The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Novel natural ligands for Drosophila olfactory receptor neurones
Abstract
SUMMARY: Due to its well-defined genome, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster has become a very important model organism in olfactory research. Despite all the research invested, few natural odour ligands have been identified. By using a combined gas chromatographic—single receptor neurone recording technique (GC—SC), we set out to identify active odour molecules in head space-collected volatiles from preferred food sources, i.e. different overripe or rotting fruit. In total, we performed 101 GC—SC experiments on 85 contacted sensilla. Using GC—mass spectrometry, we identified 24 active compounds. Synthetic samples of these compounds were used to establish dose—response curves for several of the receptor neurone types encountered. The response patterns of individual neurones were repeatable, and neurones were found to reside in stereotyped pairs. In total,we identified eight distinct sensillum types based on response profiles of 12 olfactory receptor neurone types. In most recordings, a single GC peak would produce a strong response, whereas a few other, often chemically related,compounds would produce weaker responses. The GC—SC recordings revealed that the olfactory receptor neurones investigated were often selective and could be divided into distinct functional types with discrete characteristics. Dose—response investigations revealed very low response thresholds to the tested compounds. Six of the novel ligands were also tested for their behavioural effect in a T-maze set up. Of these, five elicited attraction and one elicited repulsion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes
Rubin, G. M., Yandell, M. D., Wortman, J. R., Gabor, G. L., Miklos, Nelson, C. R., Hariharan, I. K., Fortini, M. E., Li, P. W., Apweiler, R., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5461.2204 · Cited by 1,698
A Novel Family of Divergent Seven-Transmembrane Proteins
Clyne, P. J., Warr, C. G., Freeman, M. R., Lessing, D., Kim, J., & Carlson, J. R. (1999) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81093-4 · Cited by 1,155
Cited by
Coding of Odors by a Receptor Repertoire
Hallem, E. A., & Carlson, J. R. (2006) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.050 · Cited by 1,254
Molecular, Anatomical, and Functional Organization of the Drosophila Olfactory System
Couto, A., Alenius, M., & Dickson, B. J. (2005) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.034 · Cited by 984
Perception of plant volatile blends by herbivorous insects – Finding the right mix
Bruce, T. J. A., & Pickett, J. A. (2011) · Phytochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.04.011 · Cited by 833
Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor
McBride, C. S., Baier, F., Omondi, A. B., Spitzer, S. A., Lutomiah, J., Sang, R., Ignell, R., & Vosshall, L. B. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13964 · Cited by 585
INSECT ODOR AND TASTE RECEPTORS
Hallem, E. A., Dahanukar, A., & Carlson, J. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.051705.113646 · Cited by 477
Metadata
- Authors
- Stensmyr, M. C., Giordano, E., Balloi, A., Angioy, A.-M., & Hansson, B. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Biology
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2003-02-15
- Volume
- 206
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 715-724
- ISSN
- 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9145
- OpenAlex
- W2054689130
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Novel natural ligands for Drosophila olfactory receptor neurones. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1242/jeb.00143
- The paper
- Stensmyr, M. C., Giordano, E., Balloi, A., Angioy, A.-M., & Hansson, B. S. (2003). Novel natural ligands for Drosophila olfactory receptor neurones. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00143
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.