Putative ligand binding sites of two functionally characterized bark beetle odorant receptors.

Deorphanization Functional evolution HEK293 cells Odorant receptor Pest insect Pheromone receptor Xenopus oocyte

Journal

BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 01 2021
Historique:
received: 09 06 2020
accepted: 22 12 2020
entrez: 27 1 2021
pubmed: 28 1 2021
medline: 1 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Bark beetles are major pests of conifer forests, and their behavior is primarily mediated via olfaction. Targeting the odorant receptors (ORs) may thus provide avenues towards improved pest control. Such an approach requires information on the function of ORs and their interactions with ligands, which is also essential for understanding the functional evolution of these receptors. Hence, we aimed to identify a high-quality complement of ORs from the destructive spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) and analyze their antennal expression and phylogenetic relationships with ORs from other beetles. Using 68 biologically relevant test compounds, we next aimed to functionally characterize ecologically important ORs, using two systems for heterologous expression. Our final aim was to gain insight into the ligand-OR interaction of the functionally characterized ORs, using a combination of computational and experimental methods. We annotated 73 ORs from an antennal transcriptome of I. typographus and report the functional characterization of two ORs (ItypOR46 and ItypOR49), which are responsive to single enantiomers of the common bark beetle pheromone compounds ipsenol and ipsdienol, respectively. Their responses and antennal expression correlate with the specificities, localizations, and/or abundances of olfactory sensory neurons detecting these enantiomers. We use homology modeling and molecular docking to predict their binding sites. Our models reveal a likely binding cleft lined with residues that previously have been shown to affect the responses of insect ORs. Within this cleft, the active ligands are predicted to specifically interact with residues Tyr84 and Thr205 in ItypOR46. The suggested importance of these residues in the activation by ipsenol is experimentally supported through site-directed mutagenesis and functional testing, and hydrogen bonding appears key in pheromone binding. The emerging insight into ligand binding in the two characterized ItypORs has a general importance for our understanding of the molecular and functional evolution of the insect OR gene family. Due to the ecological importance of the characterized receptors and widespread use of ipsenol and ipsdienol in bark beetle chemical communication, these ORs should be evaluated for their potential use in pest control and biosensors to detect bark beetle infestations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Bark beetles are major pests of conifer forests, and their behavior is primarily mediated via olfaction. Targeting the odorant receptors (ORs) may thus provide avenues towards improved pest control. Such an approach requires information on the function of ORs and their interactions with ligands, which is also essential for understanding the functional evolution of these receptors. Hence, we aimed to identify a high-quality complement of ORs from the destructive spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) and analyze their antennal expression and phylogenetic relationships with ORs from other beetles. Using 68 biologically relevant test compounds, we next aimed to functionally characterize ecologically important ORs, using two systems for heterologous expression. Our final aim was to gain insight into the ligand-OR interaction of the functionally characterized ORs, using a combination of computational and experimental methods.
RESULTS
We annotated 73 ORs from an antennal transcriptome of I. typographus and report the functional characterization of two ORs (ItypOR46 and ItypOR49), which are responsive to single enantiomers of the common bark beetle pheromone compounds ipsenol and ipsdienol, respectively. Their responses and antennal expression correlate with the specificities, localizations, and/or abundances of olfactory sensory neurons detecting these enantiomers. We use homology modeling and molecular docking to predict their binding sites. Our models reveal a likely binding cleft lined with residues that previously have been shown to affect the responses of insect ORs. Within this cleft, the active ligands are predicted to specifically interact with residues Tyr84 and Thr205 in ItypOR46. The suggested importance of these residues in the activation by ipsenol is experimentally supported through site-directed mutagenesis and functional testing, and hydrogen bonding appears key in pheromone binding.
CONCLUSIONS
The emerging insight into ligand binding in the two characterized ItypORs has a general importance for our understanding of the molecular and functional evolution of the insect OR gene family. Due to the ecological importance of the characterized receptors and widespread use of ipsenol and ipsdienol in bark beetle chemical communication, these ORs should be evaluated for their potential use in pest control and biosensors to detect bark beetle infestations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33499862
doi: 10.1186/s12915-020-00946-6
pii: 10.1186/s12915-020-00946-6
pmc: PMC7836466
doi:

Substances chimiques

Insect Proteins 0
Ligands 0
Receptors, Odorant 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

16

Subventions

Organisme : Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
ID : 217-2014-689
Organisme : Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
ID : 2018-01444
Organisme : Vetenskapsrådet
ID : 2017-03804
Organisme : Carl Tryggers Stiftelse för Vetenskaplig Forskning
ID : CTS 17:25

Références

Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
Neuron. 1999 Feb;22(2):327-38
pubmed: 10069338
Cell. 2006 Apr 7;125(1):143-60
pubmed: 16615896
J Agric Food Chem. 2020 Jul 15;68(28):7316-7323
pubmed: 32551589
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Oct;34(10):914-924
pubmed: 31262532
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2014 Nov;54:22-32
pubmed: 25174788
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Mar 1;34(3):772-773
pubmed: 28013191
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2018 Sep;100:39-47
pubmed: 29894821
Biosens Bioelectron. 2020 Apr 1;153:112040
pubmed: 31989943
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019 Mar 6;11(9):9530-9538
pubmed: 30740970
BMC Genomics. 2016 Jan 22;17:69
pubmed: 26800671
Genome Biol. 2016 Nov 11;17(1):227
pubmed: 27832824
Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1913-6
pubmed: 18096805
Org Lett. 2011 Oct 21;13(20):5700-3
pubmed: 21954907
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jul 15;30(14):3059-66
pubmed: 12136088
Neuron. 2011 Dec 8;72(5):698-711
pubmed: 22153368
J Chem Ecol. 1987 Apr;13(4):701-16
pubmed: 24302039
Nature. 2008 Apr 24;452(7190):987-90
pubmed: 18432244
Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644-52
pubmed: 21572440
Chem Senses. 2011 Nov;36(9):781-90
pubmed: 21677030
J Chem Ecol. 1984 Jul;10(7):1029-55
pubmed: 24318847
Elife. 2018 Jul 31;7:
pubmed: 30063003
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Nov 1;34(11):2733-2746
pubmed: 29126322
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25;100 Suppl 2:14537-42
pubmed: 14608037
Biosens Bioelectron. 2019 Feb 1;126:207-213
pubmed: 30415156
Front Cell Neurosci. 2016 Sep 07;10:212
pubmed: 27656130
Nature. 2018 Aug;560(7719):447-452
pubmed: 30111839
Nature. 2010 Mar 4;464(7285):66-71
pubmed: 20130575
J Chem Ecol. 1984 May;10(5):759-69
pubmed: 24318738
ISME J. 2019 Jul;13(7):1788-1800
pubmed: 30872804
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 24;108(21):8821-5
pubmed: 21555561
J Comput Chem. 2005 Dec;26(16):1781-802
pubmed: 16222654
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11845-50
pubmed: 15289611
Eur J Neurosci. 2007 Apr;25(8):2364-73
pubmed: 17445234
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 22;8(1):3489
pubmed: 29472565
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 05;8(7):e69412
pubmed: 23861970
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2008 Aug;38(8):770-80
pubmed: 18625400
J Insect Physiol. 2009 Jun;55(6):556-67
pubmed: 19233334
J Biol Chem. 2010 Apr 16;285(16):11854-62
pubmed: 20147286
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 31;8(1):1931
pubmed: 29386578
Nature. 2008 Apr 24;452(7190):1007-11
pubmed: 18408711
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2020 Feb;117:103289
pubmed: 31778795
J Comput Chem. 2010 Jan 30;31(2):455-61
pubmed: 19499576
Nature. 2011 Jun 2;474(7349):87-91
pubmed: 21637258
Insect Mol Biol. 2020 Feb;29(1):77-91
pubmed: 31381201
J Insect Physiol. 2001 Sep;47(9):1065-1076
pubmed: 11472769
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Mar;11(3):188-200
pubmed: 20145624
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 13;6:6077
pubmed: 25584517
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jan 21;117(3):1788-1798
pubmed: 31911476
J Chem Ecol. 2019 Jun;45(5-6):474-489
pubmed: 31053976
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Aug 28;109(35):14081-6
pubmed: 22891317
Nature. 2011 Sep 21;478(7370):511-4
pubmed: 21937991
Nat Rev Genet. 2008 Dec;9(12):951-63
pubmed: 19002141
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jul 2;46(W1):W296-W303
pubmed: 29788355
PLoS One. 2015 May 04;10(5):e0125159
pubmed: 25938508
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 1;25(15):1972-3
pubmed: 19505945
J Neurosci Methods. 2019 Jan 15;312:122-125
pubmed: 30476491
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 10;8(10):e77345
pubmed: 24130875
Nat Protoc. 2013 Aug;8(8):1494-512
pubmed: 23845962
BMC Genomics. 2013 Mar 21;14:198
pubmed: 23517120
Nature. 2008 Apr 24;452(7190):1002-6
pubmed: 18408712
J Chem Ecol. 1989 Aug;15(8):2263-77
pubmed: 24272385
Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 05;6:18576
pubmed: 26729427
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jul;37(Web Server issue):W571-4
pubmed: 19429894
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Mar 1;35(3):543-548
pubmed: 29220515
BMC Genomics. 2019 Sep 2;20(1):690
pubmed: 31477011
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 14;9(1):e85381
pubmed: 24454855
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2012 Jul;42(7):499-505
pubmed: 22504490
Nat Commun. 2017 Jun 05;8:15709
pubmed: 28580965

Auteurs

Jothi K Yuvaraj (JK)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Rebecca E Roberts (RE)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Yonathan Sonntag (Y)

Division of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, Department of Chemistry, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Xiao-Qing Hou (XQ)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Ewald Grosse-Wilde (E)

Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
Present address: Faculty of Forestry & Wood Sci, Excellent Team for Mitigation, Czech University Life Sci Prague, Kamycka 129, Prague 6, 16521, Suchdol, Czech Republic.

Aleš Machara (A)

Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Gilead Sciences and IOCB Research Center, Flemingovo n. 2, 166 10, Prague 6, Czech Republic.

Dan-Dan Zhang (DD)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Bill S Hansson (BS)

Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.

Urban Johanson (U)

Division of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, Department of Chemistry, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Christer Löfstedt (C)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden.

Martin N Andersson (MN)

Department of Biology, Lund University, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden. martin_n.andersson@biol.lu.se.

Articles similaires

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male
Humans Meals Time Factors Female Adult

Classifications MeSH