4.8 Article

An essential role for a CD36-related receptor in pheromone detection in Drosophila

期刊

NATURE
卷 450, 期 7167, 页码 289-U13

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature06328

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CD36 family of transmembrane receptors is present across metazoans and has been implicated biochemically in lipid binding and transport(1). Several CD36 proteins function in the immune system as scavenger receptors for bacterial pathogens and seem to act as cofactors for Toll-like receptors by facilitating recognition of bacterially derived lipids(2-4). Here we show that a Drosophila melanogaster CD36 homologue, Sensory neuron membrane protein (SNMP), is expressed in a population of olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) implicated in pheromone detection. SNMP is essential for the electrophysiological responses of OSNs expressing the receptor OR67d to (Z)-11-octadecenyl acetate (cis-vaccenyl acetate, cVA), a volatile male-specific fatty-acid-derived pheromone that regulates sexual and social aggregation behaviours(5-8). SNMP is also required for the activation of the moth pheromone receptor HR13 by its lipid-derived pheromone ligand (Z)-11-hexadecenal(9), but is dispensable for the responses of the conventional odorant receptor OR22a to its short hydrocarbon fruit ester ligands. Finally, we show that SNMP is required for responses of OR67d to cVA when ectopically expressed in OSNs not normally activated by pheromones. Because mammalian CD36 binds fatty acids(10), we suggest that SNMP acts in concert with odorant receptors to capture pheromone molecules on the surface of olfactory dendrites. Our work identifies an unanticipated cofactor for odorant receptors that is likely to have a widespread role in insect pheromone detection. Moreover, these results define a unifying model for CD36 function, coupling recognition of lipid-based extracellular ligands to signalling receptors in both pheromonal communication and pathogen recognition through the innate immune system.

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

4.8
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