4.7 Article

Ligand Specificity and Evolution of Mammalian Musk Odor Receptors: Effect of Single Receptor Deletion on Odor Detection

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 36, Issue 16, Pages 4482-4491

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3259-15.2016

Keywords

evolution; human; mouse; musk; olfactory; receptor

Categories

Funding

  1. MEXT Japan [24227003]
  2. Japanese Science and Technology Agency ERATO Touhara Chemosensory Signal Project
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16J09029, 26850061] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Musk odors have been used widely for fragrance and medicine for >2000 years because of their fascinating scent and physiological effects. Therefore, fragrance manufacturers have been eager to develop high-quality musk compounds that are safe and easily synthesized. We recently identified muscone-responsive olfactory receptors (ORs) MOR215-1 and OR5AN1 in mice and humans, respectively (Shirasu et al., 2014). In this study, we identified musk ORs that are evolutionarily closely related to MOR215-1 or OR5AN1 in various primates and investigated structure-activity relationships for various musk odorants and related compounds. We found that each species has one or two functional musk ORs that exhibit specific ligand spectra to musk compounds. Some of them, including the human OR5AN1, responded to nitro musks with chemical properties distinct from muscone. The ligand specificity of OR5AN1 reflects the perception of musk odors in humans. Genetic deletion of MOR215-1 in mice resulted in drastic reduction of sensitivity to muscone, suggesting that MOR215-1 plays a critical role in muscone perception. Therefore, the current study reveals a clear link between the identified OR and muscone perception. Moreover, the strategy established for screening ligands for the muscone OR may facilitate the development of novel and commercially useful musk odors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available