| Literature DB >> 34293158 |
Xiao-Qing Hou1, Jothi Kumar Yuvaraj1, Rebecca E Roberts1, Dan-Dan Zhang1, C Rikard Unelius2, Christer Löfstedt1, Martin N Andersson1.
Abstract
Insects detect odors using an array of odorant receptors (ORs), which may expand through gene duplication. How and which new functions may evolve among related ORs within a species remain poorly investigated. We addressed this question by functionally characterizing ORs from the Eurasian spruce bark beetle Ips typographus, in which physiological and behavioral responses to pheromones, volatiles from host and nonhost trees, and fungal symbionts are well described. In contrast, knowledge of OR function is restricted to two receptors detecting the pheromone compounds (S)-(-)-ipsenol (ItypOR46) and (R)-(-)-ipsdienol (ItypOR49). These receptors belong to an Ips-specific OR-lineage comprising seven ItypORs. To gain insight into the functional evolution of related ORs, we characterized the five remaining ORs in this clade using Xenopus oocytes. Two receptors responded primarily to the host tree monoterpenes (+)-3-carene (ItypOR25) and p-cymene (ItypOR27). Two receptors responded to oxygenated monoterpenoids produced in larger relative amounts by the beetle-associated fungi, with ItypOR23 specific for (+)-trans-(1R, 4S)-4-thujanol, and ItypOR29 responding to (+)-isopinocamphone and similar ketones. ItypOR28 responded to the pheromone E-myrcenol from the competitor Ips duplicatus. Overall, the OR responses match well with those of previously characterized olfactory sensory neuron classes except that neurons detecting E-myrcenol have not been identified. The characterized ORs are under strong purifying selection and demonstrate a shared functional property in that they all primarily respond to monoterpenoids. The variation in functional groups among OR ligands and their diverse ecological origins suggest that neofunctionalization has occurred early in the evolution of this OR-lineage following gene duplication.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Xenopus oocyte; functional characterization; neofunctionalization; odorant receptor; olfaction; purifying selection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34293158 PMCID: PMC8557457 DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msab218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Biol Evol ISSN: 0737-4038 Impact factor: 16.240
Fig. 1.(A) Unrooted maximum-likelihood tree showing the relationships among select Group 7 (Mitchell et al. 2020) ORs from Ips typographus (“Ityp”; blue) and Dendroctonus ponderosae (“Dpon”; red). The tree is based on a MAFFT alignment of amino acid sequences and constructed using FastTree 2.1.11. The clade containing the seven ItypORs is highlighted in yellow and the strong purifying selection (ω = 0.0762) is indicated on the branch. Numbers at nodes are local support values, calculated using the SH test implemented in FastTree (SH values below 0.7 are not shown). (B) The primary ligands and expression levels (transcripts per million, TPM) relative to Orco of the seven ItypORs (data from Yuvaraj et al. 2021). (C) The pair-wise amino acid identities amongst the seven ORs, based on a MAFFT alignment. (D) Chemical structures of the main ligand for each of the seven ItypORs in the clade.
Fig. 2.Responses of ItypOR23 in oocytes. (A) Representative current traces of oocytes upon successive exposures to 100 μM stimuli. Each compound was applied at the time indicated by the arrowheads for 20 s. Upper and lower traces include different sets of test stimuli. (B) Response profile of ItypOR23 to the full odor panel. Values were normalized based on the average response to the primary ligand of ItypOR23 (n ≥ 4). (C) Dose-dependent responses of oocytes expressing ItypOR23 to active ligands. Values were normalized based on the average response of ItypOR23 to the most active compound at 100 μM (n ≥ 4 for each ligand). Error bars indicate the SE.
Comparing in vitro responses of ORs with OSN responses.
| Stimulus | Matching ORs/OSNs | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| OR23 | OSN tMTol | OR25 | OSN Δ3 | OR27 | OSN pC | OR29 | OSN Pcn | |
| (+)- | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
| (–)-Terpinen-4-ol | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| (±)-3-Octanol | 2 | 2 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — |
| (±)-1-Octen-3-ol | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Acetophenone | 3 | — | 5 | 4 | — | — | — | — |
| (+)-3-Carene | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | — | — |
| (+)- | — | — | 2 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Styrene | — | — | 6 | 2 | — | — | — | — |
| 1-Hexanol | — | — | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| γ-Terpinene | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| (+)-α-Pinene | — | — | 5 | 4 | — | 2 | — | — |
| Lanierone | — | — | 4 | — | — | — | — | — |
| α-Isophorone | — | — | 4 | — | — | — | — | — |
| (+)-Isopinocamphone | — | 6 | 3 | — | — | 1 | 1 | |
| (–)-Isopinocamphone | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 | 3 |
| (+)-Pinocamphone | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | 2 |
| (–)-Pinocamphone | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 | 5 |
| (–)-Pinocarvone | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 | 3 |
| (±)-Camphor | — | — | 6 | 3 | — | — | 4 | 4 |
Note.—Rank order (1 = best compound, 2 = second best, etc.) based on response magnitude (OSN data from Tømmerås [1985]; Andersson et al. [2009]; Schiebe et al. [2019]; Kandasamy et al. [2021]). Normalized responses for ItypORs in oocytes. Repeated number in the same column indicates similar response magnitude.
Only stimuli that were tested on both the OR and the putatively corresponding OSN class are shown.
Additional compounds eliciting minute screening responses in ItypOR25 are not listed for clarity.
Note, apart from (+)-isopinocamphone which stands out as the best ligand, the secondary responses to the structurally related secondary ligands are all very similar; hence, the few discrepancies in compound rank order between the OR and OSNs are minor in terms of sensitivity.
Fig. 3.Responses of ItypOR29 in oocytes. (A) Representative current traces of oocytes upon successive exposures to 100 μM stimuli. Each compound was applied at the time indicated by the arrowheads for 20 s. Upper and lower traces include different sets of test stimuli. (B) Response profile of ItypOR29 to the full odor panel. Values were normalized based on the average response to the primary ligand of ItypOR29 (n ≥ 4). (C) Dose-dependent responses of oocytes expressing ItypOR29 to active ligands. Values were normalized based on the average response of ItypOR29 to the most active compound at 100 μM (n ≥ 4 for each ligand). Error bars indicate the SE.
Fig. 4.Responses of ItypOR25 in oocytes. (A) Representative current traces of oocytes upon successive exposures to 100 μM stimuli. Each compound was applied at the time indicated by the arrowheads for 20 s. Upper and lower traces include different sets of test stimuli. (B) Response profile of ItypOR25 to the full odor panel. Values were normalized based on the average response to the primary ligand of ItypOR25 (n ≥ 4). (C) Dose-dependent responses of oocytes expressing ItypOR25 to active ligands. Values were normalized based on the average response of ItypOR25 to the most active compound at 100 μM (n ≥ 4 for each ligand). Error bars indicate the SE.
Fig. 5.Responses of ItypOR27 in oocytes. (A) Representative current traces of oocytes upon successive exposures to 100 μM stimuli. Each compound was applied at the time indicated by the arrowheads for 20 s. Upper and lower traces include different sets of test stimuli. (B) Response profile of ItypOR27 to the full odor panel. Values were normalized based on the average response to the primary ligand of ItypOR27 (n ≥ 4). (C) Dose-dependent responses of oocytes expressing ItypOR27 to active ligands. Values were normalized based on the average response of ItypOR27 to the most active compound at 100 μM (n ≥ 3 for each ligand). Error bars indicate the SE.
Fig. 6.Responses of ItypOR28 in oocytes. (A) Representative current traces of oocytes upon successive exposures to 100 μM stimuli. Each compound was applied at the time indicated by the arrowheads for 20 s. Upper and lower traces include different sets of test stimuli. (B) Response profile of ItypOR28 to the full odor panel. Values were normalized based on the average response to the primary ligand of ItypOR28 (n ≥ 4). (C) Dose-dependent responses of oocytes expressing ItypOR28 to active ligands. Values were normalized based on the average response of ItypOR28 to the most active compound at 100 μM (n ≥ 4 for each ligand). Error bars indicate the SE.