CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 11Protein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computational modeling of insect odorant receptors: A comparative analysis of Template-based and Alphafold modeling

Open access
Jabeen, Amara, Oakeshott, John, Lee, Siu Fai, Ranganathan, Shoba, Taylor, Phillip W.·2024·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4544670/v1PMC PMC11585542

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41598-024-80094-x · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Insects rely on odorant receptors (ORs) to detect and respond to volatile environmental cues, so the ORs are attracting increasing interest as potential targets for pest control. However, experimental analysis of their structures and functions faces significant challenges. Computational methods such as template-based modeling (TBM) and Alphafold2 (AF) could facilitate the structural characterisation of ORs. This study first showed that both models accurately predicted the structural fold of MhOR5, a jumping bristletail OR with known experimental 3D structures, although accuracy was higher in the extracellular region of the protein and binding mode of their cognate ligands with TBM. The two approaches were then compared for their ability to predict the empirical binding evidence available for OR-odorant complexes in two economically important fruit fly species, Bactrocera dorsalis and B. minax. Post-simulation analyses including binding affinities, complex and ligand stability and receptor-ligand interactions (RLIs) revealed that TBM performed better than AF in discriminating between binder and non-binder complexes. TBM’s superior performance is attributed to hydrophobicity-based helix-wise multiple sequence alignment (MSA) between available insect OR templates and the ORs for which the binding data were generated. This MSA identified conserved residues and motifs which could be used as anchor points for refining the alignments.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4544670/v1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Haddad, Y., Adam, V. & Heger, Z. Ten quick tips for homology modeling of high-resolution protein 3D structures. PLoS Comput Biol 16, e1007449, doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007449 (2020). · DOI
  2. Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235–242, doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Pakhrin, S. C., Shrestha, B., Adhikari, B. & Kc, D. B. Deep Learning-Based Advances in Protein Structure Prediction. Int J Mol Sci 22, doi:10.3390/ijms22115553 (2021). · DOI
  4. He, X. H. et al. AlphaFold2 versus experimental structures: evaluation on G protein-coupled receptors. Acta Pharmacol Sin 44, 1–7, doi:10.1038/s41401-022-00938-y (2023). · DOI
  5. Yan, H. et al. Evolution, developmental expression and function of odorant receptors in insects. J Exp Biol 223, doi:10.1242/jeb.208215 (2020). · DOI
  6. Montagné, N., de Fouchier, A., Newcomb, R. D. & Jacquin-Joly, E. Advances in the identification and characterization of olfactory receptors in insects. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 130, 55–80, doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2014.11.003 (2015). · DOI
  7. Venthur, H. & Zhou, J. J. Odorant Receptors and Odorant-Binding Proteins as Insect Pest Control Targets: A Comparative Analysis. Front Physiol 9, 1163, doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01163 (2018). · DOI
  8. Miller, R. & Tu, Z. Odorant Receptor C-Terminal Motifs in Divergent Insect Species. J Insect Sci 8, doi:10.1673/031.008.5301 (2008). · DOI
  9. Stengl, M. & Funk, N. W. The role of the coreceptor Orco in insect olfactory transduction. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 199, 897–909, doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0837-3 (2013). · DOI
  10. Tsoumani, K. T., Belavilas-Trovas, A., Gregoriou, M. E. & Mathiopoulos, K. D. Anosmic flies: what Orco silencing does to olive fruit flies. BMC Genet 21, 140, doi:10.1186/s12863-020-00937-0 (2020). · DOI
  11. Del Mármol, J., Yedlin, M. A. & Ruta, V. The structural basis of odorant recognition in insect olfactory receptors. Nature 597, 126–131, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03794-8 (2021). · DOI
  12. Butterwick, J. A. et al. Cryo-EM structure of the insect olfactory receptor Orco. Nature 560, 447–452, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0420-8 (2018). · DOI
  13. Liu, Y. et al. Characterization of a specific odorant receptor for linalool in the Chinese citrus fly Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Insect Biochem Mol Biol 122, 103389, doi:10.1016/j.ibmb.2020.103389 (2020). · DOI
  14. Andersson, M. N., Löfstedt, C. & Newcomb, R. D. Insect olfaction and the evolution of receptor tuning. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3, doi:10.3389/fevo.2015.00053 (2015). · DOI
  15. Haverkamp, A., Hansson, B. S. & Knaden, M. Combinatorial Codes and Labeled Lines: How Insects Use Olfactory Cues to Find and Judge Food, Mates, and Oviposition Sites in Complex Environments. Front Physiol 9, 49, doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00049 (2018). · DOI
  16. Xu, L. et al. Two odorant receptors regulate 1-octen-3-ol induced oviposition behavior in the oriental fruit fly. Commun Biol 6, 176, doi:10.1038/s42003-023-04551-5 (2023). · DOI
  17. Pellegrino, M., Steinbach, N., Stensmyr, M. C., Hansson, B. S. & Vosshall, L. B. A natural polymorphism alters odour and DEET sensitivity in an insect odorant receptor. Nature 478, 511–514, doi:10.1038/nature10438 (2011). · DOI
  18. Nichols, A. S. & Luetje, C. W. Transmembrane segment 3 of Drosophila melanogaster odorant receptor subunit 85b contributes to ligand-receptor interactions. J Biol Chem 285, 11854–11862, doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.058321 (2010). · DOI
  19. Leary, G. P. et al. Single mutation to a sex pheromone receptor provides adaptive specificity between closely related moth species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109, 14081–14086, doi:10.1073/pnas.1204661109 (2012). · DOI
  20. Hughes, D. T., Wang, G., Zwiebel, L. J. & Luetje, C. W. A determinant of odorant specificity is located at the extracellular loop 2-transmembrane domain 4 interface of an Anopheles gambiae odorant receptor subunit. Chem Senses 39, 761–769, doi:10.1093/chemse/bju048 (2014). · DOI
  21. Rahman, S. & Luetje, C. W. Mutant cycle analysis identifies a ligand interaction site in an odorant receptor of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Journal of Biological Chemistry 292, 18916–18923, doi:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.810374 (2017). · DOI
  22. Shaw, K. H. et al. Natural variation at the Drosophila melanogaster Or22 odorant receptor locus is associated with changes in olfactory behaviour. Open Biol 11, 210158, doi:10.1098/rsob.210158 (2021). · DOI
  23. Savi, L. et al. Site-directed Mutagenesis of Key Residues Unveiled a Novel Allosteric Site on Human Adenosine Kinase for Pyrrolobenzoxa(thia)zepinone Non-Nucleoside Inhibitors. Chem Biol Drug Des 87, 112–120, doi:10.1111/cbdd.12630 (2016). · DOI
  24. Chidambara Thanu, V., Jabeen, A. & Ranganathan, S. iBio-GATS-A Semi-Automated Workflow for Structural Modelling of Insect Odorant Receptors. Int J Mol Sci 25, doi:10.3390/ijms25053055 (2024). · DOI
  25. Huan, L. et al. Invasion, expansion, and control of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 18, 771–787 (2019). · DOI
  26. Liu, H. et al. Effect of six insecticides on three populations of Bactrocera (Tetradacus) minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Curr Pharm Biotechnol 16, 77–83, doi:10.2174/138920101601150105105751 (2015). · DOI
  27. Khan, M. A. M. et al. Raspberry ketone diet supplement reduces attraction of sterile male Queensland fruit fly to cuelure by altering expression of chemoreceptor genes. Sci Rep 11, 17632, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96778-7 (2021). · DOI
  28. Manrakhan, A. et al. Effects of male lure dispensers and trap types for monitoring of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Manag Sci 77, 2219–2230, doi:10.1002/ps.6246 (2021). · DOI
  29. Drew, R., Romig, M. & Dorji, C. Records of Dacine fruit flies and new species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Bhutan. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 55, 1–21 (2007).
  30. Miyazaki, H. et al. Functional characterization of olfactory receptors in the Oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis that respond to plant volatiles. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 101, 32–46, doi:10.1016/j.ibmb.2018.07.002 (2018). · DOI
  31. Liu, H., Chen, Z. S., Zhang, D. J. & Lu, Y. Y. BdorOR88a Modulates the Responsiveness to Methyl Eugenol in Mature Males of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Front Physiol 9, 987, doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00987 (2018). · DOI
  32. Ono, H. Functional characterization of an olfactory receptor in the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, that responds to eugenol and isoeugenol. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol 258, 110696, doi:10.1016/j.cbpb.2021.110696 (2022). · DOI
  33. Liu, Y., Cui, Z., Wang, G., Zhou, Q. & Liu, Y. Cloning and Functional Characterization of Three Odorant Receptors From the Chinese Citrus fly Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Front Physiol 11, 246, doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00246 (2020). · DOI
  34. Lu, W., Hwang, J. K., Zeng, F. & Leal, W. S. DEET as a feeding deterrent. PLoS One 12, e0189243, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189243 (2017). · DOI
  35. da Silva, B. C. et al. Evaluation of Eugenol and (E)-Cinnamaldehyde Insecticidal Activity Against Larvae and Pupae of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). J Med Entomol 57, 181–186, doi:10.1093/jme/tjz121 (2020). · DOI
  36. Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF Chimera–a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 25, 1605–1612, doi:10.1002/jcc.20084 (2004). · DOI
  37. Kearse, M. et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 (2012). · DOI
  38. Abagyan, R., Totrov, M. & Kuznetsov, D. ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. Journal of computational chemistry 15, 488–506 (1994). · DOI
  39. Auer, T. O. et al. Olfactory receptor and circuit evolution promote host specialization. Nature 579, 402–408, doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2073-7 (2020). · DOI
  40. Yuvaraj, J. K. et al. Putative ligand binding sites of two functionally characterized bark beetle odorant receptors. BMC Biol 19, 16, doi:10.1186/s12915-020-00946-6 (2021). · DOI
  41. Wu, Z. et al. Candidates for chemosensory genes identified in the Chinese citrus fly, Bactrocera minax, through a transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genomics 20, 646, doi:10.1186/s12864-019-6022-5 (2019). · DOI
  42. Xu, P., Wang, Y., Akami, M. & Niu, C. Y. Identification of olfactory genes and functional analysis of BminCSP and BminOBP21 in Bactrocera minax. PLoS One 14, e0222193, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222193 (2019). · DOI
  43. Cheng, J. F. et al. Comparative genomic and transcriptomic analyses of chemosensory genes in the citrus fruit fly Bactrocera (Tetradacus) minax. Sci Rep 10, 18068, doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74803-5 (2020). · DOI
  44. Liu, Z., Smagghe, G., Lei, Z. & Wang, J. J. Identification of Male- and Female-Specific Olfaction Genes in Antennae of the Oriental Fruit Fly (Bactrocera dorsalis). PLoS One 11, e0147783, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147783 (2016). · DOI
  45. Wu, Z. et al. Discovery of Chemosensory Genes in the Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. PLoS One 10, e0129794, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129794 (2015). · DOI
  46. Jin, S., Zhou, X., Gu, F., Zhong, G. & Yi, X. Olfactory Plasticity: Variation in the Expression of Chemosensory Receptors in Bactrocera dorsalis in Different Physiological States. Front Physiol 8, 672, doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00672 (2017). · DOI
  47. Wu, Z., Cui, Y., Ma, J., Qu, M. & Lin, J. Analyses of chemosensory genes provide insight into the evolution of behavioral differences to phytochemicals in Bactrocera species. Mol Phylogenet Evol 151, 106858, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106858 (2020). · DOI
  48. Jabeen, A., Vijayram, R. & Ranganathan, S. A two-stage computational approach to predict novel ligands for a chemosensory receptor. Curr Res Struct Biol 2, 213–221, doi:10.1016/j.crstbi.2020.10.001 (2020). · DOI
  49. Jabeen, A., Vijayram, R. & Ranganathan, S. BIO-GATS: A Tool for Automated GPCR Template Selection Through a Biophysical Approach for Homology Modeling. Front Mol Biosci 8, 617176, doi:10.3389/fmolb.2021.617176 (2021). · DOI
  50. Wang, B., Liu, Y., He, K. & Wang, G. Comparison of research methods for functional characterization of insect olfactory receptors. Sci Rep 6, 32806, doi:10.1038/srep32806 (2016). · DOI
  51. Peterlin, Z. et al. The importance of odorant conformation to the binding and activation of a representative olfactory receptor. Chem Biol 15, 1317–1327, doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2008.10.014 (2008). · DOI
  52. Shi, W. et al. Role of Genes in Regulating Host Plants Expansion in Tephritid Fruit Flies (Diptera) and Potential for RNAi-Based Control. J Insect Sci 22, doi:10.1093/jisesa/ieac047 (2022). · DOI
  53. Pacalon, J. et al. Elucidation of the structural basis for ligand binding and translocation in conserved insect odorant receptor co-receptors. Nat Commun 14, 8182, doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44058-5 (2023). · DOI
  54. Starkie, M. L. et al. A comprehensive phylogeny helps clarify the evolutionary history of host breadth and lure response in the Australian Dacini fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 172, 107481, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107481 (2022). · DOI
  55. Yang, C. et al. Sex pheromone receptors of lepidopteran insects. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10, 797287 (2022). · DOI
  56. Jaffe, B. D. & Landolt, P. J. A Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Kairomonal Lure Is Marginally Effective at Decreasing Fruit Damage in Apple Trees Outside of Orchard Settings. J Econ Entomol 112, 3012–3015, doi:10.1093/jee/toz238 (2019). · DOI
  57. Wang, H.-L. et al. Insect pest management with sex pheromone precursors from engineered oilseed plants. Nature sustainability 5, 981–990 (2022). · DOI
  58. Li, F. et al. Insect genomes: progress and challenges. Insect Mol Biol 28, 739–758, doi:10.1111/imb.12599 (2019). · DOI
  59. Kim, S. et al. PubChem 2023 update. Nucleic Acids Res 51, D1373-d1380, doi:10.1093/nar/gkac956 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  60. Staritzbichler, R. et al. AlignMe: an update of the web server for alignment of membrane protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 50, W29-w35, doi:10.1093/nar/gkac391 (2022). · DOI
  61. Wagih, O. ggseqlogo: a versatile R package for drawing sequence logos. Bioinformatics 33, 3645–3647, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx469 (2017). · DOI
  62. Bailey, T. L., Johnson, J., Grant, C. E. & Noble, W. S. The MEME Suite. Nucleic Acids Res 43, W39-49, doi:10.1093/nar/gkv416 (2015). · DOI
  63. Tamura, K., Stecher, G. & Kumar, S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol Biol Evol 38, 3022–3027, doi:10.1093/molbev/msab120 (2021). · DOI
  64. Webb, B. & Sali, A. Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 54, 5.6.1–5.6.37, doi:10.1002/cpbi.3 (2016). · DOI
  65. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2022 update. Nucleic Acids Res 50, W345-w351, doi:10.1093/nar/gkac247 (2022). · DOI
  66. Xu, J. & Zhang, Y. How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5? Bioinformatics 26, 889–895, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq066 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  67. Isberg, V. et al. Generic GPCR residue numbers - aligning topology maps while minding the gaps. Trends Pharmacol Sci 36, 22–31, doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.11.001 (2015). · DOI
  68. Klauda, J. B. et al. Update of the CHARMM all-atom additive force field for lipids: validation on six lipid types. J Phys Chem B 114, 7830–7843, doi:10.1021/jp101759q (2010). · DOI
  69. Hammad, L. A., Cooper, B. S., Fisher, N. P., Montooth, K. L. & Karty, J. A. Profiling and quantification of Drosophila melanogaster lipids using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 25, 2959–2968, doi:10.1002/rcm.5187 (2011). · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Jabeen, A., Oakeshott, J., Lee, S. F., Ranganathan, S., & Taylor, P. W.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Jabeen, Amara
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-06-27
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
29084-29084
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.21203/rs.3.rs-4544670/v1
PMC
PMC11585542
OpenAlex
W4404655236
Cited by
11
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
insect odorant receptors, template-based modeling, AlphaFold3, ligand binding prediction, jumping bristletails, Bactrocera dorsalis, Bactrocera minax, fruit flies, ligand-receptor interactions, binding affinity, multiple sequence alignment, hydrophobicity, protein structure prediction, pest control targets
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Binding Sites, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Receptors, Odorant, Insect Proteins

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