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
. 2023 Nov 30;14(12):2165.
doi: 10.3390/genes14122165.

Comparative Transcriptomic Assessment of Chemosensory Genes in Adult and Larval Olfactory Organs of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis

Affiliations

Comparative Transcriptomic Assessment of Chemosensory Genes in Adult and Larval Olfactory Organs of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis

Hai-Tao Du et al. Genes (Basel). .

Abstract

The rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), is a notorious pest of rice in Asia. The larvae and adults of C. medinalis utilize specialized chemosensory systems to adapt to different environmental odors and physiological behaviors. However, the differences in chemosensory genes between the olfactory organs of these two different developmental stages remain unclear. Here, we conducted a transcriptome analysis of larvae heads, male antennae, and female antennae in C. medinalis and identified 131 putative chemosensory genes, including 32 OBPs (8 novel OBPs), 23 CSPs (2 novel CSPs), 55 ORs (17 novel ORs), 19 IRs (5 novel IRs) and 2 SNMPs. Comparisons between larvae and adults of C. medinalis by transcriptome and RT-qPCR analysis revealed that the number and expression of chemosensory genes in larval heads were less than that of adult antennae. Only 17 chemosensory genes (7 OBPs and 10 CSPs) were specifically or preferentially expressed in the larval heads, while a total of 101 chemosensory genes (21 OBPs, 9 CSPs, 51 ORs, 18 IRs, and 2 SNMPs) were specifically or preferentially expressed in adult antennae. Our study found differences in chemosensory gene expression between larvae and adults, suggesting their specialized functions at different developmental stages of C. medinalis. These results provide a theoretical basis for screening chemosensory genes as potential molecular targets and developing novel management strategies to control C. medinalis.

Keywords: Cnaphalocrocis medinalis; adult; chemosensory genes; expression pattern; larva; transcriptome analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sequences alignment of candidate CmedOBPs. The conserved cysteine residues were marked with a green shade. All these OBPs were assigned to Classical OBPs, Plus-C OBPs, and Minus-C OBPs.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Motif analysis of candidate CmedOBPs. (A) Distributions of motifs in candidate CmedOBPs. The x-axis indicates the length of OBP proteins. (B) The SeqLogo of the motifs present in candidate CmedOBPs. The black triangle marked the conserved cysteine residues.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Phylogenetic tree of candidate CmedOBPs with known lepidopteran OBPs. The clade in red indicates the PBP clade; the clade in blue indicates the GOBP1 clade; the clade in green indicates the GOBP2 clade; the clade in yellow indicates the Minus-C OBPs clade; and the clade in brown indicates the Plus-C OBPs clade. The value next to the branch represents the branch length, and the size of the circle on the branch means the bootstrap value. Cmed: C. medinalis, Bmor: B. mori, Harm: Helicoverpa armigera, Csup: Chilo suppressalis, Slit: S. littoralis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of candidate CmedOBPs expression in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. (A) Heatmap based on FPKM values. Red indicates relatively higher expression while black indicates relatively lower expression. Asterisk “*” indicates expression has been validated by RT-qPCR assay. (B) Relative expression pattern based on RT-qPCR. The relative expression of each gene normalized to β-actin and CmedGOBP2 transcript levels in larval heads were used as a baseline reference. The significant difference in different olfactory organs was marked on the bars with lowercase letters, p < 0.05. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of CmedOBPs and CmedCSPs in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. (A) CmedOBPs. (B) CmedCSPs. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Sequences alignment of candidate CmedCSPs. The conserved cysteine residues were marked with a green shade.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Motif analysis of candidate CmedCSPs. (A) Distributions of motifs in candidate CmedCSPs. The x-axis indicates the length of CSP proteins. (B) The SeqLogo of the motifs present in candidate CmedCSPs. The black triangle marked the conserved cysteine residues.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Phylogenetic tree of candidate CmedCSPs with known lepidopteran CSPs. The value next to the branch represents the branch length, and the size of the circle on the branch means the bootstrap value. Cmed: C. medinalis, Bmor: B. mori, Harm: H. armigera, Csup: C. suppressalis, Slit: S. littoralis.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Comparison of candidate CmedCSPs expression in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. (A) Heatmap based on FPKM values. Red indicates relatively higher expression while black indicates relatively lower expression. Asterisk “*” indicates expression has been validated by RT-qPCR assay. (B) Relative expression pattern based on RT-qPCR. The relative expression of each gene normalized to β-actin and CmedGOBP2 transcript levels in larval heads were used as a baseline reference. The significant difference in different olfactory organs was marked on the bars with lowercase letters, p < 0.05. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Phylogenetic tree of candidate CmedORs with known lepidopteran ORs. The clade in green indicates the Orco clade; the clade in blue indicates the PR clade. The value next to the branch represents the branch length, and the size of the circle on the branch means the bootstrap value. Cmed: C. medinalis, Bmor: B. mori, Harm: H. armigera, Csup: C. suppressalis, Slit: S. littoralis.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Comparison of candidate CmedORs expression in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. (A) Heatmap based on FPKM values. Red indicates relatively higher expression while black indicates relatively lower expression. Asterisk “*” indicates expression has been validated by RT-qPCR assay. (B) Relative expression pattern based on RT-qPCR. The relative expression of each gene normalized to β-actin and CmedGOBP2 transcript levels in larval heads were used as a baseline reference. The significant difference in different olfactory organs was marked on the bars with lowercase letters, p < 0.05. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Distribution of CmedSNMPs, CmedORs, and CmedIRs in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. (A) CmedORs, (B) CmedIRs, (C) CmedSNMPs. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Phylogenetic tree of candidate CmedIRs with known insect’s IRs. The clade in red indicates the IR co-receptors clade; the clade in green indicates the IR75 clade; the clade in yellow indicates the IR7d clade; the clade in brown indicates the divergent IRs clade. The value next to the branch represents the branch length, and the size of the circle on the branch means the bootstrap value. Cmed: C. medinalis, Bmor: B. mori, Harm: H. armigera, Slit: S. littoralis, Dmel: D. melanogaster.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Comparison of candidate CmedIRs expression based on FPKM values in different olfactory organs of C. medinalis. Red indicates relatively higher expression while black indicates relatively lower expression. LH: larval heads, MA: male antennae, FA: female antennae.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Renou M., Anton S. Insect olfactory communication in a complex and changing world. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2020;42:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2020.04.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keil T.A. Insect Olfaction. Springer; Berlin, Germany: 1999. Morphology and development of the peripheral olfactory organs; pp. 5–47.
    1. Pelosi P., Zhou J.J., Ban L., Calvello M. Soluble proteins in insect chemical communication. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2006;63:1658–1676. doi: 10.1007/s00018-005-5607-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Leal W.S. Odorant reception in insects: Roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013;58:373–391. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153635. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Scaloni A., Monti M., Angeli S., Pelosi P. Structural analysis and disulfide-bridge pairing of two odorant-binding proteins from Bombyx mori. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1999;266:386–391. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1999.1791. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources