4.6 Article

Antennal Transcriptome Analysis and Comparison of Chemosensory Gene Families in Two Closely Related Noctuidae Moths, Helicoverpa armigera and H-assulta

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117054

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31230062, 31201578]
  2. China National 973 Basic Research Program [2012CB114104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To better understand the olfactory mechanisms in the two lepidopteran pest model species, the Helicoverpa armigera and H. assulta, we conducted transcriptome analysis of the adult antennae using Illumina sequencing technology and compared the chemosensory genes between these two related species. Combined with the chemosensory genes we had identified previously in H. armigera by 454 sequencing, we identified 133 putative chemosensory unigenes in H. armigera including 60 odorant receptors (ORs), 19 ionotropic receptors (IRs), 34 odorant binding proteins (OBPs), 18 chemosensory proteins (CSPs), and 2 sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs). Consistent with these results, 131 putative chemosensory genes including 64 ORs, 19 IRs, 29 OBPs, 17 CSPs, and 2 SNMPs were identified through male and female antennal transcriptome analysis in H. assulta. Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) was conducted in H. assulta to examine the accuracy of the assembly and annotation of the transcriptome and the expression profile of these unigenes in different tissues. Most of the ORs, IRs and OBPs were enriched in adult antennae, while almost all the CSPs were expressed in antennae as well as legs. We compared the differences of the chemosensory genes between these two species in detail. Our work will surely provide valuable information for further functional studies of pheromones and host volatile recognition genes in these two related species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available