Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 21;13(5):481.
doi: 10.3390/insects13050481.

Identification and Characterization of Chemosensory Receptors in the Pheromone Gland-Ovipositor of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)

Ya-Lan Sun  1 , Jun-Feng Dong  1 , Hai-Bo Yang  1 , Ding-Xu Li  1 , Cai-Hong Tian  2
Affiliations

Identification and Characterization of Chemosensory Receptors in the Pheromone Gland-Ovipositor of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)

Ya-Lan Sun et al. Insects. .

Abstract

Chemoreception by moth ovipositors has long been suggested, but underlying molecular mechanisms are mostly unknown. To reveal such chemosensory systems in the current study, we sequenced and assembled the pheromone gland-ovipositor (PG-OV) transcriptome of females of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, a pest of many crops. We annotated a total of 26 candidate chemosensory receptor genes, including 12 odorant receptors (ORs), 4 gustatory receptors (GRs), and 10 ionotropic receptors (IRs). The relatedness of these chemosensory receptors with those from other insect species was predicted by phylogenetic analyses, and specific genes, including pheromone receptors, ORco, CO2 receptors, sugar receptors, and IR co-receptors, were reported. Although real-time quantitative-PCR analyses of annotated genes revealed that OR and IR genes were mainly expressed in S. frugiperda antennae, two ORs and two IRs expressed in antennae were also highly expressed in the PG-OV. Similarly, GR genes were mainly expressed in the proboscis, but two were also highly expressed in the PG-OV. Our study provides the first large-scale description of chemosensory receptors in the PG-OV of S. frugiperda and provides a foundation for exploring the chemoreception mechanisms of PG-OV in S. frugiperda and in other moth species.

Keywords: Spodoptera frugiperda; gustatory receptor; ionotropic receptor; odorant receptor; pheromone gland-ovipositor; real-time quantitative PCR; transcriptome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Phylogenetic relationships of ORs from S. frugiperda and other lepidopteran species. The neighbor-joining tree was constructed using MEGA7 and was based on candidate ORs from S. frugiperda (Sfru), B. mori (Bmor), and H. armigera (Harm). Branches of the ORco clade are highlighted in pink; branches containing the lepidopteran pheromone receptors (PRs) are highlighted in green.
Figure 2
Figure 2
TPM values of candidate ORs, GRs, and IRs in the pheromone gland-ovipositor of S. frugiperda.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Expression patterns of candidate ORs in different tissues of S. frugiperda. RT-qPCR analysis of candidate OR genes was carried out in female antennae (FA), male antennae (MA), female proboscises (FP), male proboscises (MP), female tarsi (FT), male tarsi (MT), and the female pheromone gland-ovipositor (PG-OV). Values are means + SE; in each panel, means with different letters are significantly different according to a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05, n = 3).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Phylogenetic relationships of GRs from S. frugiperda and other lepidopteran species. The neighbor-joining tree was constructed using MEGA7 based on candidate GRs from S. frugiperda (Sfru), H. armigera (Harm), B. mori (Bmor), and Danaus plexippus (Dple). Branches of the putative carbon dioxide receptors are highlighted in blue; branches of putative fructose receptors are highlighted in yellow; branches containing “sugar-taste receptors” are highlighted in green; and branches containing “bitted-taste receptors” are not highlighted.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Expression patterns of candidate GRs in different tissues of S. frugiperda. RT-qPCR analysis of candidate GR genes was carried out in female antennae (FA), male antennae (MA), female proboscises (FP), male proboscises (MP), female tarsi (FT), male tarsi (MT), and the female pheromone gland-ovipositor (PG-OV). Values are means + SE; in each panel, means with different letters are significantly different according to a one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05, n = 3).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Neighbor-joining tree of candidate IRs from S. frugiperda (Sfru), H. armigera (Harm), D. punctatus (Dpun), and D. melanogaster (Dmel). Branches of IR co-receptors are highlighted in yellow; branches of the putative ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) are highlighted in blue; branches of the putative “divergent IRs” are highlighted in pink; branches of the putative “antennal IRs” are not highlighted.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Expression patterns of candidate IRs in different tissues of S. frugiperda. RT-qPCR analysis of candidate IRs genes was carried out in female antennae (FA), male antennae (MA), female proboscises (FP), male proboscises (MP), female tarsi (FT), male tarsi (MT), and the female pheromone gland-ovipositor (PG-OV). Values are means + SE; in each panel, means with different letters are significantly different according to a one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05, n = 3).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dahanukar A., Hallem E.A., Carlson J.R. Insect chemoreception. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2005;15:423–430. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2005.06.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hansson B.S., Stensmyr M.C. Evolution of insect olfaction. Neuron. 2011;72:698–711. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leal W.S. Odorant reception in insects: Roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013;58:371–391. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153635. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lu T., Qiu Y.T., Wang G.R., Kwon J.Y., Rutzler M., Kwon H.W., Pitts R.J., van Loon J.J., Takken W., Carlson J.R., et al. Odor coding in the maxillary palp of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr. Biol. 2007;17:1533–1544. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.062. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haverkamp A., Yon F., Keesey I.W., Missbach C., Koenig C., Hansson B.S., Baldwin I.T., Knaden M., Kessler D. Hawkmoths evaluate scenting flowers with the tip of their proboscis. eLife. 2016;5:e15039. doi: 10.7554/eLife.15039. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources