. The distribution of these Z11-16-aldehyde-sensitive sensilla is similar to that of the PBP-expressing sensilla of the same region (Kalinová et al., 2001
).
The function of female sensilla expressing PBP remains unclear, as does the function of male sensilla which are not of the type-I long-trichoid type but which express PBP (i.e. those in the mid-annular region). It is possible that these sensilla respond to odors unrelated to pheromone. However, conservation of the PBP gene family in lepidoptera suggests that a strong and focused selective pressure has contributed to its evolution (Vogt et al., 1999). Divergent functions of sensilla expressing PBPs might be expected to steer PBP evolution in a less conserved direction. The uniqueness of the PBP lineage to lepidoptera and the patterns of PBP1 expression argue that PBPs have highly specific roles in odor detection, and that sensilla expressing PBPs, whether in males or females, play an important behavioral role for the animals.
Genomic organization of insect OBPs
The PBP and GOBP2 genes of Lepidoptera that have been characterized are highly conserved with respect to exon boundaries in their translated amino acid sequences, and are quite different from OBP genes of Diptera, both with respect to exon position and variation (Figs 2B,C, 10B). Such differences in gene structures may simply reflect the phylogenetic distance between Lepidoptera and Diptera. Alternatively, the differences may be consistent with distinct protein/gene classes. The PBPs and GOBPs comprise a single structural class of OBP within Lepidoptera, distinct from other lepidopteran OBPs as well as from OBPs identified from other insect Orders (Vogt et al., 1999; Hekmat-Scafe et al., 2000
). Thus, the conserved and unique exon structure of the PBP/GOBP proteins may indicate that the gene duplications which produced this lepidopteran-specific gene lineage occurred relatively recently.
Analysis of 25 OBP homologues in Drosophila identified 12 OBP loci distributed across three of four chromosomes; five of these loci included clusters of two or more OBP genes (Fig. 9A,B). The remaining OBPs were individually distributed, presumably the consequence of chromosomal rearrangements which translocated these OBP genes from their sites of origin. For the multi-OBP loci, OBPs were frequently, but not always, sequentially arrayed, and orientation was about even in either direction. OBPs of a given locus tended to be more similar in sequence to other OBPs of the locus than to those outside the locus, as indicated by the grouping of OBPs of a given locus in the sequence tree (Fig. 10A). However, long branch lengths and weak support values in the tree emphasize the considerable sequence divergence that has accumulated among clustered OBP genes.
Locus 10 includes two OBP genes, OS-E and OS-F, which are oriented in the same direction (Fig. 9B), are similar in both sequence and exon structure (Fig. 10A,B), and are known to coexpress within the same sensilla and presumably the same cells (Hekmat-Scafe et al., 1997). Locus 12 contains four genes, which share similar sequence and exon structures, associating with a single branch in the sequence tree, which also includes OBPs of two single-OBP loci and the serum proteins of C. capitata. This association with the C. capitata proteins suggests a hypothesis that the locus 12 OBP homologues may be non-olfactory serum proteins. Locus 6 contains six OBPs, which also share similarities in sequence and exon structure, and has the unusual feature of being the only OBP cluster that also includes an OR gene. Locus 2 includes four OBP genes, which share common exon structures, conserving specific exon domains, but which also have highly divergent sequences.
Locus 2 OBPs demonstrate the unreliability of amino acid sequence and the value of genomic organization (locus and exon structure) in establishing the evolutionary relationships of members of a multi-gene family. The sequence divergence of the locus 2 proteins suggests that these genes are not closely related (Fig. 10A). However, the conserved exon boundary positions of the locus 2 proteins (Fig. 10B) and the close proximity of their genes (Fig. 9B) suggests the opposite, a close relationship between the locus 2 OBPs and most of the other members of the group III genes (Fig. 10B). Indeed, the exon boundaries are potentially highly informative as characters useful for deciphering the evolutionary relationships of these genes. The sequence divergence of the locus 2 genes may indicate that these genes resulted in much earlier duplications than occurred for the genes of loci 10, 12 and 6, providing the locus 2 genes with a much longer period of time to diverge. Alternatively, the conserved exon boundaries and close physical arrangement of the genes may indicate that the locus 2 duplications were relatively recent, but that the function of the locus 2 genes, and the selective pressures acting on these genes, were such that their evolution has been more rapid than those of the other loci.
One locus 2 OBP, PBPRP2, is significantly similar in sequence to a single locus OBP, PBPRP5 (locus 3); this is especially curious because PBPRP2 is encoded by four exons while PBPRP5 is encoded by only one exon. How do two genes which differ so dramatically in genomic organization have such strongly supportable sequence similarity in an otherwise highly divergent gene family? The sequence similarity of PBPRP2 and PBPRP5 could be the consequence of convergence or homoplasy. Alternatively, PBPRP5 might represent a reinsertion of a processed mRNA of a locus 2 gene member, perhaps through some retroviral activity. However, if this occurred, then the regulatory elements for PBPRP5 would most probably be lost and the gene would either cease to express or express in a non-olfactory context, neither of which is the case (Park et al., 2000). A third possibility is that PBPRP5 is ancestral to the locus 2 cluster, that a translocated duplicate of PBPRP5 founded the locus 2 gene cluster, acquiring introns and establishing the locus 2 cluster through further duplication events. A fourth possibility is that PBPRP5 is simply a relocated locus 2 relative which lost its introns. The expression of PBPRP2 and PBPRP5 was characterized by Park et al. (2000
) and Shanbhag et al. (2001
). PBPRP5 was detected in sensilla of the adult antenna and in cells of the dorsal organ of the larval antennomaxillary complex. PBPRP2 was detected in both olfactory and taste epithelium of adults, but surprisingly was not found in the receptor lymph; instead it was seen in the subcuticular spaces next to sensilla, or in a non-neuronal cavity of taste sensilla. This apparently non-sensory localization of PBPRP2 suggested that this protein does not function as an odor carrier, cautioning that OBP homologues should not be assumed to be odor carriers solely on the basis of sequence similarity (Park et al., 2000
). On the other hand, sequence analyis (Fig. 11C) showed a similarity between PBPRP1 and PBPRP5 and an OBP homologue (CRKBP) isolated from taste sensilla of the blowfly, which is believed to have a role in chemodetection (Ozaki et al., 1995
); thus, PBPRP2 may have a poorly understood role in processing odor-like molecules. The PBPRP5 expression patterns seem consistent with other OBPs, implying that it has retained regulatory elements that are characteristic of OBPs and arguing against an intron-free origin by retroviral reinsertion.
Regulation of OBP expression
pbp1Msex and gobp2Msex are coexpressed temporally, but differentially expressed spatially. In developing adult antennae, both genes were previously shown to be expressed in response to a decline in ecdysteroids (Vogt et al., 1993); in larvae, gobp2Msex expression ceases when ecdysteroid levels rise and resumes when levels fall (Fig. 8). In both adults and larvae, the support cells expressing and secreting OBPs have additional roles, growing out to cast the hair and expressing and secreting the proteins which form the sensillum cuticle (e.g. Sanes and Hildebrand, 1976
; Keil, 1992
). The support cells apparently partition their resources, temporally separating the expression and secretion of cuticle proteins from the expression and secretion of OBPs; changing levels of ecdysteroids appear to coordinate these processes.
The mechanism for regulating differential OBP expression is not known, but it must be linked to the determination and expression of sensilla phenotype. Sensilla phenotypes are characterized by many features, including morphology of the cuticular portion of the sensillum, numbers and morphologies of neurons, synaptic targets of the olfactory neurons, and the combinatorial expression of olfactory gene products including OBPs, ORs and ODEs. In D. melanogaster, some 30 OBP and 60 OR genes are presumably differentially expressed in specific combinations among a large number of sensilla of adult and larval chemosensory organs. Functional analysis of D. melanogaster antennal basiconic sensilla identified seven distinct subtypes of sensilla encapsulating 16 different types of olfactory receptor neurons (de Bruyne et al., 2001; Rogers and Firestein, 2001
). These sensillum subtypes were distributed in non-overlapping spatial domains on the antennal surface, suggesting the likelihood that spatial cues have a role in the determination of phenotype. Spatial cues might also be involved in M. sexta antennae, influencing the phenotype of pheromone sensilla in the peripheral sensory zones of male antennae. However, the mid-annular region of male antennae and the entire sensory region of female antennae contain mixed populations of sensilla that intermingle (Lee and Strausfeld, 1990
; Shields and Hildebrand, 1999a
,b
; 2001
); in these regions, stochastic rather than positional mechanisms may play a dominant role in determining sensilla phenotypes.
Because OBPs and ORs are expressed in different cell types, coordinated combinatorial expression of these proteins may require communication between the sensilla support cells which express OBPs and the olfactory neurons which express ORs. Such communication has been described in larval sensilla in D. melanogaster, where neuronal coexpression of the BarH1 and BarH2 homeodomain proteins is required for the trichogen/tormogen cells to construct a plate-like campaniform sensillum; the trichogen/tormogen cells construct a hair-like trichoid sensillum when BarH1 and BarH2 are deleted (Higashijima et al., 1992). Thus BarH1 and BarH2 must be part of a communication pathway that coordinates distinct cell types, neurons and support cells, to express a unified sensilla phenotype.
The determination of sensilla phenotype is influenced by a series of hierarchical developmental decisions, which range from the selection of neuronally competent epithelial cells to the asymmetric differentiation of specific sensilla cells (e.g. Ghysen and Dambly-Chaudiere, 1993; Posakony, 1994
; Jan and Jan 1993
, 1995
; Lu et al., 1998
, 2000
). Several studies have shown that the morphological phenotype of D. melanogaster olfactory sensilla (campaniform, trichoid or basiconic) is influenced by specific proneural genes that are expressed early in sensilla development (Vosshall, 2000
, 2001
). Expression of Atonal (bHLH) is required for the formation of campaniform sensilla (Gupta and Rodrigues, 1997
), while similar expression of Amos (bHLH) is required for the formation of trichoid and basiconic sensilla (Goulding et al., 2000
; Huang et al., 2000
). Expression of Lozenge is required for all basiconic sensilla and some trichoid sensilla (Gupta et al., 1998
). Proneural decisions might determine the final phenotype of a sensillum. For example, olfactory sensilla cells of lepidoptera have been suggested to be clonally related, deriving from a common sensory mother cell (SMC) following proneural selection of the SMC (Sanes and Hildebrand, 1976
; Keil, 1992
); the phenotype of these sensilla could be determined during SMC selection. However, in D. melanogaster, olfactory sensilla cells are suggested to be non-clonally related, and are recruited following a proliferative phase by a designated founder cell (Ray and Rodrigues, 1995
; Reddy et al., 1997
). In this case, determination of the mature sensilla phenotype would presumably follow recruitment.
The selection of one among many members of a gene family has been of interest regarding vertebrate ORs. In rodents, an olfactory receptor neuron selects one allele of about 1000 OR genes, and various models are being investigated for both the gene selection process and the mechanism of allelic exclusion (Chess et al., 1994; Chess, 1998
; Ebrahimi et al., 2000
; Mombaerts, 1999
; Reed, 2000
; Serizawa et al., 2000
; Wang et al., 1997
). One speculation is that some aspects of olfactory gene selection are cluster-dependent. In one study, neurons expressing a group of clustered OR genes all targeted adjacent glomerulae in the olfactory bulb, suggesting that OR genes residing in a cluster are subject to some level of coregulation, and further supporting a link between an olfactory neurons selected OR gene and the neurons synaptic target (Strotmann et al., 1999
). A similar suggestion was made for two OBP genes of D. melanogaster. The genes encoding OS-E and OS-F (also termed PBPRP5) are adjacent to one another and are coexpressed in adult olfactory sensilla, leading to the suggestion that the clustering of these genes was linked to their coregulation. In contrast, however, we have described two lepidopteran OBP genes, pbp1Msex and gobp2Msex, which are also adjacent one another but are clearly not coexpressed.
Gene clustering is not a consequence of regulation but rather a consequence of gene duplication, the result of DNA repair following a misalignment during recombination (e.g. Freeman and Herron, 1998). The inclusion or exclusion of specific regulatory elements in the misalignment influences the relative expression of the resulting genes, translocation events distribute the genes throughout the genome, and evolutionary selection further shapes both the function and expression of the genes. Except for one very curious pairing (OR56a in locus 6), the OBP and OR genes of D. melanogaster are not physically linked; coregulation of specific ORs and OBPs must be accomplished in a cluster-independent manner. Presumably, the regulation and coregulation of these genes occurs at multiple levels. pbp1Msex and gobp2Msex could be temporally regulated as a cluster, but the two genes are spatially regulated in an apparently independent manner since they are differentially expressed.
Evolution of insect OBPs
Insects emerged about 400 million years ago (Mya) and include more than 800,000 named species with upper estimates ranging from 1.530 million species (Erwin, 1982; Kristensen, 1991
). 25 of the 28 extant insect Orders belong to the division Neoptera, which emerged about 300 Mya and includes approx. 98 % of species (Kukalová-Peck, 1991
; Freeman and Herron, 1998
). The Neoptera include two major lineages: the orthopteroids, which include cockroachs, grasshoppers and termites, and the sister hemipteroid and holometabolous lineages, which include true bugs (hemipteroids) and moths, bees, beetles and flies (Hennig, 1981
; Kristensen, 1991
). OBP sequences are published for insect orders of the holometabolous and hemipteran lineages (e.g. Vogt et al., 1999
), and recently have been identified in cockroaches (K. Robinson, R. Anholt, C. Schal and S. Riviere, personal communication), suggesting that this gene family is distributed throughout the Neoptera and appeared at least 300 Mya. Dipteran and lepidopteran lineages diverged before 250 Mya, initially as dipteran/mecopteran/siphonapteran and lepidopteran/trichopteran lineages; Diptera emerged by 250 Mya and Lepidoptera by 235 Mya (Whalley, 1986
; Kukalová-Peck, 1991
; Pashley and Ke, 1992
; Friedrich and Tautz, 1997
; Wiegmann et al., 2000
).
In all analyses of multi-order OBPs, the PBPs and GOBPs consistently form a distinct lepidopteran subgroup (e.g. Vogt et al., 1999; Robertson et al., 1999
), suggesting they form a lepidopteran specific OBP subfamily. The identity of this subfamily is supported by the current study, which suggests that pbp1Msex and gobp2Msex are related by gene duplication, their physical proximity being too close to have occurred by an arbitrary translocation event. In D. melanogaster, OS-E and OS-F genes also reside in close proximity; however, OS-E and OS-F are quite similar in sequence and always coexpress in olfactory sensilla (Hekmat-Scafe et al., 1997
), in contrast to PBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex, which differ considerably in sequence and expression. An evolutionary analysis of OS-E and OS-F in several Drosophila species suggests these two genes emerged from a duplication event that occurred at least 40 Mya (Hekmat-Scafe et al., 2000
). The PBPs and GOBPs diverged much earlier, at least 100 Mya, based on the identification of these genes in the lepidopteran superfamilies Bombycoidea, Sphingiodea, and Noctuoidea; the Noctuoidae are thought to have emerged as early as 100 Mya (Pashley and Ke, 1992
). So far no efforts have been made to identify the PBP/GOBP subfamily in more ancestral lepidopteran lineages. The fact that PBP1Msex and GOBP2Msex genes have retained their proximal relationship is curious, and may support their coordinated expression or indicate a unique importance in lepidopteran olfactory behaviors.
OBPs and ORs are gene products that function at the interface between the organism and its environment. No other sensory system employs such large and divergent gene families to decipher the environment. The peripheral role of gene products such as OBPs and ORs allows for a certain malleability; few other gene families are or can afford to be as volatile in their evolution. There is apparently little consistency in the known mechanisms regulating the differential expression of large gene families (Chess et al., 1994). Because of the size, diversity and differential yet combinatorial expression of the OBP and OR gene families, their genomic organizations offer not only a glimpse into the evolutionary history of chemosensory behavior, but also a potentially important model system for elucidating novel mechanisms regulating the expression of large gene families.
![]() |
Note added in proof |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A. and Galle, R. F., et al. (2000). The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 21852195.
Baker, F. C., Tsai, L. W., Renter, C. C. and Schooley, D. A. (1987). In vivo fluctuation of JH, JH acid, and ecdysteroid titer, and JH esterase activity during development of fifth stadium Manduca sexta. Insect Biochem. 17, 989996.
Bargmann, C. I. (1998). Neurobiology of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome. Science 282, 20282033.
Ben-Arie, N., Khen, M. and Lancet, D. (1993). Glutathione S-transferase in rat olfactory epithelium: purification, molecular properties and odorant biotransformation. Biochem. J. 292, 379384.[Medline]
Boeckh, J. and Boeckh, V. (1979). Threshold and odor specificity of pheromone sensitive neurons in the deutocerebrum of Antheraea pernyi and A. polyphemus (Saturnidae). J. Comp. Physiol. 132, 235242.
Bollenbacher, W. E., Smith, S. L., Goodman, W. and Gilbert, L. I. (1981). Ecdysteroid titer during larval-pupal-adult development of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 44, 302306.[Medline]
Buck, L. B. (1996). Information coding in the vertebrate olfactory system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 517544.[Medline]
Byrd, C. A., Jones, J. T., Quattro, J. M., Rogers, M. E., Brunjes, P. C. and Vogt, R. G. (1996). Ontogeny of odorant receptor gene expression in zebrafish, Danio rerio. J. Neurobiol. 29, 445458.[Medline]
Callahan, F. E., Vogt, R. G., Tucker, M. L., Dickens, J. C., Mattoo, A. K. (2000). High level expression of male specific pheromone binding proteins (PBPs) in the antennae of female noctuiid moths. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 30, 507514.[Medline]
Chen, X., Hou, Z., Zhang, Y., Yan, F., Zhang, G. (1997). Olfactory response of cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera to sex pheromone and plant volatile components. Entomologia Sinica 4, 159172.
Chess, A. (1998). Olfactory receptor gene regulation. Adv. Immunol. 69, 437447.[Medline]
Chess, A., Simon, I., Cedar, H. and Axel, R. (1994). Allelic inactivation regulates olfactory receptor gene expression. Cell 78, 823834.[Medline]
Christensen, T. A., Geoffrion, S. C. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1990). Physiology of interspecific chemical communication in Heliothis moths. Physiol. Ent. 15, 275283.
Christophides, G. K., Mintzas, A. C. and Komitopoulou, K. (2000). Organization, evolution and expression of a multigene family encoding putative members of the odourant binding protein family in the medfly Ceratitis capitata. Insect Mol. Biol. 9, 185195.[Medline]
Clyne, P., Warr, C., Freeman, M., Lessing, D., Kim, J. and Carlson, J. (1999). A novel family of divergent seven-transmembrane proteins: candidate odorant receptors in Drosophila. Neuron 22, 327338.[Medline]
Curtis, A. T., Hori, M., Green, J. M., Wolfgang, W. J., Hiruma, K.and Riddiford, L. M. (1984). Ecdysteroid regulation of the onset of cuticular melanization in allatectomized and black mutant Manduca sexta larvae. J. Insect Physiol. 30, 597606.
de Bruyne, M., Foster, K. and Carlson, J. R. (2001). Odor Coding in the Drosophila Antenna. Neuron 30, 537552.[Medline]
del Campo, M. L., Miles, C. I., Schroeder, F. C., Mueller, C., Booker, R. and Renwick, J. A. (2001). Host recognition by the tobacco hornworm is mediated by a host plant compound. Nature 411, 186189.[Medline]
Drosophila Odorant Receptor Nomenclature Committee (2000). A univied nomenclature system for the Drosophila Odorant Receptors. Cell 102, 145146.[Medline]
Dryer, L. (2000). Evolution of odorant receptors. BioEssays 22, 803810.[Medline]
Ebrahimi, F. A., Edmondson, J., Rothstein, R. and Chess, A. (2000). YAC transgenemediated olfactory receptor gene choice. Dev. Dyn. 217, 225231.[Medline]
Erwin, T. L. (1982) Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Coleop. Bull. 36, 7475.
Fain, M. J. and Riddiford, L. M. (1975). Juvenile hormone titers in the hemolymph during late larval development of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta (L.). Biol. Bull. 149, 506521.[Medline]
Feng, L. and Prestwich, G. D. (1997). Expression and characterization of a lepidopteran general odorant binding protein. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 27, 405412.[Medline]
Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (1998). Evolutionary Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Freitag, J., Ludwig, G., Andreini, I., Roessler, P. and Breer, H. (1998). Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates. J. Comp. Physiol. A 183, 635650.[Medline]
Friedrich, M. and Tautz, D. (1997). An episodic change in rDNA nucleotide substitution rate has occurred during the emergence of the insect order Diptera. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 644653.[Abstract]
Gao, Q. and Chess, A. (1999). Identification of candidate Drosophila olfactory receptors from genomic DNA sequence. Genomics 60, 3139.[Medline]
Galindo, K. and Smith, D. P. (2001). A large family of divergent Drosophila Odorant-Binding Proteins expressed in gustatory and olfactory sensilla. Genetics 159, 10591072.
Ghysen, A. and Dambly-Chaudiere, C. (1993). The specification of sensory neuron identity in Drosophila. BioEssays 15, 293298.[Medline]
Gleeson, R. A., Trapido-Rosenthal, H. G., McDowell, L. M., Aldrich, H. C. and Carr, W. E. S. (1992). Ecto-ATPase/phosphatase activity in the olfactory sensilla of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus: localization and characterization. Cell Tissue Res. 269, 439445.[Medline]
Glendinning, J. I., Tarre, M. and Asaoka, K. (1999). Contribution of different bitter-sensitive taste cells to feeding inhibition in a caterpillar (Manduca sexta). Behav. Neurosci. 113, 840854.[Medline]
Goulding, S. E., zur Lage, P. and Jarman, A. P. (2000). amos, a proneural gene for Drosophila olfactory sense organs that is regulated by lozenge. Neuron 25, 6978.[Medline]
Gupta, B. P. and Rodrigues, V. (1997). Atonal is a proneural gene for a subset of olfactory sense organs in Drosophila. Genes Cells 2, 225233.
Gupta, B. P., Flores, G. V., Banerjee, U. and Rodrigues, V. (1998). Patterning an epidermal field: Drosophila lozenge, a member of the AML-1/Runt family of transcription factors, specifies olfactory sense organ type in a dose-dependent manner. Dev. Biol. 203, 400411.[Medline]
Györgyi, T. K., Roby-Shemkovitz, A. J. and Lerner, M. R. (1988). Characterization and cDNA cloning of the pheromone-binding protein from the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta: A tissue-specific developmentally regulated protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 98519855.[Abstract]
Hanson, F. E. and Dethier, V. G. (1973). Role of gustation and olfaction in food plant discrimination in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. J. Insect Physiol. 19, 10191034.[Medline]
Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Dorit, R. L. and Carlson, J. R. (2000). Molecular evolution of Odorant-Binding Protein Genes OS-E and OS-F in Drosophila. Genetics 155, 117127.
Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Steinbrecht, R. A. and Carlson, J. R. (1997). Coexpression of two odorant-binding protein homologs in Drosophila: implications for olfactory coding. J. Neurosci. 17, 16161624.
Hennig, W. (1981) Insect Phylogeny. Wiley, New York.
Higashijima, S., Michiue, T., Emori, Y. and Saigo, K. (1992). Subtype determination of Drosophila embryonic external sensory organs by redundant homeo box genes BarH1 and BarH2. Genes Dev. 6, 100518[Abstract]
Hildebrand, J. G. (1996). Olfactory control of behavior in moth: central processing of odor information and functional significance of olfactory glomeruli. J. Comp. Physiol. A 178, 519.[Medline]
Huang, M.-L., Hsu, C.-H. and Chien, C.-T. (2000). The proneural gene amos promotes multiple dendritic neuron formation in the Drosophila peripheral nervous system. Neuron 25, 5767.[Medline]
Jan, Y. N. and Jan, L. Y. (1993). The peripheral nervous system. In The Development of Drosophila melanogaster (ed. M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias), pp. 12071244. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Jan, Y. N. and Jan, L. Y. (1995). Maggots hair and Bugs eye: Role of cell interactions and intrinsic factors in cell fate specification. Neuron 14, 15.[Medline]
Kaissling, K.-E. (2001). Olfactory perireceptor and receptor events in moths: a kinetic model. Chem. Senses 26, 125150.
Kalinová, B., Hoskovec, M., Liblika, I., Unelius, R. and Hansson, B. S. (2001). Detection of sex pheromone components in Manduca sexta (L.). Chem. Senses 26, 11751186.
Karlin, S. and Altschul, S. F. (1990). Methods for assessing the statistical significance of molecular sequence features by using general scoring schemes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 22642268.[Abstract]
Keil, T. A. (1989). Fine structure of the pheromone-sensitive sensilla on the antenna of the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta. Tiss. Cell 21, 139151.
Keil, T. A. (1992). Fine structure of a developing insect olfactory organ: morphogenesis of the silkmoth antenna. Microsc. Res. Tech. 22, 351371.[Medline]
Keil, T. A. (1996). Sensilla on the maxillary palps of Helicoverpa armigera caterpillars: in search of the CO2receptor. Tiss. Cell 28, 703717.
Kent, K. S. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1987). Cephalic sensory pathways in the central nervous system of larval Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 315, 136.[Medline]
Kim, M. S. and Smith, D. P. (2001). The invertebrate odorant-binding protein LUSH is required for normal olfactory behavior in Drosophila. Chem. Senses 26, 195199.
Kim, M. S., Repp, A. and Smith, D. P. (1998). LUSH odorant-binding protein mediates chemosensory responses to alcohols in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 150, 711721.
Koontz, M. A. and Schneider, D. (1987). Sexual dimorphism in neuronal projections from the antennae of silk moths (Bombyx mori, Antheraea polyphemus) and the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Cell Tissue Res. 249, 3950.
Krieger, J. and Breer, H. (1999). Olfactory reception in invertebrates. Science 286, 720723.
Krieger, J., Mameli, M. and Breer, H. (1997). Elements of the olfactory signaling pathways in insect antennae. Invert. Neurosci. 3, 137144.[Medline]
Krieger, J., Raming, K. and Breer, H. (1991). Cloning of genomic and complementary DNA encoding insect pheromone binding proteins: evidence for microdiversity. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1088, 277284.[Medline]
Kristensen, N. P. (1991) Phylogeny of extant hexapods. In The Insects of Australia: A Textbook for Students and Research Workers (ed. CSIRO), pp. 125140. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Kukalová-Peck, J. (1991) Fossil history and the evolution of hexapod structures. In The Insects of Australia: A Textbook for Students and Research Workers (ed. CSIRO), pp. 141179. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Langelan, R. E., Fisher, J. E., Hiruma, K., Palli, S. R. and Riddiford, L. M. (2000). Patterns of MHR3 expression in the epidermis during a larval molt of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Dev. Biol. 227, 481494.[Medline]
Laue, M. (2000). Immunolocalization of general odorant-binding protein in antennal sensilla of moth caterpillars. Arthropod Structure Dev. 29, 5773.
Laue, M. and Steinbrecht, R. A. (1997). Topochemistry of moth olfactory sensilla. Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 26, 217228.
Leal, W. S., Nikonova, L. and Peng, G. (1999). Disulfide structure of the pheromone binding protein from the silkworm moth, Bombyx mori. FEBS Lett. 464, 8590.[Medline]
Lee, K. and Strausfeld, N. J. (1990). Structure, distribution and number of surface sensilla and their receptor cells on the olfactory appendage of the male moth Manduca sexta. J. Neurocytol. 19, 519538.[Medline]
Lee, K.-H., Wells, R. G. and Reed, R. R. (1987). Isolation of an olfactory cDNA: similarity to retinol-binding protein suggests a role in olfaction. Science 235, 10531056.[Medline]
Lobel, D., Marchese, S., Krieger, J., Pelosi, P. and Breer, H. (1998). Subtypes of odorant-binding proteinsheterologous expression and ligand binding. Eur. J. Biochem. 254, 318324[Abstract]
Lu, B., Jan, L. and Jan, Y. N. (2000). Control of cell divisions in the nervous system: symmetry and asymmetry. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 531556[Medline]
Lu, B., Jan, L. Y. and Jan, Y. N. (1998). Asymmetric cell division: lessons from flies and worms. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8, 392399.[Medline]
Maïbèche-Coisné, M., Jacquin-Joly, E., Francois, M. C. and Nagnan-Le Meillour, P. (1998). Molecular cloning of two pheromone binding proteins in the cabbage armyworm Mamestra brassicae. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28, 815818.[Medline]
Maida, R., Mameli, M., Krieger, J., Breer, H., Ziegelberger, G. and Steinbrecht, R. A. (1999). Complex expression pattern of odorant-binding proteins in Bombyx mori. In Gottingen Neurobiology Report 1999 (ed. N. Elsner and U. Eysel) p. 359. Stuttgarg: Thieme.
Maida, R., Proebstl, T. and Laue, M. (1997). Heterogeneity of Odorant-binding Proteins in the antennae of Bombyx mori. Chem. Senses 22, 503515.[Abstract]
Maniatis, T., Fritsch, E. F. and Sambrook, J. (1982). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
McKenna, M. P., Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Gaines, P. and Carlson, J. R. (1994). Putative Drosophila pheromone-binding proteins expressed in a subregion of the olfactory system. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 1634016347.
Mombaerts, P. (1999). Seven-transmembrane proteins as odorant and chemosensory receptors. Science 286, 707711.
Nagnan-Le Meillour, P., Huet, J. C., Maïbèche-Coisné, M., Pernollet, J. C. and Descoins, C. (1996). Purification and characterization of multiple forms of odorant/pheromone binding proteins in the antennae of Mamestra brassicae (Noctuidae). Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 26, 5967.[Medline]
Oland, L. A. and Tolbert, L. P. (1988). Effects of hydroxyurea parallel the effects of radiation in developing olfactory glomeruli. J. Comp. Neurol. 27, 377387.
Ozaki, M., Morisaki, K., Idei, W., Ozaki, K. and Tokunaga, F. (1995). A putative lipophilic stimulant carrier protein commonly found in the taste and olfactory systems. A unique member of the pheromone-binding protein superfamily. Eur. J. Biochem. 230, 298308.[Abstract]
Park, S. K., Shanbhag, S. R., Wang, Q., Hasan, G., Steinbrecht, R. A. and Pikielny, C. W. (2000). Expression patterns of two putative odorant-binding proteins in the olfactory organs of Drosophila melanogaster have different implications for their functions. Cell Tissue Res. 300, 181192[Medline]
Pashley, D. P. and Ke, L. D. (1992). Sequence evolution in mitochondrial ribosomal and ND-1 genes in Lepidoptera: implications for phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9, 10611075.[Abstract]
Pelosi, P. (1996). Perireceptor events in olfaction. J. Neurobiol. 30, 319.[Medline]
Pelosi, P. and Maida, R. (1995). Odorant-binding proteins in insects. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 111B, 503514.
Pelosi, P., Baldaccini, N. E. and Pisanelli, A. M. (1982). Identification of a specific olfactory receptor for 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine. Biochem. J. 201, 245248.[Medline]
Pevsner, J., Hwang, P. M., Sklar, P. B., Venable, J. C. and Snyder, S. H. (1988a). Odorant-binding protein and its mRNA are localized to lateral nasal gland implying a carrier function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 23832387.[Abstract]
Pevsner, J., Reed, R. R., Reinstein, P. G. and Snyder, S. H. (1988b). Molecular cloning of odorant-binding protein: member of a ligand carrier family. Science 241, 336339.[Medline]
Pevsner, J., Trifiletti, R. R., Strittmatter, S. M. and Snyder, S. H. (1985). Isolation and characterization of an olfactory receptor protein for odorant pyrazines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 30503054.[Abstract]
Pikielny, C. W., Hasan, G., Rouyer, F. and Rosbash, M. (1994). Members of a family of Drosophila putative odorant-binding proteins are expressed in different subsets of olfactory hairs. Neuron 12, 3549.[Medline]
Posakony, J. W. (1994). Nature verses nurture: asymmetric cell divisions in Drosophila bristle development. Cell 76, 415418.[Medline]
Ray, K. and Rodrigues, V. (1995). Cellular events during development of the olfactory sense organs in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Biol. 167, 426438.[Medline]
Reddy, G. V., Gupta, B., Ray, K. and Rodrigues, V. (1997). Development of the Drosophila olfactory sense organs utilizes cellcell interactions as well as lineage. Development 124, 703712.
Reed, R. R. (2000). Regulating olfactory receptor expression: controlling globally, acting locally [news; comment]. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 6389.[Medline]
Riddiford, L. M. (1995). Hormonal regulation of gene expression during lepidopteran development. In Molecular Model Systems in the Lepidoptera (ed. M. R. Goldsmith and A. S. Wilkins), pp. 293322. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, H. M. (2000). The large srh family of chemoreceptor genes in Caenorhabditis nematodes reveals processes of genome evolution involving large duplications and deletions and intron gains and losses. Genome Res. 10, 192203.
Robertson, H. M. (2001). Updating the str and srj (stl) families of chemoreceptors in Caenorhabditis nematodes reveals frequent gene movement within and between chromosomes. Chem. Senses 26, 151159.
Robertson, H. M., Martos, R., Sears, C. R., Todres, E. Z., Walden, K. K. and Nardi, J. B. (1999). Diversity of odourant binding proteins revealed by an expressed sequence tag project on male Manduca sexta moth antennae. Insect. Mol. Biol. 8, 501518.[Medline]
Rogers, M. E. and Firestein, S. J. (2001). Unlocking the DOR Code. Neuron 30, 305307.[Medline]
Rogers, M. E., Jani, M. K. and Vogt, R. G. (1999). An olfactory specific glutathione S-transferase in the Sphinx moth Manduca sexta. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 16251637.[Abstract]
Rogers, M., Sun, M., Lerner, M. R. and Vogt, R. G. (1997). Snmp-1, a novel membrane protein of olfactory neurons of the silk moth Antheraea polyphemus with homology to the CD36 family of membrane proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 1479214804.
Rouquier, S., Blancher, A. and Giorgi, D. (2000). The olfactory receptor gene repertoire in primates and mouse: evidence for reduction of the functional fraction in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 28702874.
Rybczynski, R., Reagan, J. and Lerner, M. R. (1989). A pheromone-degrading aldehyde oxidase in the antennae of the moth Manduca sexta. J. Neurosci. 9, 13411353.[Abstract]
Rybczynski, R., Vogt, R. G. and Lerner, M. R. (1990). Antennal-specific pheromone-degrading aldehyde oxidases from the moths Antheraea polyphemus and Bombyx mori. J. Biol. Chem. 32, 1971219715.
Saitou, N. and Nei, M. (1987). The neighbor joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406425.[Abstract]
Sandler, B. H., Nikonova, L., Leal, W. S. and Clardy, J. (2000). Sexual attraction in the silkworm moth: structure of the pheromone-binding-protein-bombykol complex. Chem. Biol. 7, 143151.[Medline]
Sanes, J. R. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1976). Origin and morphogenesis of sensory neurons in an insect antenna. Dev. Biol. 51, 300319.[Medline]
Schneider, D., Schulz, S., Priesner, E., Ziesmann, J. and Francke, W. (1998). Autodetection and chemistry of female and male pheromone in both sexes of the tiger moth Panaxia quadripunctaria. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182, 153161.
Schoonhoven, L. M. and Dethier, V. G. (1966). Sensory aspects of host-plant discrimination by lepidopterous larvae. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 16, 497530.
Schweitzer, E. S., Sanes, J. R. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1976). Ontogeny of electroantennogram responses in the moth Manduca sexta. J. Insect Physiol. 22, 955960.
Scott, K., Brady, R., Cravchik, A., Morozov, P., Rzhetsky, A., Zuker, C. and Axel R. (2001). A chemosensory gene family encoding candidate gustatory and olfactory receptors in Drosophila. Cell 10, 66173.
Serizawa, S., Ishii, T., Nakatani, H., Tsuboi, A., Nagawa, F., Asano, M., Sudo, K., Sakagami, J., Sakano, H., Ijiri, T., Matsuda, Y., Suzuki, M., Yamamori, T., Iwakura, Y., Sakano, H. (2000). Mutually exclusive expression of odorant receptor transgenes. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 687693.[Medline]
Shanbhag, S. R., Park, S. K., Pikielny, C. W. and Steinbrecht, R. A. (2001). Gustatory organs of Drosophila melanogaster: fine structure and expression of the putative odorant-binding protein PBPRP2. Cell Tiss. Res. 304, 423437.[Medline]
Shields, V. D. C. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1999a). Fine structure of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth, Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). I. Trichoid and basiconic sensilla. Can. J. Zool. 77, 290301.
Shields, V. D. C. and Hildebrand, J. G. (1999b). Fine structure of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth, Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). II. Auriculate, coeloconic, and styliform complex sensilla. Can. J. Zool. 77, 302313.
Shields, V. D. C. and Hildebrand, J. G. (2001). Responses of a population of antennal olfactory receptor cells in the female moth Manduca sexta to plant-associated volatile organic compounds. J. Comp. Physiol. A 186, 11351151.
Steinbrecht, R. A. (1999). Olfactory Receptors. In Atlas of Arthropod Sensory Receptors. Dynamic Morphology in Relation to Function. (ed. E. Eguchi, and Y. Tominaga), pp. 155176. Tokyo: Springer Verlag.
Steinbrecht, R. A. (1996). Are odorant-binding proteins involved in odorant discrimination? Chem. Senses 21, 719727.[Abstract]
Steinbrecht, R. A., Laue, M. and Ziegelberger, G. (1995). Immunolocalization of pheromone-binding protein and general odorant-binding protein in olfactory sensilla of the silk moths Antheraea and Bombyx. Cell Tissue Res. 282, 203217.
Steinbrecht, R. A., Laue, M., Maida, R. and Ziegelberger, G. (1996). Odorant-binding proteins and their role in the detection of plant odours. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 80, 1518.
Steinbrecht, R. A., Ozaki, M. and Ziegelberger, G. (1992). Immunocytochemical localization of pheromone-binding protein in moth antennae. Cell Tissue Res. 270, 287302.
Strimmer, K. and von Haeseler, A. (1996). Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 964969.
Strotmann, J., Hoppe, R., Conzelmann, S., Feinstein, P., Mombaerts, P. and Breer, H. (1999). Small subfamily of olfactory receptor genes: structural features, expression pattern and genomic organization. Gene 236, 281291.[Medline]
Swofford, D. L. (2000). PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Tegoni, M., Pelosi, P., Vincent, F., Spinelli, S., Campanacci, V., Grolli, S., Ramoni, R. and Cambillau, C. (2000). Mammalian odorant binding proteins. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1482, 229240.[Medline]
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. and Gibson, T. J. (1994). Clustal W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 46734680.[Abstract]
Troemel, E. R., Chou, J. H., Swyer, N. D., Colbert, H. A. and Bargmann, C. I. (1995). Divergent seven transmembrane receptors are candidate chemosensory receptors in C. elegans. Cell 83, 207218.[Medline]
Vogt, R. G. and Riddiford, L. M. (1981). Pheromone binding and inactivation by moth antennae. Nature 293, 161163.
Vogt, R. G. and Riddiford, L. M. (1986). Scale esterase: a pheromone degrading enzyme from the wing scales of the silk moth Antheraea polyphemus. J. Chem. Ecol. 12, 469482.
Vogt, R. G., Callahan, F. E., Rogers, M. E. and Dickens, J. C. (1999). Odorant Binding Protein Diversity and Distribution among the Insect Orders, as indicated by LAP, an OBP-related protein of the True Bug Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera, Heteroptera). Chem. Senses 24, 481495.
Vogt, R. G., Prestwich, G. D. and Lerner, M. R. (1991a). Odorant-binding-protein subfamilies associate with distinct classes of olfactory receptor neurons in insects. J. Neurobiol. 22, 7484.[Medline]
Vogt, R. G., Riddiford, L. M. and Prestwich, G. D. (1985). Kinetic properties of a pheromone degrading enzyme: the sensillar esterase of Antheraea polyphemus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 88278831.[Abstract]
Vogt, R. G., Rybczynski, R. and Lerner, M. R. (1991b). Molecular cloning and sequencing of General-Odorant Binding Proteins GOBP1 and GOBP2 from Tobacco Hawk Moth Manduca sexta: comparisons with other insect OBPs and their signal peptides. J. Neurosci. 11, 29722984.[Abstract]
Vogt, R. G., Rybczynski, R., Cruz, M., Lerner, M. R. (1993). Ecdysteroid regulation of olfactory protein expression in the developing antenna of the tobacco hawk moth, Manduca sexta. J. Neurobiol. 22, 581597.
Vosshall, L. B. (2000). Olfaction in Drosophila. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 10, 498503.[Medline]
Vosshall, L. B. (2001). The molecular logic of olfaction in Drosophila. Chem. Senses 26, 207213.
Vosshall, L. B., Amrein, H., Morozov, P. S., Rzhetsky, A. and Axel, R. (1999). A spatial map of olfactory receptor expression in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 96, 725736.[Medline]
Vosshall, L. B., Wong, A. M. and Axel, R. (2000). An olfactory sensory map in the fly brain. Cell 102, 147159.[Medline]
Wang, S. S., Tsai, R. Y. and Reed, R. R. (1997). The characterization of the Olf-1/EBF-like HLH transcription factor family: implications in olfactory gene regulation and neuronal development. J. Neurosci. 17, 41494158.
Warren, J. T. and Gilbert, L. I. (1986). Ecdysone metabolism and distribution during the pupal-adult development of Manduca sexta. Insect Biochem. 16, 6582.
Whalley, P. E. S. (1986). A review of the current fossil evidence of Lepidoptera in the Mesozoic. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 28, 253271.
Wiegmann, B. M., Regier, J. C., Mitter, C., Friedlander, T. P., Wagner D. L. and Nielsen, E. S. (2000). Nuclear genes resolve Mesozoic-aged divergences in the insect order Lepidoptera. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 15, 242259.[Medline]
Willett, C. S. (2000). Do Pheromone Binding Proteins Converge in Amino Acid Sequence When Pheromones Converge? J. Mol. Evol. 50, 175183.[Medline]
Willett, C. S. and Harrison, R. G. (1999). Pheromone binding proteins in the European and Asian corn borers: no protein change associated with pheromone differences. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 29, 277284.[Medline]
Wojtasek, H. and Leal, W. S. (1999). Conformational change in the pheromone-binding protein from Bombyx mori induced by pH and by interaction with membranes. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 3095030956.