4.4 Article

Identification and comparative expression profiles of chemosensory genes in major chemoreception organs of a notorious pests, Laodelphax striatellus

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbd.2019.100646

Keywords

Laodelphax striatellus; Odorant-binding protein; Chemosensory protein; Sensory neuron membrane protein; Odorant receptor; Phylogenetic analysis; Expression profile

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31801732, 31701786]
  2. National Key Research Program [2018YFD0300804]
  3. Key Research Program of Jiangsu Province [BE2018355]
  4. Jiangsu Agricultural Scientific Selfinnovation Fund [CX[18]3057]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The small brown planthopper, Laodelphax striatellus (Stal) (SBPH), is a notorious rice pest in East Asia and damages the host by feeding on the phloem and transmitting virus particles. Although SBPH relies on chemosensory perception for seeking the host, courtship, selecting oviposition sites and spreading virus particles, a systematic study of chemosensory genes in SBPH is lacking. In this study, we identified multi-gene chemosensory families from the transcriptome of SBPH olfactory organs and analyzed their expression patterns in male and female tissues. Among the chemosensory genes, 14 odorant-binding proteins (OBPs), 12 chemosensory proteins (CSPs), 7 sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs) and 95 odorant receptors (ORs) were identified and annotated in SBPH olfactory organs. Based on expression profile and phylogenetic analysis, LstrOBP1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, LstrSNMP1, and most LstrORs showed an antennae-enriched expression pattern, which suggests an olfactory role for these genes. Relative expression of LstrOBPs was validated by quantitative real-time PCR. Our findings provide the genetic information for disrupting the feeding behavior of SBPH, which is essential for developing eco-friendly pest management technologies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available