4.6 Article

No Evidence for Ionotropic Pheromone Transduction in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft [STE531/20-1, STE531/20-2, SPP 1392]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insect odorant receptors (ORs) are 7-transmembrane receptors with inverse membrane topology. They associate with the conserved ion channel Orco. As chaperon, Orco maintains ORs in cilia and, as pacemaker channel, Orco controls spontaneous activity in olfactory receptor neurons. Odorant binding to ORs opens OR-Orco receptor ion channel complexes in heterologous expression systems. It is unknown, whether this also occurs in vivo. As an alternative to this ionotropic transduction, experimental evidence is accumulating for metabotropic odor transduction, implicating that insect ORs couple to G-proteins. Resulting second messengers gate various ion channels. They generate the sensillum potential that elicits phasic-tonic action potentials (APs) followed by late, long-lasting pheromone responses. Because it is still unclear how and when Orco opens after odor-OR-binding, we used tip recordings to examine in vivo the effects of the Orco antagonist OLC15 and the amilorides MIA and HMA on bombykal transduction in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. In contrast to OLC15 both amilorides decreased the pheromone-dependent sensillum potential amplitude and the frequency of the phasic AP response. Instead, OLC15 decreased spontaneous activity, increased latencies of phasic-, and decreased frequencies of late, long-lasting pheromone responses Zeitgebertime-dependently. Our results suggest no involvement for Orco in the primary transduction events, in contrast to amiloride-sensitive channels. Instead of an odor-gated ionotropic receptor, Orco rather acts as a voltage- and apparently second messenger-gated pacemaker channel controlling the membrane potential and hence threshold and kinetics of the pheromone response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据