Abstract
The round-headed pine beetle Dendroctonus adjunctus, whose dispersion and colonization behaviors are linked to a communication system mediated by semiochemicals, is one of the five most critical primary pests in forest ecosystems in Mexico. This study provides the first head transcriptome analysis of D. adjunctus and the identification of the nonreceptor olfactory genes involved in the perception of odors. De novo assembly yielded 44,420 unigenes, and GO annotations were similar to those of antennal transcriptomes of other beetle species, which reflect metabolic processes related to smell and signal transduction. A total of 36 new transcripts of nonreceptor olfactory genes were identified, of which 27 encode OBPs, 7 encode CSPs, and 2 encode SNMP candidates, which were subsequently compared to homologous proteins from other bark beetles and Coleoptera species by searching for sequence motifs and performing phylogenetic analyses. Our study provides information on genes encoding nonreceptor proteins in D. adjunctus and broadens the knowledge of olfactory genes in Coleoptera and bark beetle species, and will help to understand colonization and aggregation behaviors for the development of tools that complement management strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In Mexico, there are five species of bark beetles classified as primary pests, and the most important in high-altitude regions is Dendroctonus adjunctus, which is considered the primary pest in pine forests above 2,800 m asl1,2. Atypical epidemic outbreaks of bark beetles have occurred in the last decade in several states of Mexico, and in the last five years, there have been intense attacks in the Sierra Madre Oriental, the Transversal Volcanic Axis, and the Sierra Madre del Sur3,4. These beetles have developed a complex communication system mediated by semiochemicals essential in host colonization and mating5,6; this system has been used as a basis for developing eco-friendly management strategies7,8. However, due to their global ecological and economic impact, there is a great challenge in generating knowledge about the physiology and molecular biology of the perception of semiochemicals and signal processing.
Antennae are the primary sensory organs of insects9,10,11; olfactory processing includes different perireceptor events12,13, where a set of receptors and nonreceptor olfactory proteins are involved. The olfactory receptors are transmembrane proteins responsible for recognizing and discriminating different semiochemicals14,15,16. This group includes odorant receptors (ORs), ionotropic receptors (IRs), and gustatory receptors (GRs) proteins. The nonreceptors involve three main types of proteins: those that solubilize and transport small hydrophobic compounds, which includes odorant-binding proteins (OBPs) and chemosensory proteins (CSPs)17; and sensory neuron membrane proteins (SNMPs) which is a family of transmembrane proteins with a role in the insect olfactory system18.
OBPs and CSPs represent a heterogeneous group of small (12–18 kDa) soluble polypeptides that have a hydrophobic binding cavity made of α-helicoidal domains folded in two different patterns19,20. OBPs form three interlocking disulfide bridges and are typically divided into five subclasses according to the number of conserved Cys residues in the primary structure. Members of the Classic subclass with six-Cys pattern include pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs) and general odorant-binding proteins (GOBPs); C-minus subclass members lack two of those Cys residues; Plus-C members have 4–6 additional Cys residues and a specific proline; and members of another classes are dimers with two conserved 6-Cys patterns, atypical 9–10 Cys residues and a long C-terminal region21. In contrast, the CSPs have a motif of four conserved Cys residues that form two interhelical disulfide bonds and, unlike OBPs, form a more homogeneous group22,23. Initially, their functions were assumed to chemoreception mechanisms because they were characterized in the antennae and oral organs24.
However, in the last decade, these proteins have been identified and characterized in nonsensory organs, suggesting other physiological functions25, such as detecting and releasing pheromones into the environment in specialized glands26,27,28, carrying nutrients29,30, and even capturing and masking toxic insecticide molecules in different parts of the body31.
SNMPs compose a subclass of insect genes homologous to the CD36 proteins; currently, two subfamilies (SNMP1 and SNMP2) have been described in different insect orders, such as Diptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, and Coleoptera32,33. SNMP1 is associated with specific olfactory pheromone neuron receptors34, while SNMP2 has been shown to be expressed in pheromone-sensitive sensory support cells35 in the legs and wings of Diptera insects36.
The study of these proteins has sharply increased in the last decade, and their size, stability, resistance to high temperature, and proteolytic digestion make them candidates for the development of different biotechnological tools and applications37,38 in agriculture, such as the design of biosensors39,40, the development of specific chemical repellents or attractants41,42 and the development of interference mechanisms in host location and mating43,44. Additionally, the olfactory recognition of insects differs according to their environment and evolutionary history, which requires further research of additional species to obtain a better understanding of the peripheral olfactory proteins involved in perireceptor events. Therefore, we assembled the transcriptome of D. adjunctus heads to identify and analyze the repertoire of genes encoding candidate nonreceptor proteins involved in odor processing because knowledge of these genes and proteins has the potential for the development and application of tools in integrated pest management based on olfactory recognition processes.
Results
Cleaning and sequence assembly
With the BGISEQ-500 platform, an average of 96,631,854 reads (3.5 GB) with a total length of 100 bp were obtained from three libraries of male and female heads of D. adjunctus with a Q20 of 98.13% and GC% of 36.89. According to the cleaned read results, the libraries had a low percentage of adapters (⁓0.081%) and lacked low-quality reads. De novo assembly resulted in 71,157 transcripts with an average length of 574 bp, an N50 length of 3,126 bp and a GC percentage of 41.2%. After sorting and redundancy filtering, the numbers were reduced to 44,420 unigenes (supplementary Table S1).
Gene ontology (GO) annotation and homology analyses
As a result of the classification of the unigenes according to the Gene Ontology terms, 31.25% of the 44,420 transcripts were classified into the three GO categories and divided into 57 functional groups (Fig. 1). Annotations associated with molecular function (MF) were the most abundant (44.66%).
The main subcategories represented in the MF category (greater than 90%) (Fig. 1c) were binding (53.2%) and catalytic activity (40.5%). In the first case, the most representative functions were binding to cyclic-heterocyclic organic compounds, ion binding, and protein binding, while hydrolase activity was one of the most abundant catalytic activities (Fig. 1d). The categories of biological processes (BPs) and cellular components (CCs) constituted 34.03% and 21.03%, respectively. For BPs (Fig. 1b), the most abundant subcategories were related to molecular (41%) and metabolic processes (44%), while among the CCs (Fig. 1a), the subcategory with most annotated transcripts was cellular parts (22%).
According to a BLASTx homology analysis, a total of 16,290 unigenes were mapped against the Insecta UniProtKB database, with an E-value of 1.0e−5, of which 57.14% had matches with very high-quality values below 1.0e−45 (Fig. 2a), and 42.86% ranged from 1.0e−45 to 1.0e−5. Based on the distribution of the percentages of similarity, most of the matches had values greater than 90%; moreover, with respect to the distribution of species with similarity (Fig. 2b), more than three-quarters of the unigenes matched with those of Coleoptera species, and more than 50% displayed similarity with the genes of D. ponderosae (Fig. 2c), which is a closely related species belonging to the same subfamily (Curculionidae: Scolytinae).
Odorant-binding proteins
We identified a total of 27 transcripts encoding OBPs, of which 24 had a complete open reading frame (ORF), encoding proteins with lengths ranging from 110 to 390 residues, and for all sequences, we recorded peptides with a predicted signal, except for DadjOBP15. All DadjOBPs had homologs with odorant-binding proteins of other Coleoptera species, and 21 sequences had high identities with those of Scolytinae, of which 19 had similarity values > 80% with those of D. ponderosae (supplementary Table S2).
Except for DadjOBP3, DadjOBP9 and DadjOBP31, all sequences were functionally annotated by searching for domains within the superfamily of insect pheromones/odorant-binding proteins (supplementary Table S3). The DadjOBPs were divided into three subclasses (supplementary Fig. S1–S3), of which 15 were classified into the classic type with the general Cys motif reported for Coleoptera (C1-X23-44-C2-X3-C3-X36-43-C4-X8-12-C5-X8-C6), 10 DadjOBPs were in the minus-C subclass, with the absence of cysteines C2 and C5, and only DadjOBP2 was classified as plus-C, with pattern similar to that of the classic type but with seven additional cysteines and one conserved proline at the C-terminus.
For the analysis of sequence motifs by MEME-suite 5.1.1, the DadjOBP sequences were separated into three sets according to their subfamily and grouped with homologous proteins of Scolytinae and Tribolium castaneum. For classic OBPs, we analyzed a total of 72 proteins that contained eight motifs (Fig. 3a) and that were grouped into seven distinct patterns (1c-7c). Motif 1 was presented in 100% of the proteins, while motifs 2, 3 and 5 were present in 94% of the sequences. Motifs 1, 2 and 3 correspond to three of the characteristic features of classic OBPs, in which conserved residues of cysteine (Cys) form the three disulfide bridges essential to the OBP structure. On the other hand, pattern 3c was present in 39% of proteins and included the four motifs conserved in more than 90% of classic OBPs. Patterns 5c, 6c and 7c were present in only 22 proteins and are the unique patterns that had motifs 6, 7 and 8, which have highly conserved residues among the sequences.
For the minus-C motif analysis, we used a total of 51 proteins. All the sequences presented eight motifs grouped in seven different motif patterns; motifs 3, 1, and 2 were conserved in all OBPs, and motif 6 was conserved in 90.2% of the sequences (Fig. 3b). Motifs 3 and 2 represent C2 and C4 of the general Cys profile conserved in the minus-C subclass, while motifs 5 and 4 have two Cys residues with invariable positions corresponding to C1 and C3, respectively. The most frequent motif patterns, with 60% of the sequences being 2 m and 4 m, share motifs 6-3-1-2, but the 4 m pattern has two additional motifs (5 and 4). Finally, for the plus-C subclass analysis with only four sequences of Scolytinae OBPs, we identified eight sequence motifs grouped in two patterns (Fig. 3c). Pattern 1p, which presents all the described motifs, was identified for both DadjOBP2 and DponOBP2 (2), while ItypOBP2, with the 2p pattern, lacks motifs 8 and 7 of the N-terminus.
To understand the evolutionary relationship of the DadjOBPs with other proteins homologous to those of bark beetles and T. castaneum, we constructed a phylogenetic tree via Bayesian inference and included the results of the motif analysis obtained for the OBP subclasses (Fig. 4). In the phylogenetic tree, we observed the division of proteins according to the Cys profiles conserved in the three subclasses of OBPs with posterior probabilities of mostly > 95%. The classic OBPs were the most representative group, whose motif patterns 1c, 2c, 3c and 4c were the most abundant and present motifs with the main characteristics of the structural importance of this subclass. Patterns 5c, 6c and 7c clustered within an internal clade, and only these patterns contained additional motifs with highly conserved residues (6, 8 and 7).
The minus-C and plus-C OBPs grouped into two different clades related to the classic subclass and present patterns with a relatively high degree of conserved motifs in the same positions of the protein sequences (Fig. 4). The minus-C OBPs with patterns 3 m, 6 m and 7 m were grouped at the base of the phylogenetic tree, which, in contrast to the more frequent patterns, presented two additional motifs (7 and 8) and a variation in the position of motif 5. Finally, four Scolytinae OBPs grouped in the plus-C clade, where Dendroctonus species had the same pattern of motifs and had an amino acid identity > 90%.
Chemosensory proteins
In the D. adjunctus head transcriptome, we identified seven transcripts for CSP with full ORFs that encode proteins whose length ranges from 116 to 296 residues. All CSPs had homologs with chemosensory proteins of D. ponderosae, with identities > 80% (supplementary Table S2), and were functionally annotated by searching for domains within the insect chemosensory and odorant-binding protein superfamily A10/Ejaculate Bulb Specific Protein 3 (supplementary Table S3).
The DadjCSPs sequence had four conserved cysteines with a general pattern C1-X6-C2-X18-C3-X2-C4. A sequence motif analysis was performed with a set of 55 proteins that included CSPs from four species of Scolytinae and T. castaneum. We identified a total of eight motifs grouped into five different patterns, where motifs 1, 5 and 2 were present in 100% of the sequences; these correspond to the characteristic motifs of CSPs (Fig. 5). Motif pattern 5 was present in 65% of the CSPs and was composed of eight motifs, while the other patterns varied in their number of motifs but not in position.
Using Bayesian inference, we performed a phylogenetic analysis of DadjCSPs with homologous proteins from four Scolytinae species and T. castaneum, and the patterns from the motif analysis were incorporated into the tree construction. The phylogenetic tree had posterior probabilities that were mostly > 95%, and the DadjCSPs were dispersed among the different branches of the tree; they were closely related to the CSPs of D. ponderosae and D. armandi (Fig. 6). On the other hand, motif patterns 3, 4 and 5 were distributed among the branches within the same clade, and most of the patterns had the eight motifs described, while proteins with patterns 1 and 2, which lack motifs 4, 6 and 8 (except DvalCSP6), were in an external clade grouped into two clusters.
Sensory neuron membrane proteins
We identified two transcripts for SNMPs with full ORFs in the head transcriptome of D. adjunctus, and for both proteins, two transmembrane helices were predicted in both the N- and C-terminal regions, with a long extracellular loop. Both DadjSNMPs were homologous to SNMP1a and SNMP of D. ponderosae, with an E-value of 0 and an identity > 90% (supplementary Table S2), and were functionally annotated by searching for domains within the CD36 superfamily (supplementary Table S3).
For motif analysis and phylogenetic tree reconstruction, we used a set of 24 sequences, which included DadjSNMPs and orthologs from six Coleoptera species and Anopheles gambiae (supplementary Table S4). We found four motifs that were present in 100% of the SNMPs, distributed in a 2-4-3-1 pattern (Fig. 7). These motifs correspond to four regions within the extracellular loop, of which the residues are conserved in more than 80% of the sequences. Motifs 2, 4, and 3 include the two domains that have relatively high sequence conservation in the ectodomain region. Finally, the phylogenetic tree was divided into two subclades, which grouped the SMP1 and SNMP2 subfamilies (Fig. 8). The two DadjSNMPs were clustered in the SNMP1 subclass related to D. ponderosae proteins with posterior probabilities of 100%.
Discussion
This study represents the first analysis of the head transcriptome of D. adjunctus collected in infested trees during their higher incidence period and the identification of olfactory genes encoding nonreceptor proteins. Out of a total of 44,420 unigenes identified, 31.25% were annotated in the three categories of GO terms, and the most abundant functional groups showed a similar frequency in terms of molecular function, binding and catalytic activity, which is similar findings of olfactory processes and functions reported in the antennal transcriptome of other beetle species45,46,47,48,49,50,51, this indicates that it is possible to obtain similar information when including all the head, and reduces the number of individuals required to perform RNA-seq, in this study 120 heads were used, while in other works, the average number for the antenna processing are 1,500 bark beetles. On the other hand, considering that nonmodel organisms generally have limited genomic or transcriptomic datasets52, the low percentage of annotated genes may be due to a large number of genes that are not homologous to those with GO terms, indicating high levels of unknown processes in this tissue.
Of the total number of translated genes, 57.14% had a significant similarity with those in the UniProtKB Insecta database, and more than 50% of the transcripts were related to D. ponderosae, whose genome has been completely sequenced53. In this research, we identified thirty-six nonreceptor olfactive genes from the head transcriptome of D. adjunctus by homology, which is greater than that reported in the antennal transcriptome of D. valens (32) and I. typographus (24) but lower that that reported for D. ponderosae (45) and T. castaneum (73). It has been suggested that differences in the number of chemosensory genes among related insect species may be due to physiological and behavioral adaptations in specific environments that can lead to the gain or loss of functional genes54,55,56. However, the expression of members of these multigenic families has been reported in nonsensory structures. To obtain the total number of nonreceptor genes, it is necessary to explore other sensory organ tissues at different stages of development.
Insect OBPs are a multigenic family that includes different members with distinct characteristics57. In the transcriptome of D. adjunctus, a total of 27 OBPs were identified and classified into the classic (16), minus-c (10) and plus-c (1) subclasses. To perform de novo motif analysis, DadjOBPs and orthologous protein sequences were divided into the identified subgroups, which then allowed us to obtain results with higher statistical significance and biological sense. The motif patterns exhibited the main characteristics of the three subclasses of OBPs, in addition to highly conserved residues in all OBPs.
Phylogenetic analysis showed a division of the DadjOBPs and OBPs of five species of Coleoptera according to the subfamily to which they belong. Although OBPs are a highly divergent group, the tree branches include different taxa that delimit groups with high similarity in sequences and those with the same motif patterns, suggesting the occurrence of functional differences; moreover, this could be a clue for the characterization of these proteins. Most of the DadjOBPs identified exhibit characteristics of the classic subfamily, which appear to play a relatively general role in the transport of odorants and sex pheromones58.
In the motif pattern analysis, we found classic OBP (DadjOBP21 and DadjOBPJ75) sequences with characteristics reported in PBPs and GOBPs in Diptera and Lepidoptera, which had motifs conserved between C3–C5 and an additional motif in the N-terminal region (patterns 6C and 7C)59,60,61,62. PBP and GOBP groups in Lepidoptera have shown high specificity for host volatiles and pheromones, and similar proteins have been reported in Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Coleoptera. However, they have not been identified in any bark beetle transcriptome, even though semiochemicals influence the population dynamics of Dendroctonus species14,63,64. In this sense, the results of the phylogenetic reconstruction, in which OBPs with these patterns clustered with proteins from other Coleoptera species that have been classified in a specific PBP/GOBP lineage49, suggest the presence of this subgroup of OBPs, so they could be candidates for structural and docking studies with homology models65,66,67,68.
The identification of D. adjunctus OBPs, with characteristics of members of the minus-C and plus-C subfamilies, was supported by the results of the phylogenetic analysis. The minus-C DadjOBPs clustered in an internal clade related to the classic and plus-C OBPs. It has been suggested that this distribution shows evolutionary patterns on both short (same genus) and long-term scales (between insect species) and indicates a rapid evolutionary divergence of the three subfamilies24. On the other hand, the distribution of minus-C OBPs within the phylogenetic tree may coincide with the hypothesis that minus-C OBPs could be ancestral proteins, and the driving force in the evolution of OBPs is oriented to the introduction of major complexity, which is associated with the number of disulfide bridges69,70.
For the plus-C subclass, we identified only one protein (DadjOBP2) that had an identity greater than 90% with DponOBP2a/DponOBP2b and the same motif pattern. Although there is a high identity among closely related species, a high variability of plus-C members among insects has been reported67, which coincides with the low similarity (< 45%) between DadjOBP2/DponOBP2 with their homologs in I. typographus and the lack of two motifs in the N-terminus. However, information on the binding affinities of the minus-C and plus-C subfamilies is limited, and members of these families have been reported not only in antennae and labial and maxillary palps but also in nonsensory structures72,73,74,75,76; therefore, additional research is needed on the structure and physiological function of nonclassic OBPs.
CSPs compose a family of soluble proteins that have functions similar to those of OBPs in the recognition and transport of exogenous hydrophobic molecules19. We identified seven CSPs for D. adjunctus, and compared to OBPs, the members of this family present a smaller divergence in the sequences of the different Coleoptera species74. Although the CSPs presented less than 40% sequence identify, all the sequences encoded motifs that represent the four conserved cysteine profiles, and more than 50% of the CSPs have the same motif pattern. In addition, the clusters in the phylogenetic tree had similar motif patterns, indicating an origin from a speciation process, whose variation is the result of diversification of amino acid sequences74. DadjCSPs were dispersed among different branches of the phylogenetic tree, grouped with CSPs of D. ponderosae and D. armandi, which have been reported with specific expression patterns in antenna and mouth tissues66.
SNMPs are OSN membrane proteins that are associated with chemosensory neurons in insects and are classified into two subgroups: SNMP1 and SNMP232. In this study, only two proteins homologous to SNMP1a and SNMP of D. ponderosae were identified in the transcriptome of D. adjunctus. The phylogenetic tree was divided into both subgroups, and the DadjSNMPs clustered in the SNMP1 subclade. This division has been reported for SNMPs of different species of insects36,75. Some authors have suggested that the SNMP family originated through duplication events, which contributed to the formation of both subgroups that have diverged over a long period of evolution33. This idea is consistent with the low similarity that was observed between the SNMP1 and SNMP2 subfamilies. However, both subgroups exhibited patterns of four conserved motifs, representing the characteristic regions of this family, and the similarity between homologous proteins within each subgroup may suggest a negative selection in their primary structure75.
Several studies18,76,77,78 have demonstrated the exclusive or primary expression of SNMP1 in insect antennae and support the model that this protein may be involved in the detection of pheromones and host volatiles. The identification of only two members of the SNMP1 subgroup in the head transcriptome of D. adjunctus collected from freshly infested trees and their homology to SNMP1 expressed in the antennae of D. ponderosae, D. valens and I. typographus suggest similar functions involved in bark beetle host searching behavior. Additionally, different studies have shown that SNMP2 is expressed in different parts of the body33,36,77,78,79, which supports the hypothesis that the presence of SNMP2 is not limited to the antennae and that it may be involved in different physiological processes, such as taste and tactile sensation.
The nonreceptor olfactory genes identified in the head transcriptome of D. adjunctus and the analysis of these genes with those of other species of Scolytinae and Coleoptera increase the amount of information on the molecular basis of the olfactory system in bark beetles. The inclusion of a comparative analysis of sequence motifs of OBPs, CSPs, and SNMPs provides clear information on the distinct characteristics of each family and their subclasses. These results support the classification of OBPs and CSPs based on the number of conserved cysteine residues in the primary sequence and could be applied as a reference for the naming and grouping of the nonreceptor genes.
The integration of motif patterns into phylogenetic trees allowing not only an improved understanding of the evolutionary process but also the conservation of motif patterns between nonreceptor protein families of different Scolytinae and Coleoptera species may suggest distinct regions with functional or structural importance. As the biological importance of a region in a protein increases in evolution, the evolutionary pressure on the region becomes higher, making it more invariable or conserved80. Finally, the relation of DadjCSPs and DadjSNMPs with homologs involved in host volatile and pheromone detection provides a useful resource for future research on different Dendroctonus species.
Materials and methods
Insect collection
Mature adults of D. adjunctus were collected manually under the bark of three recently infested pine trees (Pinus oocarpa Schiede ex Schltd.) in their major dispersal and colonization period, at the end of October 2018 in Military Zone 31 Rancho Nuevo, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. To keep the RNA intact, the beetles were preserved in microtubes with 80 µl of RNAlater Storage Solution (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The tubes were then incubated overnight at − 4 °C and remained at − 20 °C until processing.
Total RNA extraction, construction of cDNA libraries and BGI sequencing
The species of the collected bark beetles were verified with taxonomic keys81 and sexed according to their genitalia. The heads were removed and separated by sex, and all samples were stored at − 20 °C in RNAlater. Total RNA extraction was performed for three pools of 40 heads (20 females and 20 males) via an SV Total RNA Isolation System (Promega) according to the manufacturer's instructions, after which the quality and concentration of RNA were checked via a NanoDrop 2000 instrument. Construction of the three cDNA libraries and sequencing via the BGISEQ-500 platform were performed at BGI, Hong Kong, China.
Cleaning and de novo assembly
The quality of the three libraries was verified with FastQC v0.10, and the cleaning of adapters and low-quality readings was performed with FastP. Assembly of the three libraries was carried out with Trinity v2.0.6, with the default value of kmer = 25, and the quality of the complete assembly was verified with rnaQUAST v.0.3.08. The total number of contigs generated with Trinity, the N50 length, average length, and percentage of GC were recorded, and the redundancies were eliminated to obtain the final number of unigenes.
Gene ontology (GO) and homology analysis
The mapping routine of HMMER2GO v0.17.9 was used against a customized HMM Pfam database to obtain information on the molecular functions, cellular components, and biological processes associated with the unigenes, and the results were visualized in WEGO 2.0. Homology analysis was performed with BLASTx against a dataset that was constructed from the Insecta UniProtKB database, with an E-value of 1e−6. The results were imported into Blast2GO to obtain the distribution of the species, the E-value and the percentage of similarity found among the hits, and unigenes whose description corresponded to the genes of nonreceptor proteins involved in the reception of odors were filtered and removed.
Classification of nonreceptor proteins and functional analysis
The longest ORF and the probable coding regions for OBPs, CSPs, and SNMPs were predicted with Transdecoder (https://github.com/TransDecoder/TransDecoder), with a minimum length of 100, and as a criterion for the retention of reading frames, a homology test was included in order to maximize sensitivity and obtain functionally significant ORFs. Predicted ORFs for nonreceptor proteins were used for functional annotation from domain searches in the PFAM, SUPERFAMILY, CATH-Gene3D, and PANTHER databases.
The predicted ORFs for OBPs, CSPs and SNMPs were used for pattern analysis and functional motif discovery. The sequences of the OBP and CSP families of D. adjunctus were compared with the orthologous sequences of four species of Scolytinae and the model beetle T. castaneum, while D. adjunctus SNMPs were grouped with their homologous proteins of D. ponderosae, I. typographus, T. castaneum, Chrysomela lapponica Linnaeus, Galeruca daurica Joannis, Anomala corpulenta Motschulsky, Holotrichia parallela Motschulsky and Anoplophora gambiae Giles. The protein classification was performed based on CLUSTAL O alignments, with the default parameters of penalty for gaps, and under the conserved cysteine profiles.
Sequence motif analysis was performed via MEME 3.5.7882. The parameters assigned for the OBPs and CSPs were as follows: minimum width = 6, maximum = 10, the maximum number of motifs to be found = 8. For SNMPs, there parameters were as follows: minimum = 40 maximum = 95 and number of motifs = 10. In all three cases, motifs with p < 0.0001 were selected. Furthermore, the candidate OBPs and CSPs were searched for the presence of signal peptides using SignalP 4.0 (https://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SignalP/), and the transmembrane domains of the candidate SNMPs were predicted using TMHMM v3.0 (https://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM/).
Phylogenetic analysis
For the phylogenetic tree reconstruction, we used the sets of the predicted protein sequences of DadjOBPs, DadjCSPs and DadjSNMPs together with orthologs of Scolytinae and Coleoptera species that were independently analyzed (supplementary Table S4). The sequences were aligned using the CLUSTAL O algorithm, and the best protein evolutionary model was searched in ModelTest-NG with the AIC and BIC. The phylogenetic tree was reconstructed with Bayesian inference using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method by the program BEAST v1.10.4 in conjunction with a WAG83 starter model and 4,000,000 generations, and the diagnosis of the MCM output was observed in Tracer. For the annotation, 30% of the trees were generated, initial probabilities were discarded, and the subsequent probability was determined for the remaining trees. The consensus trees were visualized and edited in iTOL. Last, the sequences of D. adjunctus were submitted to the NCBI database to obtain the access numbers for DadjOBPs (MT604218-MT604241), DadjCSPs (MT520150-MT520156) and DadjSNMPs (MT604216 y MT604217). Vouchers specimens CEAM-0051 “Colección Entomológica del Colegio de Postgraduados”.
References
Salinas-Moreno, Y. et al. Areography of the genus Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Mexico. J. Biogeogr. 31, 1163–1177 (2004).
Salinas-Moreno, Y., Ager, A., Vargas, C. F., Hayes, J. L. & Zúñiga, G. Determining the vulnerability of Mexican pine forest to bark beetles of the genus Dendroctonus Erichson (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Forest Ecol. Manag. 260, 52–61 (2010).
FAO. 2009. The impacts of climate change on forest health. Preprint at https://www.fao.org/3/a-k3837s.pdf (2016).
Cervantes-Martínez, R. et al. Historical bark beetle outbreaks in Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras (1895–2015) and their relationship with droughts. Rev. Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente. 25, 269–290 (2019).
Byers, J. Chemical ecology of bark beetles in a complex olfactory landscape. in Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis (eds. Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J. C. & Evans H. F.) 89–134 (Springer, 2007).
Raffa, K. F., Andersson M. N. & Schlyter, F. Host selection by bark beetles: playing the odds in a high-stakes game. in Advances in insect physiology, pine bark beetles (eds. Tittiger, C. & Bloquist, G. J.) 1–74 (Oxford, 2016).
Bakke, A. Using pheromones in the management of bark beetle outbreaks. In Forest insects guild: patterns of interaction with host trees. (eds. Baranchikov, Y. N., Mattson, W. J., Hain, F. P. & Payne, T. L.) 371–377 (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1991).
Galko, J. et al. Effectiveness of pheromone traps for the European spruce bark beetle: a comparative study of four commercial products and two new models. Lesn. Cas. For. J. 62, 207–215 (2016).
Suwannapong, C. & Benbow, M. E. Sources of insect odors: pheromone glands and odor production. in The biology of odors: sources, olfaction and response. (eds. Logan, E. W. & Atwood, J. M.) 153–184 (Nova Science Publishers, 2011).
Hansson, S. B. & Stensmyr, M. C. Evolution of insect olfaction. Neuron 72, 698–711 (2011).
Sachse, S. & Krieger, J. Olfaction in insects: the primary processes of odor recognition and coding. E-Neuroforum. 2, 49–60 (2011).
Leal, W. S. Pheromone reception. Top. Curr. Chem. 240, 1–36 (2005).
Pelosi, P., Zhou, J.-J., Ban, L. P. & Calvello, M. Soluble proteins in insect chemical communication. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 63, 1658–1676 (2006).
Leal, W. S. Odorant Reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 58, 373–391 (2013).
Gómez-Díaz, C., Martín, F., García-Fernandez, J. M. & Alcorta, E. The two main olfactory receptor families in Drosophila, ORs and IRs: a comparative approach. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 12, 253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2018.00253 (2018).
Depetris-Chauvin, A., Galagovsky, D. & Grosjean, Y. Chemicals and chemoreceptors: ecologically relevant signals driving behavior in Drosophila. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00041 (2015).
Pelosi, P., Iovinella, I., Felicioli, A. & Dani, F. R. Soluble proteins of chemical communication: an overview across arthropods. Frontiers in Physiology. 5, 1–13 (2014).
Benton, R., Vannice, K. S. & Vosshall, L. B. An essential role for a CD36-related receptor in pheromone detection in Drosophila. Nature 450, 289–295 (2007).
Pelosi, P., Calvello, M. & Ban. L. Diversity of odorant-binding proteins and chemosensory proteins in insects. Chem. Senses. 30, 291–292 (2005).
Tegoni, M., Campanacci, V. & Cambillau, C. Structural aspects of sexual attraction and chemical communication in insects. Trends Biochem Sci. 29, 257–264 (2004).
Zhou, J.-J. Odorant-binding proteins in insects. Pheromones. 83, 241–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0083-6729(10)83010-9 (2010).
Sánchez-Gracia, A., Vieira, G. F. & Rozas, J. Molecular evolution of the major chemosensory gene families in insects. Heredity 103, 208–216 (2009).
Kulmuni, J. & Havukainen, H. Insights into the evolution of the CSP gene family through the integration of evolutionary analysis and comparative protein modeling. PLoS ONE 8, e63688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063688 (2013).
Pelosi, P., Iovinella, I., Zhu, J., Wang, G. & Dani, F. R. Beyond chemoreception: diverse tasks of soluble olfactory proteins in insects. Biol. Rev. 93, 184–200 (2018).
Dani, F. R. et al. Odorant-binding proteins and chemosensory proteins in pheromone detection and release in the silkmoth Bombyx mori. Chem. Senses 36, 335–344 (2011).
Gu, S.-H. et al. Identification of genes expressed in the sex pheromone gland of the black cutworm Agrotis ipsilon with putative roles in sex pheromone biosynthesis and transport. BMC Genomics. 14, 636 (2013).
Zhang, Y.-N. et al. Identification and expression profiles of sex pheromone biosynthesis and transport related genes in Spodoptera litura. PLoS ONE 10, e0140019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140019 (2015).
Nagnan-Le, M. P. et al. Chemosensory proteins from the proboscis of Mamestra brassicae. Chem. Senses 25, 541–553 (2000).
Zhu, J. et al. Conserved chemosensory proteins in the proboscis and eyes of Lepidoptera. International Journal of Biological Sciences. 11, 1394–1404 (2016).
Liu, G. et al. Biotype characterization, developmental profiling, insecticide response and binding property of Bemisia tabaci chemosensory proteins: role of CSP in insect defense. PLoS ONE 11, e0154706. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154706 (2016).
Bautista, M. A. et al. Evidence for trade-offs in detoxification and chemosensation gene signatures in Plutella xylostella. Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 423–432 (2015).
Vogt, R. G. et al. The insect SNMP gene family. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 39, 448–456 (2009).
Jiang, X., Pregitzer, P., Grosse-Wilde, E., Breer, H. & Krieger, J. Identification and characterization of two “sensory neuron membrane proteins” (SNMPs) of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J. Insect Sci. 16, 1–10 (2016).
Zhang, G., Chen, F. J., Wang, L. G. & Zhang, J. Characterization and levels of expression of sensory neuron membrane proteins in the adult citrus fuit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Insect Sci. 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iey117 (2018).
Jin, X., Ha, T. S. & Smith, D. P. SNMP is a signaling component required for pheromone sensitivity in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10996–11001 (2018).
Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Walker, W. B., Dong, S.-L. & Wang, G.-R. Identification and localization of two sensory neuron membrane proteins from Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Sci. 22, 399–408 (2015).
Zhou, J.-J., Field, L. M. & Li, X. Insect odorant-binding proteins: do they offer an alternative pest control strategy?. Outlooks Pest Manag. 21, 31–34 (2010).
Venthur, H. & Zhou, J.-J. Odorant receptors and odorant-binding proteins as insect pest control targets: a comparative analysis. Chemosensory Targets for Insect Control. 9, 1–16 (2018).
Lu, Y. et al. Olfactory biosensor for insect semiochemicals analysis by impedance sensing of odorant-binding proteins on interdigitated electrodes. Biosens. Bioelectron. 67, 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2014.09.098 (2014).
Yi, X. et al. Ligands binding and molecular simulation: the potential investigation of a biosensor based on an insect odorant binding protein. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 11, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.9872 (2015).
Plettner, E. Insect pheromone olfaction: new targets for the design of species-selective pest control agents. Curr. Med. Chem. 9, 1075–1085 (2002).
Devillers, J. In Computational design of chemicals for the control of mosquitoes and their diseases (ed. Devillers, J.) 25–468 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018).
Pelletier, J., Guidolin, A., Syed, Z., Cornel, A. J. & Leal, W. S. Knockdown of a mosquito odorant-binding protein involved in the sensitive detection of oviposition attractants. J. Chem. Ecol. 36, 245–248 (2010).
Antony, B., Johny, J. & Aldosari, S. A. Silencing the odorant binding protein RferOBP1768 reduces the strong preference of palm weevil for the major aggregation pheromone compound ferrugineol. Front. Physiol. 9, 252. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00252 (2018).
Andersson, N. M. et al. Antennal transcriptome analysis of the chemosensory gene families in the tree killing bark beetles, Ips typographus and Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). BMC Genomics 14, 198 (2013).
Gu, X.-C., Zhang, Y.-N., Kang, K., Dong, S.-L. & Zhang, L.-W. Antennal transcriptome analysis of odorant reception genes in the red turpentine beetle (RTB) Dendroctonus valens. PLoS ONE 10, e0125159. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125159 (2015).
Zhu, J.-Y., Zhao, N. & Yang, B. Global transcriptome profiling of the pine shoot beetle Tomicus yunnanensis (Coleoptera: Scolytinae). PLoS ONE 7, e32291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032291 (2012).
Yi, J.-K. et al. Identification of candidate chemosensory receptors in the antennal transcriptome of the large black chafer Holotrichia parallela Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 28, 63–71 (2018).
Hu, P., Wang, J., Cui, M., Tao, J. & Luo, Y. Antennal transcriptome analysis of the asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Sci. Rep. 6, 26652. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26652 (2016).
Chen, H., Lin, L., Xie, M., Zhang, G. & Su, W. D. novo sequencing, assembly and characterization of antennal transcriptome of Anomala corpulenta Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Rutelidae). PLoS ONE 9, e114238. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114238 (2014).
Dippel, S. et al. Tissue-specific transcriptomics, chromosomal localization, and phylogeny of chemosensory and odorant binding proteins from the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum reveal subgroup specificities for olfaction or more general functions. BMC Genomic 15, 1141 (2014).
Oppenheim, J. S., Baker, H. R., Simon, S. & DeSalle, R. We can’t all be supermodels: the value of comparative transcriptomics to the study of non-model insects. Insect Mol. Biol. 24, 139–215 (2015).
Keeling, C. et al. Draft genome of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins a major forest pest. Genome Biol. 14, R27. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-3-r27 (2013).
Goldman-Huertas, B. et al. Evolution of herbivory in Drosophilidae linked to loss of behaviors, antennal responses, odorant receptors, and ancestral diet. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3026–3031. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424656112 (2015).
Zhou, X. et al. Phylogenetic and transcriptomic analysis of chemosensory receptors in a pair of divergent ant species reveals sex-specific signatures of odor coding. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002930 (2012).
Lavagnino, N., Serra, F., Arbiza, L., Dopazo, H. & Hasson, E. Evolutionary genomics of genes involved in olfactory behavior in the Drosophila melanogaster species group. Evol Bioinform. 8, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S8484 (2012).
Fan, J., Francis, F., Lim, Y., Chen, J. L. & Cheng, D. F. An overview of odorant-binding protein functions in insect peripheral olfactory reception. Genet. Mol. Res. 10, 3056–3069 (2011).
Zhou, J.-J. Odorant-binding proteins in insects. In Vitamins and hormones (ed. Litwack, G.) (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2010).
Gu, S.-H. et al. Identification and comparative expression analysis of odorant binding protein genes in the tobacco cutworm Spodoptera litura. Sci. Rep. 5, 13800. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13800 (2015).
Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., Kong, X., Wang, H. & Liu, F. Dynamic changes in chemosensory gene expression during the Dendrolimus punctatus mating process. Front. Physiol. 8, 1127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01127 (2018).
Wang, Y., Chen, Q., Zhao, H. & Ren, B. Identification and comparison of candidate olfactory genes in the olfactory and non-olfactory organs of elm pest Ambrostoma quadriimpressum (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) based on transcriptome analysis. PLoS ONE 11, e0147144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.Pone.0147144 (2016).
Xu, Y.-L. et al. Large-scale identification of odorant-binding proteins and chemosensory proteins from expressed sequence tags in insects. BMC Genomics 10, 632 (2009).
Vogt, R. G. & Riddiford, L. M. Pheromone binding and inactivation by moth antennae. Nature 293, 161–163 (1981).
Nikonov, A. A., Peng, G., Tsurupa, G. & Leal, W. S. Unisex pheromone detectors and pheromone-binding proteins in Scarab beetles. Chem. Senses 27, 495–504 (2002).
Oliveira, D. S. et al. Functional characterization of odorant binding protein 27 (RproOBP27) from Rhodnius prolixus antennae. Front. Physiol. 9, 1175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01175 (2018).
Li, Z. et al. Identification, expression patterns, and functional characterization of chemosensory proteins in Dendroctonus armandi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Front. Physiol. 9, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00291 (2018).
Langeswaran, K., Jeyaraman, J., Mariadasse, R. & Soorangkattan, S. Insights from the molecular modeling, docking analysis of illicit drugs and bomb compounds with honey bee odorant binding proteins (OBPs). Bioinformation 14, 219–231 (2018).
Jayanthi, K. P. et al. Computational reverse chemical ecology: virtual screening and predicting behaviorally active semiochemicals for Bactrocera dorsalis. BMC Genomics 15, 209. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-209 (2014).
Vieira, F. G. & Rozas, J. Comparative genomics of the odorant-binding and chemosensory protein gene families across the Arthropoda: origin and evolutionary history of the chemosensory system. Genome Biol. Evol. 3, 476–490 (2011).
Li, Z.-Q. et al. Two minus-C odorant binding proteins from Helicoverpa armigera display higher ligand binding affinity at acidic pH than neutral pH. J. Insect Physiol. 59, 263–272 (2013).
Spinelli, S. et al. Crystal structure of Apis mellifera OBP14, a C-minus odorant-binding protein, and its complexes with odorant molecules. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 42, 41–50 (2012).
Zheng, Z.-C. et al. Predicted structure of a minus-C OBP from Batocera horsfieldi (Hope) suggests an intermediate structure in evolution of OBPs. Sci. Rep. 6, 33981. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33981 (2016).
Li, Z.-Q., He, P., Zhang, Y.-N. & Dong, S.-L. Molecular and functional characterization of three odorant-binding protein from Periplaneta americana. PLoS ONE 12, e0170072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170072 (2017).
Li, D.-Z. et al. Structure-Based analysis of the ligand-binding mechanism for DhelOBP21, a c-minus odorant binding protein, from Dastarcus helophoroides Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Bothrideridae). Int. J. Biol. Sci. 11, 1281–1295 (2015).
Zhou, J.-J., Huangb, W., Zhang, G.-A., Picketta, J. A. & Fielda, L. M. ‘Plus-C’’ odorant binding protein genes in two Drosophila species and the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Gene 327, 117–212 (2004).
Song, Y.-Q., Sun, H.-Z. & Du, J. Identification and tissue distribution of chemosensory protein and odorant binding protein genes in Tropidothorax elegans Distant(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Sci. Rep. 8, 7803. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26137-6 (2018).
Mei, T., Fu, W.-B., Li, B., He, Z.-B. & Chen, B. Comparative genomics of chemosensory protein genes (CSPs) in twenty-two mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae): Identification, characterization and evolution. PLoS ONE 13, e0190412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190412 (2018).
Nichols, Z. & Vogt, R. G. The SNMP/CD36 gene family in Diptera, Hymenoptera and Coleoptera: Drosophila melanogaster, D. pseudoobscura, Anopheles gambiae, Aedes aegypti, Apis mellifera, and Tribolium castaneum. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 38, 398–415 (2008).
Forstner, M. et al. Differential expression of SNMP-1 and SNMP-2 proteins in pheromone-sensitive hairs of moths. Chem. Senses 33, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjm087 (2008).
Gu, S.-H. et al. Molecular identification and differential ex- pression of sensory neuron membrane proteins in the antennae of the black cutworm moth Agrotis ipsilon. J. Insect Physiol. 59, 430–443 (2013).
Wu, Z. et al. Candidates for chemosensory genes identified in the Chinese citrus fly, Bactrocera minax, through a transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genomics 20, 646. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6022-5 (2019).
Liu, C., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Wang, G. & Dong, S. Expression of SNMP1 and SNMP2 genes in antennal sensilla of Spodoptera exigua (HÜBNER). Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 85, 114–126 (2014).
Tateno, Y. et al. Evolutionary motif and its biological and structural significance. J. Mol. Evol. 44, S38–S43 (1997).
Armendáriz-Toledano, F. & Zuñiga, G. Illustrated key to species of genus Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) occurring in Mexico and Central America. J. Insect Sci. 17, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iex009 (2016).
Timothy, L. B. et al. MEME SUITE: tools for motif discovery and searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, W202–W208. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp335 (2009).
Whelan, S. & Goldman, N. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 691–699 (2001).
Acknowledgments
We thank CONACYT for the master fellowship and Dra. Adriana Rosalía Guijón Hernádez, the National Forestry Commission for their support in developing the logistics and site selection for the collection of biological material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.T.H. collected the biological material, carried out the molecular genetic studies, performed the bioinformatic analyses, and drafted the manuscript. O.L.S.L. designed and conceived the study, participated in the bioinformatic analyses and helped draft the manuscript, M.A.A.M. participated in the bioinformatic analyses and helped draft the manuscript. H.H.G. helped draft the manuscript. All the authors have reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Torres-Huerta, B., Segura-León, O.L., Aragón-Magadan, M.A. et al. Identification and motif analyses of candidate nonreceptor olfactory genes of Dendroctonus adjunctus Blandford (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from the head transcriptome. Sci Rep 10, 20695 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77144-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77144-5
- Springer Nature Limited