Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Physiology logoLink to Frontiers in Physiology
. 2024 Feb 19;15:1354530. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1354530

Identification of candidate chemosensory genes in Bactrocera cucurbitae based on antennal transcriptome analysis

Jing Jing Wang 1,2, Chao Ma 1,2, Yang Yue 2, Jingfang Yang 1,2, Li Xiang Chen 2, Yi Ting Wang 1,2, Chen Chen Zhao 3, Xuyuan Gao 2,4, Hong Song Chen 2,4, Wei Hua Ma 5, Zhongshi Zhou 1,2,*
PMCID: PMC10910661  PMID: 38440345

Abstract

The melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Tephritidae: Diptera), is an invasive pest that poses a significant threat to agriculture in Africa and other regions. Flies are known to use their olfactory systems to recognise environmental chemical cues. However, the molecular components of the chemosensory system of B. cucurbitae are poorly characterised. To address this knowledge gap, we have used next-generation sequencing to analyse the antenna transcriptomes of sexually immature B. cucurbitae adults. The results have identified 160 potential chemosensory genes, including 35 odourant-binding proteins (OBPs), one chemosensory protein (CSP), three sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs), 70 odourant receptors (ORs), 30 ionotropic receptors (IRs), and 21 gustatory receptors (GRs). Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to validate the results by assessing the expression profiles of 25 ORs and 15 OBPs. Notably, high expression levels for BcucOBP5/9/10/18/21/23/26 were observed in both the female and male antennae. Furthermore, BcucOROrco/6/7/9/13/15/25/27/28/42/62 exhibited biased expression in the male antennae, whereas BcucOR55 showed biased expression in the female antennae. This comprehensive investigation provides valuable insights into insect olfaction at the molecular level and will, thus, help to facilitate the development of enhanced pest management strategies in the future.

Keywords: Bactrocera cucurbitae, chemosensory genes, transcriptome, insect olfaction, pest management

Introduction

The olfactory system is essential for insect reproduction and survival (Song et al., 2020) and is involved in a wide variety of insect behaviours, including host location, identification of oviposition sites and mates, and avoidance of predators (Hansson and Stensmyr, 2011; Leal, 2013; Suh et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Furthermore, the antennae, which house different types of sensilla (Steinbrecht, 1996; Shanbhag et al., 1999), serve as the primary organs for olfactory sensing and, thus, play a crucial role in a variety of different behaviours (Liu J. et al., 2021; Liu X. et al., 2021). Insect olfaction relies on the olfactory receptor neurones (ORNs) in the sensilla (Zhu et al., 2021). Odourant molecules reach the dendrites of ORNs through the sensillary lymph (Leitch et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2022), with the assistance of odourant-binding proteins (OBPs) and chemosensory proteins (Pelosi et al., 2014; Mei et al., 2018; Pelosi et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2021). The OBP-odour complex is then transported to specific odourant receptor proteins (ORs) located on the dendritic membrane of ORNs (Christine et al., 2014; Andersson et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2020), triggering the conversion of chemical signals into electrical signals. These signals are eventually processed by the central nervous system (CNS), leading to appropriate insect behavioural responses (Wicher and Miazzi, 2021; Wu et al., 2022). Orco, a highly conserved olfactory co-receptor present in various insect species, plays a crucial role in OR localisation and odour signal reception (Fan et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016). During the odour-recognition process, ORs form tetramers with Orco, acting as channels for odour-gated ions in response to odourants and pheromones (Koutroumpa et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019; Task et al., 2020). Other olfactory genes are involved in signal recognition and play a role in insect olfaction. Sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs) belong to the CD36 protein family (Li et al., 2021) and are essential for sensory pheromone detection (Vogt et al., 2009; Cassau and Krieger, 2021). Ionotropic receptors (IRs), members of the ionotropic glutamate receptor (iGluR) gene family (Zhang et al., 2019), play a key role in odour identification, as well as in sensing acids, salts, aldehydes, ammonia, temperature, humidity, and taste (Chen et al., 2015; Enjin et al., 2016; Knecht et al., 2016; Frank et al., 2017). While gustatory receptors (GRs) are responsible for gustatory substance detection (Xing et al., 2021) and can be categorised as CO2, sugar, and bitter receptors (Kwon et al., 2007; Sato et al., 2011; Ning et al., 2016; Xu, 2020).

The melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) is native to India and is widely distributed in tropical and subtropical regions worldwide (Dhillon et al., 2005; Mir et al., 2014). Currently, B. cucurbitae control primarily relies on the use of insecticides. However, this approach is becoming increasingly ineffective due to the development of insecticide resistance and the negative impacts of pesticide residues on human health and the environment (Aktar et al., 2009; Curl et al., 2020; Shivaramu et al., 2022). To explore alternative control methods, it is crucial to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying fly behaviour. Female B. cucurbitae use host-plant volatiles as cues to locate suitable hosts (Vargas et al., 2018; Piñero et al., 2020; Jaime et al., 2021). Although the role of these volatiles in host-seeking behaviour has been documented, the molecular basis of chemoreception in B. cucurbitae remains poorly understood. The identification of olfaction-related genes, is thus required to enable the elucidation of the olfactory perception mechanism in this species.

In this investigation, transcriptomic analysis of the antennae from immature male and female adult B. cucurbitae was conducted. The analysis identified 160 candidate chemosensory genes, including 70 odourant receptors (ORs), 35 odourant-binding proteins (OBPs), one chemosensory protein (CSP), 30 ionotropic receptors (IRs), 21 gustatory receptors (GRs), and three sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs). To further investigate the expression patterns of these genes, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was performed for 15 OBPs and 25 ORs. The results provide a foundation for future functional studies on chemoreception in B. cucurbitae. Ultimately, understanding the molecular mechanisms involved in the fly olfactory system could contribute to the development of novel and sustainable approaches for pest control.

Materials and methods

Insect rearing

B. cucurbitae specimens were collected from rotting fruits in the fields surrounding cities in Guangxi province, China. They were then placed in rearing cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm) until they emerged as adults. These insects were maintained for over 20 generations under controlled conditions, including a temperature of 26°C ± 1°C, relative humidity of 70% ± 10%, and a photoperiod of 14 h light and 10 h dark (14L:10D). They were provided with water and a forage mixture consisting of yeast and sugar at a ratio of 1:2.

Newly emerged male and female adults that were sexually immature and between 4 and 6 days of age were selected for the experiments. The antennae of these individuals were carefully grasped by their roots using tweezers and transferred to Eppendorf tubes. Additionally, to study the gene expression profiles in the different tissues, samples of the male antennae (M-T), female antennae (F-T), head, thorax, abdomen, legs, and wings were also collected. All the collected samples were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until RNA extraction for further analysis.

RNA extraction, cDNA library construction, and sequencing

RNA was extracted from the collected samples using a TRIzol reagent kit (Invitrogen), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The RNA quality was assessed using an Agilent 2,100 Bioanalyzer and agarose gel electrophoresis. Eukaryotic mRNA was enriched using oligo (dT) beads, whereas prokaryotic mRNA was enriched by removing the rRNA using the Ribo-Zero™ Magnetic Kit (Epicentre). The enriched mRNA was fragmented and reverse transcribed into cDNA using random primers. Second-strand cDNA synthesis was performed, and the resulting fragments were purified and sequenced by ligating Illumina adapters. The cDNA libraries were sequenced using the Illumina Novaseq6000 platform (Gene Denovo Biotechnology Co., Guangzhou, China).

Transcriptomic profiling

Clean reads were obtained using Perl scripts, as follows: (1) adapters were removed, (2) low-quality reads were removed (base numbers with a mass value Q ≤ 20 accounted for more than 50% of the whole read), (3) reads containing more than 10% N were removed, and (4) all A-base reads were removed. The Q20, Q30, GC content, and sequence duplication levels for the clean data were then determined. Genomic localisation analysis of the clean reads was mapped to B. cucurbitae using HISAT2 (Kim et al., 2015), and Stringtie (Pertea et al., 2015) was used to reconstruct the transcripts. RSEM (Li and Dewey, 2011) was used to calculate the expression levels of all genes in each sample.

Sequence analysis and phylogenetic analysis

The open reading frames (ORFs) of the candidate chemosensory genes were identified using the NCBI ORF finder (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/), and similarity searchers performed using the National Center for NCBI-BLAST server. The TMHMM Server Version 2.0 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM) was used to predict TMDs, and Signal IP4.1 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SignalP/) was used to predict signal peptide sequences. Amino acid sequence alignment was performed using the ClustalW method in MEGA v6.0. The OBP dataset contained 52 sequences from Drosophila melanogaster, 34 from Bactrocera correcta, 43 from Bactrocera dorsalis, 33 from Bactrocera latifrons, 25 from Zeugodacus tau, 26 from Anastrepha ludens, 33 from Rhagoletis pomonella, 28 from Calliphora stygia, and 35 from Ceratitis capitata. The OR dataset contained 37 sequences from D. melanogaster, 38 from B. correcta, 36 from B. dorsalis, 40 from B. latifrons, 46 from Bactrocera minax, 39 from Z. tau, 26 from A. ludens, 53 from R. pomonella, 50 from C. stygia, and 42 from C. capitata. The GR dataset contained 39 sequences from D. melanogaster, 6 from B. correcta, 18 from B. dorsalis, 18 from B. latifrons, 4 from Z. tau, 10 from A. ludens, 14 from R. pomonella, 4 from C. stygia, and 12 from C. capitata. The IR dataset contained 26 sequences from D. melanogaster, 9 from B. correcta, 11 from B. dorsalis, 10 from B. latifrons, 11 from Z. tau, 7 from A. ludens, 9 from R. pomonella, 7 from C. stygia, and 10 from C. capitata. The CSP dataset contained two sequences from D. melanogaster, 1 from B. correcta, 2 from B. dorsalis, 1 from B. latifrons, 1 from Z. tau, 1 from A. ludens, 1 from R. zephyria, 1 from R. pomonella, 1 from C. stygia, 1 from C. capitata, 1 from Procecidochares utilis, 1 from Lucilia sericata, 1 from Lucilia cuprina, and 1 from Bactrocera oleae. The SNMP dataset contained 2 sequences from D. melanogaster, 3 from B. correcta, 3 from B. dorsalis, 2 from B. latifrons, 3 from Z. tau, 1 from A. ludens, 2 from R. zephyria, 2 from R. pomonella, 3 from C. stygia, 2 from C. capitata, 2 from L. sericata, 2 from L. cuprina, 2 from B. oleae, and 2 from Bactrocera neohumeralis.

Phylogenetic trees were constructed using the neighbour-joining method and p-distance modelling, and the trees were adjusted using FigTree v1.4.4. The candidate chemosensory genes were named “BcucOBP”, “BcucCSP”, “BcucSNMP”, “BcucOR”, “BcucGR”, and “BcucIR”, followed by a numeral indicating the coding region length. All amino acid sequences from the B. cucurbitae and other insects used in the phylogenetic analyses are listed in Supplementary Material S3.

Quantitative real-time PCR validation

For expression verification, 25 ORs and 15 OBPs were selected based on their high abundance levels from fragments per kilobase of exon per million reads mapped (FPKM), as measured using (Supplementary Material S4). Total RNA was isolated from each tissue and normalised to a concentration of 1 μg/μL. First-strand cDNA synthesis was performed using a commercial kit (Transgen Biotech, Beijing, China). A qPCR assay was conducted using a 20 μL master mix containing TransStart® TipGreen qPCR SuperMix, cDNA templates, primers, and water. Real-time quantitative PCR was performed using an ABI 7500 instrument (Applied Biosystems). The PCR program consisted of cycles of denaturation, annealing, extension, and amplification (Transgen Biotech, Beijing, China). RPL32 was used as an internal reference for normalisation. Primers were designed using Primer Premier 5.0, and their efficiencies were verified. Each experiment included three biological and three technical replicates. The expression levels were quantified using the 2−ΔΔCT method, with RPL32 as the reference gene (Livak et al., 2001).

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using the 2−ΔΔCT method, and data were analysed using SAS 9.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance was analysed using ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All figures were generated using OriginPro 9.1 (Northampton, Massachusetts, USA).

Results

Transcriptome overview

The sequencing data generated for all samples in this study ranged from 37 to 42 million clean reads. Overall, the transcriptomic data were highly valid, with a minimum sample accuracy of 97%. The Q30 score, which represents a 0.1% base error rate, ranged from 92.95% to 100% (Supplementary Material S1). The Q20 score, which indicates a 1% base error rate, ranged from 97.23% to 100%. The GC content of the reads was determined to be 41.23%. The quality control measures ensured that all samples met the necessary criteria for the subsequent analyses.

After mapping the reads to the reference genome, an average total mapped value of approximately 87% was obtained for all samples (Supplementary Material S2). This indicated that a substantial proportion of the reads were successfully aligned to known genes. In total, 13,473 genes were identified from the sequencing data. These included 12,984 reference and 489 novel genes. The presence of novel genes suggests that previously uncharacterised genetic elements could be discovered in the melon fly transcriptome.

Furthermore, the high Pearson correlation coefficient values (R2 ≥ 0.97) observed for the three biological replicates for the male and female antennae indicated strong reproducibility between samples. This confirms the reliability of the experimental setup and strengthens confidence in the subsequent analysis and data interpretation.

Characterisation of odourant binding proteins

In this study, 35 candidate odourant binding protein (OBP) transcripts were identified in B. cucurbitae. These OBPs ranged in length from 130 to 313 amino acids. Sequence analysis revealed that 33 of these unigenes had putative full-length ORFs, 32 of which were predicted to contain a signal peptide. OBPs are highly conserved when compared to odourant receptors (ORs). The sequence alignment results demonstrated the presence of 16 classical OBPs with six conserved cysteines. These included BcucOBP3, BcucOBP4, BcucOBP7, BcucOBP8, BcucOBP12, BcucOBP13, BcucOBP25, BcucOBP26, BcucOBP27, BcucOBP29, BcucOBP30, BcucOBP31, BcucOBP32, BcucOBP33, BcucOBP34, and BcucOBP35 (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Multiple alignment of the OBPs identified in Bactrocera cucurbitae.

Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the B. cucurbitae OBPs formed distinct branches and shared homology with OBPs from other Diptera species. These branch groupings were supported by high bootstrap values, indicating robustness. Notably, BcucOBP23 was clustered with other Dipteran Lush OBPs, whereas BcucOBP27 formed a clade with OBP28a. Furthermore, BcucOBP9 and BcucOBP10 were clustered within the OBP84a branch, and BcucOBP13/32/34 were grouped in the OBP56 h branch. These specific groupings suggest the potential functional significance of OBPs in B. cucurbitae (Figure 2). Information including the unigene reference, length, and best Blastx hit for all 35 OBPs is listed in Table 1.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Neighbor joining phylogenetic tree of the candidate BcucOBPs with known Diptera OBP sequences.

TABLE 1.

The Blastx match of the Bactrocera cucurbitae candidate odorant binding proteins.

Unigene ID NAME Length ORF (aa) Status Signal peptide Blastx best-hit Species E-value Accession
ncbi_105211198 BcucOBP1 1101 313 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein Bactrocera cucurbitae 8e-176 QKN21211.1
ncbi_105213021 BcucOBP2 1223 263 Complete ORF N general odorant-binding protein 70 isoform X3 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011183827.1
ncbi_105216511 BcucOBP3 924 251 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-160 QKN21208.1
ncbi_105221282 BcucOBP4 887 223 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein Bactrocera cucurbitae 1e-137 QKN21209.1
ncbi_105216980 BcucOBP5 770 216 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-99 QKN21207.1
ncbi_105215210 BcucOBP6 882 210 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56a Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-162 XP_011187314.1
ncbi_105209256 BcucOBP7 670 201 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 66 Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-145 XP_011177871.1
ncbi_105215142 BcucOBP8 783 184 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19d Bactrocera cucurbitae 9e-131 XP_011187219.1
ncbi_105213577 BcucOBP9 710 177 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 84a Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-129 XP_011184797.1
ncbi_105213584 BcucOBP10 1053 173 5ʹ 3ʹ missing Y general odorant-binding protein 84a Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-106 XP_011184805.1
ncbi_105213953 BcucOBP11 981 172 Complete ORF N general odorant-binding protein 57c-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 1e-85 XP_011185378.1
ncbi_105211201 BcucOBP12 678 165 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56a Bactrocera cucurbitae 8e-117 XP_011180838.1
ncbi_105211192 BcucOBP13 546 163 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein 56h Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-83 XP_011180830.1
ncbi_105213514 BcucOBP14 667 159 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 99a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-115 XP_011184701.1
ncbi_105215156 BcucOBP15 717 158 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein19d-like isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 3e-111 XP_011187239.1
ncbi_105217004 BcucOBP16 465 154 5′missing N general odorant-binding protein 67-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 1e-99 XP_011190103.1
ncbi_105213511 BcucOBP17 636 149 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 99a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 5e-93 XP_011184698.1
ncbi_105218029 BcucOBP18 528 149 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 83a-like isoform X2 Bactrocera cucurbitae 5e-105 XP_028901212.1
ncbi_105209141 BcucOBP19 596 148 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 99a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-105 XP_011177680.1
ncbi_105213513 BcucOBP20 590 148 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein Bactrocera cucurbitae 8e-90 QKN21228.1
ncbi_105215137 BcucOBP21 637 148 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19a Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-92 XP_011187213.1
ncbi_105215136 BcucOBP22 850 147 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19a Bactrocera cucurbitae 1e-101 XP_011187212.1
ncbi_105208502 BcucOBP23 669 145 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein lush isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-101 XP_011176687.1
ncbi_105212568 BcucOBP24 1025 143 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein 99a Bactrocera cucurbitae 8e-83 XP_011182910.1
ncbi_105215159 BcucOBP25 589 143 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19d Bactrocera cucurbitae 1e-99 XP_011187242.1
ncbi_105215161 BcucOBP26 588 143 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19d Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-98 XP_011187246.1
ncbi_105218953 BcucOBP27 706 143 Complete ORF Y odorant-binding protein 28a Bactrocera cucurbitae 7e-89 XP_011193147.1
ncbi_105217972 BcucOBP28 818 142 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 99a Bactrocera cucurbitae 7e-90 XP_011191566.1
ncbi_105215158 BcucOBP29 700 141 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19d Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-74 XP_011187241.1
ncbi_105215160 BcucOBP30 694 141 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 19d Bactrocera cucurbitae 4e-74 XP_011187244.1
ncbi_105211197 BcucOBP31 649 138 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 2e-77 XP_011180835.1
ncbi_105211263 BcucOBP32 447 137 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56h-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 6e-95 XP_011180911.1
ncbi_105211191 BcucOBP33 462 135 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 3e-94 XP_011180828.1
ncbi_105211193 BcucOBP34 619 135 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56h-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 9e-93 XP_011180831.1
ncbi_105211200 BcucOBP35 446 130 Complete ORF Y general odorant-binding protein 56d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 3e-77 XP_011180837.1
Open in a new tab

Conserved residues are highlighted using white letters with a red background, alignment positions are framed in a blue box if the corresponding residues are identical or similar, and six conserved cysteine residues are labelled with red stars.

Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 29); Alud, Anastrepha ludens (N = 22); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 32); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 34); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 42); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 24); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 35); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 19); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 52). The candidate BcucOBPs are indicated by red circles.

In this study, a candidate chemosensory protein (CSP) transcript was identified for B. cucurbitae, which was 2,263 bp in length and encoded 573 amino acids. Furthermore, it was found to exhibit a characteristic protein domain (A10/OSD) typically found in the CSP family. Homology analysis revealed that all B. cucurbitae CSPs were clustered with CSPs from other Dipteran species (Figure 3). This clustering indicates their evolutionary relationships and suggests functional similarities among these CSPs. For detailed information on the identified CSPs, including the unigene reference, length, and best Blastx hit, please refer to Supplementary Material S5.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Neighbor joining phylogenetic tree of candidate BcucCSP with known Diptera CSP sequences. Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 1); Rzep, Rhagoletis zephyria (N = 1); Lser, Lucilia sericata (N = 1); Lcup, Lucilia cuprina (N = 1); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 1); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 1); Bole, Bactrocera oleae (N = 1); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 1); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 1); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 1); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 1); Puti, Procecidochares utilis (N = 1); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 2). Candidate BcucCSP is indicated by red circles.

Four candidate sensory neuron membrane protein (SNMP) transcripts were identified in the antennal transcriptome of B. cucurbitae. These SNMP transcripts varied in length, ranging from 1777 to 2,263 bp, and encoded proteins consisting of 496–573 amino acids. Conserved domain annotation indicated that these SNMPs belonged to the CD36 family, which is consistent with their known functional role, and phylogenetic analysis revealed that all B. cucurbitae SNMPs were clustered together with the SNMPs from other Diptera species (Figure 4). This clustering indicates evolutionary relatedness and suggests similar functions across these species. The SNMPs can be further classified into two major groups: SNMP1 and SNMP2. Within SNMP1, two subgroups have been identified: SNMP1a and SNMP1b. This classification provides a high level of insight into the potential functional diversity of the SNMP family. Information, including the unigene reference, length, and best Blastx hits for all SNMPs, is listed in Supplementary Material S5.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Neighbor joining phylogenetic tree of candidate BcucSNMPs with known Diptera SNMP sequences.

Alud, Anastrepha ludens (N = 1); Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 2); Rzep, Rhagoletis zephyria (N = 2); Lser, Lucilia sericata (N = 2); Lcup, Lucilia cuprina (N = 2); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 3); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 2); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 3); Bole, Bactrocera oleae (N = 2); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 3); Bneo, Bactrocera neohumeralis (N = 2); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 2); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 3); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 2). The candidate BcucSNMPs are indicated by red circles.

Seventy OR transcripts were identified in the antennal transcriptome of B. cucurbitae. Among these, 61 putative ORs were predicted to have a full-length ORFs ranging from 233 to 757 amino acids. These ORs have two-eight transmembrane domains which are characteristic of odourant receptors. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that BcucORs display a high degree of differentiation, with most clustering into different clades (Figure 5). These clades were well supported by high bootstrap values, indicating a robust grouping. Notably, the Orco branch exhibited relatively high conservation as it possessed a complete ORF and seven transmembrane domains, consistent with the typical characteristics of ORs. BcucOrco, the orthologue of Orco in other insects, clustered with Orco from various species, such as ZtauOrco, BlatOrco, BcorOrco, BminOrco, BdorOrco, CcapOrco, CstyOrco, RpomOrco, AludOrco, and DmelOrco. Furthermore, a specific increase in the number of ORs has been observed in B. cucurbitae. These expansions were evident in branches, such as BcucOR2/8/29/35/38/67, BcucOR45, and BcucOR48, suggesting potential functional diversification within these specific receptor groups. Additional information, including the unigene reference, length, and best Blastx hits for all identified ORs, is shown in Table 2.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Neighbour joining phylogenetic tree for the candidate BcucORs with known Diptera OR sequences. Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 26); Alud, Anastrepha ludens (N = 18); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 16); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 34); Bmin, Bactrocera minax (N = 14); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 18); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 22); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 20); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 18); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 37). The candidate BcucORs are indicated by red circles.

TABLE 2.

The Blastx match of the Bactrocera cucurbitae candidate odorant receptors.

Unigene ID NAME Length ORF (aa) Status TMD Blastx best-hit Species E-value Accession
ncbi_105209795 BcucOR1 2160 753 Complete ORF 11 odorant receptor 33b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894539.1
ncbi_105211893 BcucOR2 2256 717 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 7a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011181871.2
ncbi_105211501 BcucOR3 1719 572 Complete ORF 11 odorant receptor 45a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028895522.1
ncbi_105213127 BcucOR4(ORco) 1950 473 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor Orco Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011183998.1
ncbi_105213189 BcucOR5 1494 470 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 83a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011184142.1
ncbi_105208959 BcucOR6 1504 449 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 13a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011177369.1
ncbi_105221416 BcucOR7 1636 443 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 47b isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028902114.1
ncbi_105212743 BcucOR8 1455 442 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 42a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011183261.1
ncbi_105210773 BcucOR9 1731 439 3′missing 4 odorant receptor 74a-likeisoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028895116.1
ncbi_105217681 BcucOR10 1619 423 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 QKN21155.1
ncbi_105218549 BcucOR11 1570 417 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 85c Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028900206.1
ncbi_105213947 BcucOR12 1378 416 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 13a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011185366.1
ncbi_105220945 BcucOR13 1353 415 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 63a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011195820.2
ncbi_105220946 BcucOR14 1248 415 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 63a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901880.1
ncbi_114803926 BcucOR15 1350 415 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 63a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028895659.1
ncbi_114803654 BcucOR16 1330 414 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 94b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894386.1
ncbi_105212630 BcucOR17 1372 407 Complete ORF 4 odorant receptor Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 QKN21159.1
ncbi_105217632 BcucOR18 1398 406 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67c-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011191024.1
ncbi_105217623 BcucOR19 1367 405 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 67c-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028899203.1
ncbi_114803650 BcucOR20 1218 405 Complete ORF 8 odorant receptor 94a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894353.1
ncbi_114804556 BcucOR21 1362 405 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67c-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028899204.1
ncbi_105210660 BcucOR22 1251 404 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67c Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011180049.1
ncbi_105210453 BcucOR23 1883 403 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 94a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011179733.1
ncbi_105212913 BcucOR24 1227 402 5ʹ missing 5 odorant receptor 74a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011183574.2
ncbi_105213489 BcucOR25 1602 402 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 10a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028897005.1
ncbi_105210232 BcucOR26 1399 400 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 42b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894798.1
ncbi_105215540 BcucOR27 1364 400 Complete ORF 4 odorant receptor 43b-like isoform X2 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028898283.1
ncbi_114805259 BcucOR28 1554 400 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 43b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901710.1
ncbi_105209393 BcucOR29 1515 399 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 85a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894284.1
ncbi_105211957 BcucOR30 1784 398 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 82a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011181975.1
ncbi_105217276 BcucOR31 1197 398 Complete ORF 8 odorant receptor 24a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011190505.1
ncbi_105213190 BcucOR32 1191 396 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 83a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028896796.1
ncbi_105211500 BcucOR33 1338 394 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 45a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011181253.2
ncbi_105211514 BcucOR34 1462 394 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 49a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011181266.1
ncbi_105212018 BcucOR35 1303 394 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 7a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011182064.1
ncbi_105213568 BcucOR36 1675 394 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 42b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011184786.1
ncbi_105215418 BcucOR37 1646 393 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 2a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011187627.2
ncbi_105216468 BcucOR38 2363 392 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 7a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011189274.1
ncbi_114803660 BcucOR39 1179 392 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 94a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894417.1
ncbi_114803842 BcucOR40 1481 390 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 59a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028895352.1
ncbi_105210903 BcucOR41 1170 389 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 94a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011180402.1
ncbi_105214898 BcucOR42 1381 388 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011186895.2
ncbi_105214906 BcucOR43 1391 388 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67d-like isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011186909.1
ncbi_105219152 BcucOR44 1536 388 Complete ORF 8 odorant receptor 46a isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028900650.1
ncbi_114804387 BcucOR45 1495 388 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028898362.1
ncbi_105209392 BcucOR46 1254 387 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 2a-like, partial Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011178078.2
ncbi_105216084 BcucOR47 1317 387 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 59a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011188666.1
ncbi_114804388 BcucOR48 1304 386 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 67d-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028898363.1
ncbi_105214859 BcucOR49 1181 385 Complete ORF 7 odorant receptor 59a-like isoform X1 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011186833.1
ncbi_105209394 BcucOR50 1282 384 Complete ORF 4 odorant receptor Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 QKN21160.1
ncbi_105209796 BcucOR51 1580 384 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 33b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011178699.1
ncbi_105219209 BcucOR52 1167 383 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 22c Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011193492.1
ncbi_105221489 BcucOR53 1152 383 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 59a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011196821.1
ncbi_105218035 BcucOR54 1156 382 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 94a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028899745.1
ncbi_105209925 BcucOR55 1233 378 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor 43a Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894643.1
ncbi_105221490 BcucOR56 1207 378 Complete ORF 5 odorant receptor59a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011196822.1
ncbi_105214995 BcucOR57 1291 377 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor30a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011187028.2
ncbi_105220104 BcucOR58 1365 376 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor Or2-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901445.1
ncbi_114803843 BcucOR59 1307 376 5ʹ missing 6 odorant receptor 59a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028895353.1
ncbi_105220102 BcucOR60 1562 375 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor Or2-like isoform X2 Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901447.1
ncbi_114804259 BcucOR61 1226 374 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 30a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028897668.1
ncbi_105221215 BcucOR62 1277 371 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor 49b Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028893520.1
ncbi_105212742 BcucOR63 1342 365 5ʹ missing 6 odorant receptor 7a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028896301.1
ncbi_105209389 BcucOR64 1068 355 Complete ORF 6 odorant receptor7a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028894335.1
ncbi_105209391 BcucOR65 999 332 5ʹ 3ʹ missing 6 odorant receptor2a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011178077.1
ncbi_105209792 BcucOR66 831 276 5ʹ 3ʹ missing 3 odorant receptor 33b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011178696.1
MSTRG.3140 BcucOR67 1574 234 5ʹ 3ʹ missing 2 odorant receptor Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 QKN21124.1
ncbi_105210511 BcucOR68 822 233 Complete ORF 3 odorant receptor85b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_011179822.1
ncbi_114805287 BcucOR69 643 214 5ʹ 3ʹ missing 3 odorant receptor 33b-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901739.1
ncbi_105220556 BcucOR70 530 93 5ʹ missing 2 odorant receptor 43a-like Bactrocera cucurbitae 0 XP_028901711.1
Open in a new tab

Twenty-one GR transcripts in the antennal transcriptome of B. cucurbitae were identified. Of these, 10 BcucGRs were found to have putative full-length open reading frames (ORFs) with six to seven transmembrane domains. These ORFs encode proteins ranging from 330 to 434 amino acids in length.

Based on phylogenetic analysis, BcucGRs were classified into three subfamilies: sugar, bitter, and saponin receptors (Figure 6). Within these subfamilies, specific clustering patterns were observed among the BcucGRs. For instance, BcucGR7/16/21 showed homology and clustered with the GR43a sugar receptors, while the BcucGR3 and BcucGR18 were grouped with the GR64a, GR64c, GR64e, and GR64f sugar receptors. Furthermore, BcucGR8 was as a GR10a sugar receptor and BcucGR5/14/15/17/19 were identified as co-receptors of BcucGRs and clustered with the GR22a-f sugar receptors. BcucGR12 and BcucGR20 were also identified as homologues of GR21a, which mediates CO2 recognition, while BcucGR1/2/9/10 correspond to the GR66a, GR33a, and GR93a bitter receptors, respectively. Notably, BcucGR4 formed a GR28b branch, indicating its classification as a saponin receptor. For detailed information on the identified GRs, including the unigene reference, length, and best Blastx hit, please refer to Supplementary Material S5.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Neighbour joining phylogenetic tree showing the candidate BcucGRs with known Diptera GR sequences. Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 26); Alud, Anastrepha ludens (N = 20); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 25); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 8); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 34); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 6); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 8); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 4); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 59). The candidate BcucGRs are indicated by red circles.

Thirty IR transcripts were identified in the antennal transcriptome of B. cucurbitae, and they ranged from 1,249 to 5,216 bp in length, and encode proteins with 365–1,425 amino acids. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the BcucIRs clustered together with other IRs, indicating their evolutionary relatedness (Figure 7). The phylogenetic tree showed that IR genes exhibited relatively close evolutionary distances, suggesting a certain degree of conservation. Specifically, BcucIR2/3/6/9/10/11/12/13/16/17/18/23/28/30 were found to cluster with IRkainate clades in the phylogenetic tree, while BcucIR4 and BcucIR14 formed the IRNMDA branch. BcucIR5 and BcucIR7 were associated with the coreceptors IR25a and IR8a, respectively, and clustered with conserved branches. BcucIR1 clustered with DmelIR64a, BcucIR21 clustered with DmelIR84a, and BcucIR25/26/29 were grouped with IR75a. Information, including the unigene reference, length, and best BlastX hit for all identified IRs can be found in Supplementary Material S5.

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7

Open in a new tab

Neighbour joining phylogenetic tree for the candidate BcucIRs with known Diptera IR sequences. Rpom, Rhagoletis pomonella (N = 9); Alud, Anastrepha ludens (N = 10); Blat, Bactrocera latifrons (N = 10); Bcor, Bactrocera correcta (N = 9); Bdor, Bactrocera dorsalis (N = 11); Ztau, Zeugodacus tau (N = 11); Ccap, Ceratitis capitata (N = 10); Csty, Calliphora stygia (N = 8); Dmel, Drosophila melanogaster (N = 26). The candidate BcucIRs are indicated by red circles.

RT-qPCR analysis of the 25 ORs and 15 OBPs in different B. cucurbitae tissues, including the male and female antennae, heads, thorax, abdomen, legs, and wings, revealed distinct tissue expression profiles.

Among the OBPs, BcucOBP5/9/10/18/21/23/26 showed significantly higher expression in the male and female antennae than in other tissues. BcucOBP13 exhibited the highest expression in the head and legs, whereas BcucOBP24 and BcucOBP31 were significantly more highly expressed in the head and BcucOBP27 and BcucOBP30 were significantly expressed in the legs (Figure 8).

FIGURE 8.

FIGURE 8

Open in a new tab

Expression profiles for 15 OBPs in adult male antennae (M–T), female antennae (F–T), head (HE), thorax (TH), abdomen (AB), legs (LE), and wings (WI) using qPCR. The relative expression level is indicated as the mean ± SE (N = 3). Different capital letters indicate significant difference between tissues (p < 0.05, ANOVA, LSD).

In terms of OR expression, BcucOR23 was significantly expressed in the wings, BcucOR35 showed significantly higher expression in the antennae and thoraxes, and BcucOR48 was significantly expressed in the antennae and wings. BcucOR18 and BcucOR30 were expressed in all the examined tissues. The remaining ORs are predominantly expressed in the antennae. Among them, the expression levels of BcucOrco/6/7/9/13/15/25/27/28/42/62 were significantly higher in the male than in the female antennae. In contrast, BcucOR55 exhibited a significantly higher level of expression in the female antennae when compared with the male antennae (Figure 9).

FIGURE 9.

FIGURE 9

Open in a new tab

Expression profiles for 25 ORs in adult male antennae (M–T), female antennae (F–T), head (HE), thorax (TH), abdomen (AB), legs (LE), and wings (WI) using qPCR. The relative expression level is indicated as mean ± SE (N = 3). Different capital letters indicate significant differences between tissues (p < 0.05, ANOVA, LSD).

The results provide insights into the tissue-specific expression patterns of ORs and OBPs in B. cucurbitae and highlight their potential roles in olfactory perception and signalling.

Discussion

B. cucurbitae is a significant pest that feeds on plants and many countries now use quarantines to aid in its control (Shivaramu et al., 2022). Although some plant-based compounds have been identified that can help with the control and quarantine of this pest (Miller et al., 2004; Vargas et al., 2018; Piñero et al., 2020), research to elucidate the chemical communications in B. cucurbitae has been limited. B. cucurbitae olfaction research, in particular, has been hindered by the absence of transcriptome data for its primary olfactory organs, the antennae (Elfekih et al., 2016). While this study has tried to address this, only OBP and GR were reported on, and data on OR, which plays a key role in olfactory signal transduction, was lacking. There is thus a need for more complete transcriptome data to aid with future B. cucurbitae olfactory research.

The antenna is the major organ for insect olfactory sensing, and genes highly expressed in the antennae may be involved in olfactory recognition. The OBP involved in B. cucurbitae host selection can be screened by in vitor, purify and functionally verify the odourant binding protein in the antenna of B. cucurbitae, and this can provide a theoretical foundation for the development of B. cucurbitae attractants. Although Wu et al. (2020) carefully analysed and compared the transcriptomes of five Bactrocera species, the tissue-specific expression of B. cucurbitae was not fully elucidated. To address this, transcriptomic sequencing analysis of the antennae from adult male and female B. cucurbitae was conducted. In total, 160 potential olfactory receptor proteins were identified, including 70 ORs, 35 OBPs, 1 CSP, 30 IRs, 21 GRs, and 3 SNMPs. Compared with the previous results, this study found more OBP, OR, GR, less CSP and IR. Different genes found from those reported may be caused by transcriptome analysis methods and different strains of insects. These findings significantly enhance our understanding of the olfactory-related profile of B. cucurbitae and provide crucial insights into its chemosensory mechanisms. Additionally, we have employed quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to validate the expression patterns of 25 ORs and 15 OBPs in various B. cucurbitae tissues, enabling the functional roles of these olfactory genes to be assessed.

The ability of an insect to recognise odours relies heavily on their OBPs (Barbosa et al., 2018), as these small, water-soluble proteins facilitate the transport of odour molecules through the sensory lymph and serve as connections between external environmental stimuli and odour receptors (Pelosi et al., 2006; Leal, 2013; Han et al., 2020). In this study, 35 candidate OBPs were identified in the antennal transcriptome of B. cucurbitae. This is lower than the number found in D. melanogaster (52 OBPs; Vieira and Rozas, 2011) but similar to the number found in Zeugodacus. papayae (35 OBPs; Wu et al., 2020), B. correcta (34 OBPs; Wu et al., 2020), A. ludens (31 OBPs; Segura-Leon et al., 2022), Z. tau (33 OBPs; Wu et al., 2020), and B. dorsalis (31 OBPs; Wu et al., 2020), and higher than that in C. stygia (28 OBPs; Leitch et al., 2015) and B. minax (25 OBPs; Cheng et al., 2020). Furthermore, the number of BcucOBPs was different from that previously reported (13 and 38 OBPs), and this wide variation in the number of OBPs may be attributed to the differences in the physiological stages during transcriptome analysis, sequencing methodologies, sequencing depth, sample preparation, and coverage of the sequencing platform (Wu et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2020).

Phylogenetic analysis showed that BcucOBP23 forms a clade with other Dipteran LUSH proteins known to have a specific binding affinity for the pheromone 11-cis vaccenyl acetate. This suggests that BcucOBP23 is involved in pheromone recognition (Laughlin et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2020). Additionally, BcucOBP23 was highly expressed in both male and female antennae, indicating a potential role in pheromone recognition by melon flies. Furthermore, BcucOBP27 was also identified, and clustered with other Diptera species in the OBP28a clade and is associated with olfactory sensitivity modulation (Larter et al., 2016).

The expansion of OBP gene families is a common occurrence, and orthologues of the OBPs play similar roles in olfactory functions (Vieira et al., 2007; Rihani et al., 2021). In B. cucurbitae, the expansion of the OBP19d (BcucOBP8/15/25/26/29/30), OBP56a (BcucOBP6 and BcucOBP12), OBP56d (BcucOBP31/33/35), OBP56 h (BcucOBP13/32/34), OBP84a (BcucOBP9 and BcucOBP10), and OBP99a (BcucOBP14/19/24/28) branches was observed. In particular, OBP84a is involved in detecting organic acids and amines (Larter et al., 2016), while OBP56 h modulates mating behaviour (Swarup et al., 2011).

Previously, OBPs were thought to be exclusively expressed in olfactory organs and solely involved in chemoreception (Damberger et al., 2013; Shorter et al., 2016; Rihani et al., 2021). However, recent reports have shown that OBPs are expressed in multiple insect organs, including the legs (Yasukawa et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2019), proboscis (Mitaka et al., 2011; Rihani et al., 2016), labellum and tarsus (Jeong et al., 2013; Sparks et al., 2014), wings (Galindo and Smith, 2001; Calvello et al., 2005), reproductive organs (Findlay et al., 2008; Takemori and Yamamoto, 2009; Sun et al., 2012; Costa-Da-Silva et al., 2013; Sepil et al., 2019), abdomen (Xu et al., 2010; Andersson et al., 2014), eyes (Zhu et al., 2016; Rihani et al., 2021), and digestive tract (Ishida et al., 2013; Benoit et al., 2017). These OBPs reportedly have unconventional roles, including involvement in taste perception (Yasukawa et al., 2010; Jeong et al., 2013), immune response (Benoit et al., 2017), and humidity detection (Sun et al., 2018).

In this study, high expression levels for BcucOBP5/9/10/18/21/23/26 were observed in the antennae of both male and female B. cucurbitae. As few studies have investigated the functions of BcucOBPs, their functions in the host recognition of B. cucurbitae were investigated by gene cloning, construction of a prokaryotic expression vector, expression and purification of recombinant proteins, fluorescence competitive binding experiment, RNAi, and other technologies.

CSPs, another class of soluble proteins found in the sensory lymph, are also highly expressed in insects (Forêt et al., 2007). A CSP was identified in the study of the B. cucurbitae antennal transcriptome, and a BLASTX comparison revealed its high level of similarity to CSP genes in other insects. However, our understanding of the evolution and function of CSPs is currently limited to data from only a few species (Yi et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). Further comprehensive research on CSPs will thus be required to elucidate their diverse functions.

SNMPs were initially discovered in the pheromone-sensitive neurones of Lepidoptera (Rogers et al., 2001) and are associated with pheromone recognition (Vogt et al., 2009; Gomez-Diaz et al., 2016; Cassau and Krieger, 2021). They are generally categorised into two families, SNMP1 and SNMP2, with SNMP1 further divided into the SNMP1a and SNMP1b subtypes (Jiang et al., 2016). Three SNMPs were identified in the B. cucurbitae transcriptome, however, the function of BcucSNMPs in the sexual communication of B. cucurbitae needs to be further studied.

In the insect olfactory system, ORs are known to play a central role (Leal, 2013). B. cucurbitae has 70 putative ORs, which is similar to the number in D. melanogaster (63 ORs; Gao and Chess, 1999) and Anopheles gambiae (76 ORs; Hill et al., 2002), but higher than the number in Z. papayae (41 ORs; Wu et al., 2020), B. correcta (39 ORs; Wu et al., 2020), B. minax (53 ORs; Cheng et al., 2020), Z. tau (39 ORs; Wu et al., 2020), B. dorsalis (35 ORs; Wu et al., 2015), C. stygia (50 ORs; Leitch et al., 2015), Glossina morsitans (50 ORs; Obiero et al., 2014), and A. ludens (42 ORs; Segura-Leon et al., 2022). It seems that Bactrocera species requires homologous ORs to detect specific odorants. Highly differentiated and expanded ORs indicate the continuous evolution of insect odor detection. The expansion of OR7a, OR67d, and OR74a suggests their involvement in pheromone acceptance and insect behaviour. Tissue expression profiling has shown that all ORs are expressed in the antennae, with differences between the male and female antennae indicating their potential roles in sex pheromone recognition and other behaviours (Lin et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2020). Future studies should focus on the functions of these OR genes to provide potential molecular targets for the development of new insect behaviour regulators.

Phylogenetic tree analysis revealed that BcucOrco is clustered into a specific co-receptor lineage with other Dipteran species. The function of Orco has been studied in a large variety of insects, may be potentially involved in oviposition, mating, or social behavior (Fan et al., 2022; David et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). The olfactory function of Orco can be further confirmed by RNAi technology and EAG reaction analysis. For example, the mating rate and response to sex pheromone of BoleOrco decreased significantly after injecting dsRNA (Tsoumani et al., 2020). Xu et al. (2022) used the CRISPR/Cas9 system to knockout BdorOrco, olfactory preference assays and oviposition behavior are significantly affected. These research can provide a reference for the functional verification of BcucOrco.

There were 30 IRs identified in B. cucurbitae, which is fewer than in D. melanogaster (66 IRs; Rytz et al., 2013), but similar to the number in A. gambiae (30 IRs; Hill et al., 2002), Z. papayae (23 IRs; Wu et al., 2020), B. correcta (23 IRs; Wu et al., 2020), Z. tau (23 IRs; Wu et al., 2020), C. stygia (22 IRs; Leitch et al., 2015), B. dorsalis (23 IRs; Wu et al., 2020), and higher than the number in A. ludens (17 IRs) (Segura-León et al., 2022). BcucIR5 and BcucIR7 belong to the conserved IR25a/IR8a co-expression group. BcucIR1 may detect acids while BcucIR21 may recognise phenylacetic acid and phenylacetaldehyde, while BcucIR25/26/29 may be involved in acetic acid sensing and the enhanced perception of fermented fruits (Ai et al., 2010; Grosjean et al., 2011; Gorter et al., 2016).

There were 21 candidate GRs identified in B. cucurbitae, which is fewer than in D. melanogaster (59 GRs; Robertson et al., 2003), but similar to the number in A. ludens (24 GRs; Segura-León et al., 2022), and C. stygia (21 GRs; Leitch et al., 2015), and higher than the number in A. gambiae (10 GRs; Hill et al., 2002), Z. papayae (9 GRs; Wu et al., 2020), Z. tau (6 GRs; Wu et al., 2020), B. correcta (9 GRs; Wu et al., 2020), and B. dorsalis (6 GRs; Wu et al., 2015). Phylogenetic analysis grouped BcucGRs into different clades with specific putative functions. BcucGRs include sugar receptors (BcucGR3/5/7/8/14/15/16/17/18/19), bitter receptors (BcucGR1/2/7), CO2 receptors (BcucGR12 and BcucGR12), and saponin receptors (BcucGR4) (Lee et al., 2009; Apostolopoulou et al., 2016; Poudel and Lee, 2016; Rass et al., 2019; Sang et al., 2019).

In summary, the expression patterns and observed gene expansion for the ORs, IRs, and GRs indicates that they are involved in odour detection, pheromone reception, and host plant selection in B. cucurbitae (Kurtovic et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2018; MacWilliam et al., 2018; Rebecca and John, 2016; Ono et al., 2021; Baumgartner et al., 2022; De Obaldia et al., 2022).

Conclusion

The extensive set of chemosensory genes identified in this study will provide a solid foundation for future research into the molecular communications of B. cucurbitae and advances our understanding of olfactory mechanisms in Diptera. Moreover, the discovery of high antenna and sex-biased chemosensory expression proteins will also help to guide functional studies of key olfactory genes in B. cucurbitae .

Acknowledgments

We thank reviewers for many helpful suggestions of earlier versions of the manuscript. We are thankful to Guangxi Key Laboratory for Biology of Crop Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences for Providingthe insect. We thank State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciencesfor providing necessary instrumental facilities.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by grant from the National program Key Basic Research Project (Grant No. 2022YFC2601400) and the project was supported by Nanfan special project, CAAS (Grant No. ZDXM2312).

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1019880.

Ethics statement

The manuscript presents research on animals that do not require ethical approval for their study.

Author contributions

JW: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing–original draft. CM: Writing–review and editing. YY: Writing–review and editing, Methodology. JY: Writing–review and editing, Data curation. LC: Writing–review and editing, Methodology. YW: Writing–review and editing, Data curation. CZ: Writing–review and editing, Supervision. XG: Writing–review and editing, Funding acquisition. HC: Funding acquisition, Writing–review and editing. WM: Writing–review and editing, Data curation. ZZ: Writing–review and editing, Conceptualization.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1354530/full#supplementary-material

Table1.docx (15.9KB, docx)
Table2.docx (16KB, docx)
Table3.docx (29.2KB, docx)
DataSheet2.docx (20.6KB, docx)
DataSheet1.docx (214.7KB, docx)

References

  1. Ai M., Min S., Grosjean Y., Leblanc C., Bell R., Benton R., et al. (2010). Acid sensing by the Drosophila olfactory system. Nature 468, 691–695. 10.1038/nature09537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktar M. W., Sengupta D., Chowdhury A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2 (1), 1–12. 10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson M. N., Grosse-Wilde E., Keeling C. I., Bengtsson J. M., Yuen M. M., Li M., et al. (2013). Antennal transcriptome analysis of the chemosensory gene families in the tree killing bark beetles, Ips typographus and Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: scolytinae). BMC genomics 14, 198. 10.1186/1471-2164-14-198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson M. N., Videvall E., Walden K. K., Harris M. O., Robertson H. M., Löfstedt C. (2014). Sex- and tissue-specific profiles of chemosensory gene expression in a herbivorous gall-inducing fly (Diptera: cecidomyiidae). BMC Genomics 15, 501. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews J. C., Fernández M. P., Yu Q., Leary G. P., Leung A. K., Kavanaugh M. P., et al. (2014). Octopamine neuromodulation regulates Gr32a-linked aggression and courtship pathways in Drosophila males. PLoS Genet. 10 (5), e1004356. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Apostolopoulou A. A., Köhn S., Stehle B., Lutz M., Wüst A., Mazija L., et al. (2016). Caffeine taste signaling in Drosophila larvae. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 10, 193. 10.3389/fncel.2016.00193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbosa A. J. M., Oliveira A. R., Roque A. C. A. (2018). Protein- and peptide-based biosensors in artificial olfaction. Trends Biotechnol. 36 (12), 1244–1258. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumgartner M. E., Mastrogiannopoulos A., Kucinski I., Langton P. F., Piddini E. (2022). The Gr64 cluster of gustatory receptors promotes survival and proteostasis of epithelial cells in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 20 (7), e3001710. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benoit J. B., Vigneron A., Broderick N. A., Wu Y., Sun J. S., Carlson J. R., et al. (2017). Symbiont-induced odorant binding proteins mediate insect host hematopoiesis. eLife 6, e19535. 10.7554/eLife.19535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Calvello M., Brandazza A., Navarrini A., Dani F., Turillazzi S., Felicioli A., et al. (2005). Expression of odorant-binding proteins and chemosensory proteins in some Hymenoptera. Insect biochem. Mol. Biol. 35, 297–307. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cassau S., Krieger J. (2021). The role of SNMPs in insect olfaction. Cell Tissue Res. 383, 21–33. 10.1007/s00441-020-03336-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen C., Buhl E., Xu M., Croset V., Rees J. S., Lilley K. S., et al. (2015). Drosophila ionotropic receptor 25a mediates circadian clock resetting by temperature. Nature 527, 516–520. 10.1038/nature16148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen X. F., Xu L., Zhang Y. X., Wei D., Wang J. J., Jiang H. B. (2019). Genome-wide identification and expression profiling of odorant-binding proteins in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. Bactrocera Dorsalis. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. Genomics Proteomics. Sep. 31, 100605. 10.1016/j.cbd.2019.100605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng J. F., Yu T., Chen Z. J., Chen S., Chen Y. P., Gao L., et al. (2020). Comparative genomic and transcriptomic analyses of chemosensory genes in the citrus fruit fly Bactrocera (Tetradacus) minax. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 18068. 10.1038/s41598-020-74803-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Costa-da-Silva A. L., Kojin B. B., Marinotti O., James A. A., Capurro M. L. (2013). Expression and accumulation of the two-domain odorant-binding protein AaegOBP45 in the ovaries of blood-fed Aedes aegypti . Parasit. Vectors 6, 364. 10.1186/1756-3305-6-364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Curl C. L., Spivak M., Phinney R., Montrose L. (2020). Synthetic pesticides and health in vulnerable populations: agricultural workers. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. Mar. 7 (1), 13–29. 10.1007/s40572-020-00266-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Damberger F. F., Michel E., Ishida Y., Leal W. S., Wüthrich K. (2013). Pheromone discrimination by a pH-tuned polymorphism of the Bombyx mori pheromone-binding protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. Nov. 12 110 (46), 18680–18685. 10.1073/pnas.1317706110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. David O. G., Sanchez K. M., Arce A. V., Costa-da-Silva A. L., Bellantuono A. J., DeGennaro M. (2023). Fertility decline in female mosquitoes is regulated by the orco olfactory co-receptor. iScience 26 (6), 106883. 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. De Obaldia M. E., Morita T., Dedmon L. C., Boehmler D. J., Jiang C. S., Zeledon E. V., et al. (2022). Differential mosquito attraction to humans is associated with skin-derived carboxylic acid levels. Cell 185 (22), 4099–4116. 10.1016/j.cell.2022.09.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dhillon M. K., Singh R., Naresh J. S., Sharma H. C. (2005). The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae: a review of its biology and management. J. Insect Sci. 5 (5), 40. 10.1093/jis/5.1.40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Elfekih S., Chen C. Y., Hsu J. C., Belcaid M., Haymer D. (2016). Identification and preliminary characterization of chemosensory perception-associated proteins in the melon fly Bactrocera cucurbitae using RNA-seq. Sci. Rep. Jan. 11 6, 19112, 19112. 10.1038/srep19112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Enjin A., Zaharieva E. E., Frank D. D., Mansourian S., Suh G. S., Gallio M., et al. (2016). Humidity sensing in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 26, 1352–1358. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fan J., Zhang Y., Francis F., Cheng D., Sun J., Chen J. (2015). Orco mediates olfactory behaviors and winged morph differentiation induced by alarm pheromone in the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 64, 16–24. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2015.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fan X. B., Mo B. T., Li G. C., Huang L. Q., Guo H., Gong X. L., et al. (2022). Mutagenesis of the odorant receptor co-receptor (Orco) reveals severe olfactory defects in the crop pest moth Helicoverpa armigera. BMC Biol. 20 (1), 214. 10.1186/s12915-022-01411-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Findlay G. D., Yi X., Maccoss M. J., Swanson W. J. (2008). Proteomics reveals novel Drosophila seminal fluid proteins transferred at mating. PLoS Biol. Jul 29 (7), 178. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Forêt S., Wanner K. W., Maleszka R. (2007). Chemosensory proteins in the honey bee: insights from the annotated genome, comparative analyses and expressional profiling. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. Jan. 37 (1), 19–28. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2006.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Frank D. D., Enjin A., Jouandet G. C., Zaharieva E. E., Para A., Stensmyr M. C., et al. (2017). Early integration of temperature and humidity stimuli in the Drosophila brain. Curr. Biol. 27, 2381–2388. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Galindo K., Smith D. P. (2001). A large family of divergent Drosophila odorant-binding proteins expressed in gustatory and olfactory sensilla. Genet. Nov. 159 (3), 1059–1072. 10.1093/genetics/159.3.1059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gao Q., Chess A. (1999). Identification of candidate Drosophila olfactory receptors from genomic DNA sequence. Genomics 60 (1), 31–39. 10.1006/geno.1999.5894 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gomez-Diaz C., Bargeton B., Abuin L., Bukar N., Reina J. H., Bartoi T., et al. (2016). A CD36 ectodomain mediates insect pheromone detection via a putative tunnelling mechanism. Nat. Commun. 7, 11866. 10.1038/ncomms11866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gorter J. A., Jagadeesh S., Gahr C., Boonekamp J. J., Levine J. D., Billeter J. C. (2016). The nutritional and hedonic value of food modulate sexual receptivity in Drosophila melanogaster females. Sci. Rep. 6, 19441. 10.1038/srep19441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Grosjean Y., Rytz R., Farine J. P., Abuin L., Cortot J., Jefferis G. S., et al. (2011). An olfactory receptor for food-derived odours promotes male courtship in Drosophila 28 (7368), 236–240. 10.1038/nature10428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gu T., Huang K., Tian S., Sun Y., Li H., Chen C., et al. (2019). Antennal transcriptome analysis and expression profiles of odorant binding proteins in Clostera restitura. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. Genomics Proteomics. Mar. 29, 211–220. 10.1016/j.cbd.2018.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Han H., Liu Z., Meng F., Jiang Y., Cai J. (2020). Identification of olfactory genes of a forensically important blow fly, Aldrichina grahami (Diptera: calliphoridae). PeerJ 8, e9581. 10.7717/peerj.9581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hansson B. S., Stensmyr M. C. (2011). Evolution of insect olfaction. Neuron 72, 698–711. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hill C. A., Fox A. N., Pitts R. J., Kent L. B., Tan P. L., Chrystal M. A., et al. (2002). G Protein-Coupled receptors in Anopheles gambiae . Science 298 (5591), 176–178. 10.1126/science.1076196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hu J., Wang X. Y., Tan L. S., Lu W., Zheng X. L. (2022). Identification of chemosensory genes, including candidate pheromone receptors, in phauda flammans (walker) (Lepidoptera: phaudidae) through transcriptomic analyses. Front. Physiol. 13, 907694. 10.3389/fphys.2022.907694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ishida Y., Ishibashi J., Leal W. S. (2013). Fatty acid solubilizer from the oral disk of the blowfly. PLoS One 8 (1), e51779. 10.1371/journal.pone.0051779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jaime C. P., Souder. S. K., Dong H., Max Collignon. R., Vargas R. I. (2021). Age-dependent response of female melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae), to volatiles emitted from damaged host fruits. J. Asia-Pacific Entomology 24 (3), 759–763. 10.1016/j.aspen.2021.06.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Jeong Y. T., Shim J., Oh S. R., Yoon H. I., Kim C. H., Moon S. J., et al. (2013). An odorant-binding protein required for suppression of sweet taste by bitter chemicals. Neuron 79 (4), 725–737. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jiang X., Pablo P., Ewald G. W., Heinz B., Jürgen K. (2016). Identification and characterization of two “sensory neuron membrane proteins” (SNMPs) of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Orthoptera: acrididae). J. Insect Sci. 16 (1), 33. 10.1093/jisesa/iew015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim D., Langmead B., Salzberg S. L. (2015). HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods. Apr 12 (4), 357–360. 10.1038/nmeth.3317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Knecht Z. A., Silbering A. F., Ni L., Klein M., Budelli G., Bell R., et al. (2016). Distinct combinations of variant ionotropic glutamate receptors mediate thermosensation and hygrosensation in Drosophila. eLife 5, e17879. 10.7554/eLife.17879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Koutroumpa F. A., Monsempes C., François M. C., de C. A., Royer C., Concordet J. P., et al. (2016). Heritable genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 induces anosmia in a crop pest moth. Sci. Rep. 12 (6), 29620. 10.1038/srep29620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kurtovic A., Widmer A., Dickson B. J. (2007). A single class of olfactory neurons mediates behavioural responses to a Drosophila sex pheromone. Nat. Mar. 29 446 (7135), 542–546. 10.1038/nature05672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kwon J. Y., Dahanukar A., Weiss L. A., Carlson J. R. (2007). The molecular basis of CO2 reception in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 27 (9), 3574–3578. 10.1073/pnas.0700079104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Larter N. K., Sun J. S., Carlson J. R. (2016). Organization and function of Drosophila odorant binding proteins. Elife 5, e20242. 10.7554/eLife.20242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Laughlin J. D., Ha T. S., Jones D. N. M., Smith D. P. (2008). Activation of pheromone-sensitive neurons is mediated by conformational activation of pheromone-binding protein. Cell 133 (7), 1255–1265. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.04.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Leal W. S. (2013). Odorant reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 58, 373–391. 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee Y., Moon S. J., Montell C. (2009). Multiple gustatory receptors required for the caffeine response in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 17 (11), 4495–4500. 10.1073/pnas.0811744106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Leitch O., Papanicolaou A., Lennard C., Kirkbride K. P., Anderson A. (2015). Chemosensory genes identified in the antennal transcriptome of the blowfly Calliphora stygia. BMC Genomics 31 (1), 255. 10.1186/s12864-015-1466-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Li B., Dewey C. N. (2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinforma. 12 (1), 323. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Li G. C., Nuo S. M., Wang Z. Q., Yang A. J., Liu N. Y. (2021). Identification and expression profiling of chemosensory membrane protein genes in Achelura yunnanensis (Lepidoptera: zygaenidae). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. Genomics Proteomics 40, 100876. 10.1016/j.cbd.2021.100876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Li Y., Zhang J., Chen D., Yang P., Jiang F., Wang X., et al. (2016). CRISPR/Cas9 in locusts: successful establishment of an olfactory deficiency line by targeting the mutagenesis of an odorant receptor co-receptor (Orco). Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 79, 27–35. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2016.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lin C. C., Prokop-Prigge K. A., Preti G., Potter C. J. (2015). Food odors trigger Drosophila males to deposit a pheromone that guides aggregation and female oviposition decisions. Elife. Sep. 30, e08688. 10.7554/eLife.08688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Liu H., Chen Z. S., Zhang D. J., Lu Y. Y. (2018). BdorOR88a modulates the responsiveness to methyl eugenol in mature males of Bactrocera dorsalis (hendel). Front. Physiol. 9, 987. 10.3389/fphys.2018.00987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu J., Liu H., Yi J., Mao Y., Li J., Sun D., et al. (2021a). Transcriptome characterization and expression analysis of chemosensory genes in chilo sacchariphagus (Lepidoptera crambidae), a key pest of sugarcane. Front. Physiol. 12, 636353. 10.3389/fphys.2021.636353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Liu X., Tong N., Wu Z., Li Y., Ma M., Liu P., et al. (2021b). Identification of chemosensory genes based on the antennal transcriptomic analysis of plagiodera versicolora. Insects 13 (1), 36. 10.3390/insects13010036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu X. Y., Yan R., Chen S. J., Zhang J. L., Xu H. J. (2023). Orco mutagenesis causes deficiencies in olfactory sensitivity and fertility in the migratory brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Pest Manag. Sci. Mar. 79 (3), 1030–1039. 10.1002/ps.7286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu Z., Smagghe G., Lei Z., Wang J. J. (2016). Identification of male- and female-specific olfaction genes in antennae of the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis). PLoS One 11 (2), e0147783. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. MacWilliam D., Kowalewski J., Kumar A., Pontrello C., Ray A. (2018). Signaling mode of the broad-spectrum conserved CO2 receptor is one of the important determinants of odor valence in Drosophila. Neuron 7 (5), 1153–1167. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mei T., Fu W. B., Li B., He Z. B., Chen B. (2018). Comparative genomics of chemosensory protein genes (CSPs) in twenty-two mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae): identification, characterization, and evolution. PLoS One 13 (1), e0190412. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Miller N. W., Vargas R. I., Prokopy R. J., Mackey B. E. (2004). State-dependent attractiveness of protein bait and host fruit odor to Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) females. Ann 97, 1063–1068. 10.1603/0013-8746(2004)097[1063:saopba]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Mir S. H., Dar S. A., Mir G. M., Ahmad S. B. (2014). Biology of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) on cucumber. Fla. Entomol. 97, 753–758. 10.1653/024.097.0257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Missbach C., Dweck H. K., Vogel H., Vilcinskas A., Stensmyr M. C., Hansson B. S., et al. (2014). Evolution of insect olfactory receptors. eLife 3, e02115. 10.7554/eLife.02115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mitaka H., Matsuo T., Miura N., Ishikawa Y. (2011). Identification of odorant-binding protein genes from antennal expressed sequence tags of the onion fly, Delia antiqua . Mol. Biol. Rep. Mar. 38 (3), 1787–1792. 10.1007/s11033-010-0293-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Miyamoto T., Amrein H. (2014). Diverse roles for the Drosophila fructose sensor Gr43a. Fly. (Austin) 8 (1), 19–25. 10.4161/fly.27241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ning C., Yang K., Xu M., Huang L. Q., Wang C. Z. (2016). Functional validation of the carbon dioxide receptor in labial palps of Helicoverpa armigera moths. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. Jun 73, 12–19. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2016.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Obiero G. F., Mireji P. O., Nyanjom S. R., Christoffels A., Robertson H. M., Masiga D. K. (2014). Odorant and gustatory receptors in the tsetse fly Glossina morsitans morsitans. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 8 (4), e2663. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Ono H., Hee A. K., Jiang H. (2021). Recent advancements in studies on chemosensory mechanisms underlying detection of semiochemicals in dacini fruit flies of economic importance (Diptera: Tephritidae). Insects. 12(2). 10.3390/insects12020106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Ono H., Miyazaki H., Mitsuno H., Ozaki K., Kanzaki R., Nishida R. (2020). Functional characterization of olfactory receptors in three Dacini fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) that respond to 1-nonanol analogs as components in the rectal glands. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 239, 110346. 10.1016/j.cbpb.2019.110346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Pelosi P., Iovinella I., Felicioli A., Dani F. R. (2014). Soluble proteins of chemical communication: an overview across arthropods. Front. Physiol. 5, 320. 10.3389/fphys.2014.00320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Pelosi P., Iovinella I., Zhu J., Wang G., Dani F. R. (2018). Beyond chemoreception: diverse tasks of soluble olfactory proteins in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philosophical Soc. 93 (1), 184–200. 10.1111/brv.12339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Pelosi P., Zhou J. J., Ban L. P., Calvello M. (2006). Soluble proteins in insect chemical communication. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 63 (14), 1658–1676. 10.1007/s00018-005-5607-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pertea M., Pertea G. M., Antonescu C. M., Chang T. C., Mendell J. T., Salzberg S. L. (2015). StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. Mar. 33 (3), 290–295. 10.1038/nbt.3122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Piñero J. C., Souder S. K., Vargas R. I. (2020). Synergistic and additive interactions among components of food-based baits underlie female fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) attraction. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 168, 339–348. 10.1111/eea.12890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Poudel S., Lee Y. (2016). Gustatory receptors required for avoiding the toxic compound coumarin in Drosophila melanogaster . Mol. Cells 30 (4), 310–315. 10.14348/molcells.2016.2250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Rass M., Oestreich S., Guetter S., Fischer S., Schneuwly S. (2019). The Drosophila fussel gene is required for bitter gustatory neuron differentiation acting within an Rpd3 dependent chromatin modifying complex. PLoS Genet. 15 (2), e1007940. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Rebecca D., John R. C. (2016). Bitter taste receptors confer diverse functions to neurons. Neuroscience 5, e11181. 10.7554/eLife.11181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Rihani K., Ferveur J. F., Briand L. (2021). The 40-year mystery of insect odorant-binding proteins. Biomol. Mar. 30 (4), 509. 10.3390/biom11040509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Rihani N. K., Sun J. S., Carlson J. R. (2016). Organization and function of Drosophila odorant binding proteins. Elife 5, e20242. 10.7554/elife.20242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Robertson H. M., Warr C. G., Carlson J. R. (2003). Molecular evolution of the insect chemoreceptor gene superfamily in Drosophila melanogaster . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 25 (100 Suppl. 2), 14537–14542. 10.1073/pnas.2335847100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rogers M. E., Krieger J., Vogt R. G. (2001). Antennal SNMPs (sensory neuron membrane proteins) of Lepidoptera define a unique family of invertebrate CD36-like proteins. J. Neurobiol. 49 (1), 47–61. 10.1002/neu.1065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rytz R., Croset V., Benton R. (2013). Ionotropic receptors (IRs): chemosensory ionotropic glutamate receptors in Drosophila and beyond. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. Sep. 43 (9), 888–897. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2013.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Sang J., Rimal S., Lee Y. (2019). Gustatory receptor 28b is necessary for avoiding saponin in Drosophila melanogaster . EMBO Rep. 5 (2), e47328. 10.15252/embr.201847328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sato K., Tanaka K., Touhara K. (2011). Sugar-regulated cation channel formed by an insect gustatory receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 12 (28), 11680–11685. 10.1073/pnas.1019622108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Segura-León O. L., Torres-Huerta B., Estrada-Pérez A. R., Cibrián-Tovar J., Hernandez-Hernandez F. C., Cruz-Jaramillo J. L., et al. (2022). Identification of candidate chemosensory gene families by head transcriptomes analysis in the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens loew (Diptera: Tephritidae). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23 (18), 10531. 10.3390/ijms231810531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sepil I., Hopkins B. R., Dean R., Thézénas M. L., Charles P. D., Konietzny R., et al. (2019). Quantitative proteomics identification of seminal fluid proteins in male Drosophila melanogaster . Mol. Cell. proteomics MCP 18 (Suppl. 1), S46-S58–S58. 10.1074/mcp.RA118.000831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Shanbhag S. R., Müller B., Steinbrecht R. A. (1999). Atlas of olfactory organs of Drosophila melanogaster. Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryology 28(4), 377–397. 10.1016/S0020-7322(99)00039-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Shivaramu S., Parepally S. K., Chakravarthy A. K., Pagadala, Damodaram K. J., Kempraj V. (2022). Ridge gourd volatiles are attractive to gravid female melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Appl. Entomology 146, 539–546. 10.1111/jen.12975 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Shorter J. R., Dembeck L. M., Everett L. J., Morozova T. V., Arya G. H., Turlapati L., et al. (2016). Obp56h modulates mating behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 (Bethesda, Md 6 (10), 3335–3342. 10.1534/g3.116.034595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Song Y. Q., Sun H. Z., Dong J. F. (2020). Identification and expression analysis of an olfactory receptor gene family in the yemma signatus hsiao (Hemiptera: berytidae). Pjz 52, 1911–1919. 10.17582/journal.pjz/20180616040644 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sparks J. T., Bohbot J. D., Dickens J. C. (2014). The genetics of chemoreception in the labella and tarsi of Aedes aegypti . Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. May 48, 8–16. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2014.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Steinbrecht R. A. (1996). Structure and function of insect olfactory sensilla. Ciba Found. Symp. 200, 158–174. 10.1002/9780470514948.ch13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Suh E., Bohbot J. D., Zwiebel L. J. (2014). Peripheral olfactory signaling in insects. Curr. Opin. Insect 6, 86–92. 10.1016/j.cois.2014.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Sun D., Huang Y., Qin Z., Zhan H., Zhang J., Liu Y., et al. (2020). Identification of candidate olfactory genes in the antennal transcriptome of the stink bug halyomorpha halys. Front. Physiol. 11, 876. 10.3389/fphys.2020.00876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sun J. S., Larter N. K., Chahda J. S., Rioux D., Gumaste A., Carlson J. R. (2018). Humidity response depends on the small soluble protein Obp59a in Drosophila. Elife Sep. 19, e39249. 10.7554/eLife.39249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Sun Y. L., Dong J. F., Ning C., Ding P. P., Huang L. Q., Sun J. G., et al. (2019). An odorant receptor mediates the attractiveness of cis -jasmone to campoletis chlorideae, the endoparasitoid of helicoverpa armigera. Insect Mol. Biol. 28, 23–34. 10.1111/imb.12523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Sun Y. L., Huang L. Q., Pelosi P., Wang C. Z. (2012). Expression in antennae and reproductive organs suggests a dual role of an odorant-binding protein in two sibling Helicoverpa species. PLoS One 7 (1), e30040. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Swarup S., Williams T. I., Anholt R. R. (2011). Functional dissection of Odorant binding protein genes in Drosophila melanogaster . Genes Brain Behav. Aug 10 (6), 648–657. 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2011.00704.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Takemori N., Yamamoto M. T. (2009). Proteome mapping of the Drosophila melanogaster male reproductive system. Proteomics. May 9 (9), 2484–2493. 10.1002/pmic.200800795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Task D., Lin C. C., Vulpe A., Afify A., Ballou S., Brbic M., et al. (2020). Chemoreceptor co-expression in Drosophila melanogaster olfactory neurons. Elife 20, e72599. 10.7554/eLife.72599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Tsoumani K. T., Belavilas-Trovas A., Gregoriou M. E., Mathiopoulos K. D. (2020). Anosmic flies: what Orco silencing does to olive fruit flies. BMC Genet. 21, 140. 10.1186/s12863-020-00937-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Vargas R. I., Piñero J. C., Miller N. W. (2018). Effect of physiological state on female melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) attraction to host and food odor in the field. J. Econ. Entomol. 111 (3), 1318–1322. 10.1093/jee/toy092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Vieira F. G., Rozas J. (2011). Comparative genomics of the odorant-binding and chemosensory protein gene families across the arthropoda: origin and evolutionary history of the chemosensory system. Genome Biol. Evol. 3, 476–490. 10.1093/gbe/evr033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Vieira F. G., Sánchez-Gracia A., Rozas J. (2007). Comparative genomic analysis of the odorant-binding protein family in 12 Drosophila genomes: purifying selection and birth-and-death evolution. Genome Biol. 8 (11), R235. 10.1186/gb-2007-8-11-r235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Vogt R. G., Miller N. E., Litvack R., Fandino R. A., Sparks J., Staples J., et al. (2009). The insect SNMP gene family. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 39, 448–456. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2009.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang B., Liu Y., He K., Wang G. (2016). Comparison of research methods for functional characterization of insect olfactory receptors. Sci. Rep. 6, 32806. 10.1038/srep32806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang Z., Qi Z., Chen J., Wang F., Gui L., Zhang G. (2021). Molecular characterization of chemosensory protein genes in Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomol. Res. 51, 349–356. 10.1111/1748-5967.12517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wicher D., Miazzi F. (2021). Functional properties of insect olfactory receptors: ionotropic receptors and odorant receptors. Cell Tissue Res. 383, 7–19. 10.1007/s00441-020-03363-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Wu Z., Cui Y., Ma J., Qu M., Lin J. (2020). Analyses of chemosensory genes provide insight into the evolution of behavioral differences to phytochemicals in Bactrocera species. Mol. Phylogenet Evol. Oct. 151, 106858. 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wu Z., Kang C., Qu M., Chen J., Chen M., Bin S., et al. (2019). Candidates for chemosensory genes identified in the Chinese citrus fly, Bactrocera minax, through a transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genom 20 (1), 646. 10.1186/s12864-019-6022-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Wu Z., Ye J., Qian J., Purba E., Zhang Q., Zhang L., et al. (2022). Identification and expression profile of chemosensory receptor genes in aromia bungii (faldermann) antennal transcriptome. Insects 13, 96. 10.3390/insects13010096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Wu Z., Zhang H., Wang Z., Bin S., He H., Lin J. (2015). Discovery of chemosensory genes in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. PLoS One 10 (6), e0129794. 10.1371/journal.pone.0129794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Xing Y., Thanasirungkul W., Adeel M. M., Yu J., Aslam A., Chi D. F. (2021). Identification and analysis of olfactory genes in Dioryctria abietella based on the antennal transcriptome. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. Genomics Proteomics. Jun 38, 100814. 10.1016/j.cbd.2021.100814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Xu L., Jiang H. B., Tang K. Y., Yan Y., Schetelig M. F., Wang J. J. (2022). CRISPR-mediated mutagenesis of the odorant receptor co-receptor (Orco) gene disrupts olfaction-mediated behaviors in Bactrocera dorsalis. Insect Sci. 29 (5), 1275–1286. 10.1111/1744-7917.12997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Xu P., Wang Y., Akami M., Niu C. Y. (2019). Identification of olfactory genes and functional analysis of BminCSP and BminOBP21 in Bactrocera minax. PLoS ONE 14, e0222193. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Xu W. (2020). How do moth and butterfly taste? - molecular basis of gustatory receptors in Lepidoptera. Insect Sci. 27, 1148–1157. 10.1111/1744-7917.12718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Xu W., Cornel A. J., Leal W. S. (2010). Odorant-binding proteins of the malaria mosquito Anopheles funestus sensu stricto. PLoS One 5 (10), e15403. 10.1371/journal.pone.0015403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Yasukawa J., Tomioka S., Aigaki T., Matsuo T. (2010). Evolution of expression patterns of two odorant-binding protein genes, Obp57d and Obp57e, in Drosophila. Gene. Nov. 1 467 (1-2), 25–34. 10.1016/j.gene.2010.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Yi X., Zhao H., Dong X., Wang P., Hu M., Zhong G. (2013). BdorCSP2 is important for antifeed and oviposition-deterring activities induced by rhodojaponin-III against Bactrocera dorsalis. PLoS ONE 8 (10), e77295. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Zhang J., Bisch-Knaden S., Fandino R. A., Yan S., Obiero G. F., Grosse-Wilde E., et al. (2019). The olfactory coreceptor IR8a governs larval feces-mediated competition avoidance in a hawkmoth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 21828–21833. 10.1073/pnas.1913485116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Zhou X., Guo J., Zhang M., Bai C., Wang Z., Li Z. (2021). Antennal transcriptome analysis and candidate olfactory genes in Crematogaster rogenhoferi. Bull. Entomol. Res. Aug 111 (4), 464–475. 10.1017/S0007485321000134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhu J., Iovinella I., Dani F. R., Liu Y. L., Huang L. Q., Liu Y., et al. (2016). Conserved chemosensory proteins in the proboscis and eyes of Lepidoptera. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 12 (11), 1394–1404. 10.7150/ijbs.16517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Zhu X., Xu B., Qin Z., Kader A., Song B., Chen H., et al. (2021). Identification of candidate olfactory genes in scolytus schevyrewi based on transcriptomic analysis. Front. physiology 12, 717698. 10.3389/fphys.2021.717698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table1.docx (15.9KB, docx)
Table2.docx (16KB, docx)
Table3.docx (29.2KB, docx)
DataSheet2.docx (20.6KB, docx)
DataSheet1.docx (214.7KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1019880.

Articles from Frontiers in Physiology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES