4.4 Article

Functional characterization of a pheromone-binding protein from rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis in detecting pheromones and host plant volatiles

期刊

BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 106, 期 6, 页码 781-789

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007485316000560

关键词

Cnaphalocrocis medinalis; pheromone-binding proteins; immunocytochemistry; fluorescence competitive binding assays; trichoid sensilla

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2014AA10A605]
  2. China Agriculture Research System [CARS-01-17]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2013PY046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs) are believed to be involved in the recognition of semiochemicals. In the present study, western blot analysis, fluorescence-binding characteristics and immunolocalization of CmedPBP4 from the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, were investigated. Western blot analysis revealed that CmedPBP4 showed obvious antenna-specific expression patterns in female and male antenna, and made a clearly different sex-biased expression. Immunocytochemical labeling revealed that CmedPBP4 showed specific expression in the trichoid sensilla. Competitive fluorescence binding assays indicated that CmedPBP4 could selectively recognize three sex pheromone components (Z13-18: Ac, Z11-16: Al and Z13-18: OH) and eleven rice plant volatiles, including cyclohexanol, nerolidol, cedrol, dodecanal, ionone, (-)-alpha-cedrene, (Z)-farnesene, beta-myrcene, R-(+)-limonene, (-)-limonene, and (+)-3-carene. Meanwhile the CmedPBP4 detection of sex pheromones and host odorants was pH-dependent. Our results, for the first time, provide further evidence that trichoid sensilla might be play an important role in detecting sex pheromones and host plant volatiles in the C. medinalis moth. Our systematic studies provided further detailed evidence for the function of trichoid sensilla in insect semiochemical perception.

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

4.4
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