Alja Lüdke, Ajayrama Kumaraswamy, C. Giovanni Galizia
{"title":"Olfactory Receptor Responses to Pure Odorants in Drosophila melanogaster","authors":"Alja Lüdke, Ajayrama Kumaraswamy, C. Giovanni Galizia","doi":"10.1111/ejn.70036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Olfactory coding relies on primary information from olfactory receptor cells that respond to volatile airborne substances. Despite extensive efforts, our understanding of odor-response profiles across receptors is still poor, because of the vast number of possible ligands (odorants), the high sensitivity even to trace compounds (creating false positive responses), and the diversity of olfactory receptors. Here, we linked chemical purification with a gas chromatograph to single-receptor type recording with transgenic flies using calcium imaging to record olfactory responses to a large panel of chemicals in seven <i>Drosophila</i> ORs: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or42b, Or47a, Or56a, and Or92a. We analyze the data using linear–nonlinear modeling and reveal that most receptors have “simple” response types (mostly positive: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or47a, and Or56a). However, two receptors (Or42b and Or92a) have, in addition to “simple” responses, “complex” response types to some ligands, either positive with a negative second phase or negative with a positive second phase, suggesting the presence of multiple binding sites and/or transduction cascades. We show that some ligands reported in the literature are false positives, because of contaminations in the stimulus. We recorded all stimuli across concentrations, showing that at different concentrations, different substances appear as best ligands. Our data show that studying combinatorial olfactory coding must consider temporal response properties and odorant concentration and, in addition, is strongly influenced by the presence of trace amounts of ligands (contaminations) in the samples. These observations have important repercussions for our thinking about how animals navigate their olfactory environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11993,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Neuroscience","volume":"61 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejn.70036","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejn.70036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Olfactory coding relies on primary information from olfactory receptor cells that respond to volatile airborne substances. Despite extensive efforts, our understanding of odor-response profiles across receptors is still poor, because of the vast number of possible ligands (odorants), the high sensitivity even to trace compounds (creating false positive responses), and the diversity of olfactory receptors. Here, we linked chemical purification with a gas chromatograph to single-receptor type recording with transgenic flies using calcium imaging to record olfactory responses to a large panel of chemicals in seven Drosophila ORs: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or42b, Or47a, Or56a, and Or92a. We analyze the data using linear–nonlinear modeling and reveal that most receptors have “simple” response types (mostly positive: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or47a, and Or56a). However, two receptors (Or42b and Or92a) have, in addition to “simple” responses, “complex” response types to some ligands, either positive with a negative second phase or negative with a positive second phase, suggesting the presence of multiple binding sites and/or transduction cascades. We show that some ligands reported in the literature are false positives, because of contaminations in the stimulus. We recorded all stimuli across concentrations, showing that at different concentrations, different substances appear as best ligands. Our data show that studying combinatorial olfactory coding must consider temporal response properties and odorant concentration and, in addition, is strongly influenced by the presence of trace amounts of ligands (contaminations) in the samples. These observations have important repercussions for our thinking about how animals navigate their olfactory environment.
期刊介绍:
EJN is the journal of FENS and supports the international neuroscientific community by publishing original high quality research articles and reviews in all fields of neuroscience. In addition, to engage with issues that are of interest to the science community, we also publish Editorials, Meetings Reports and Neuro-Opinions on topics that are of current interest in the fields of neuroscience research and training in science. We have recently established a series of ‘Profiles of Women in Neuroscience’. Our goal is to provide a vehicle for publications that further the understanding of the structure and function of the nervous system in both health and disease and to provide a vehicle to engage the neuroscience community. As the official journal of FENS, profits from the journal are re-invested in the neuroscientific community through the activities of FENS.