Abstract
The majority of insect olfactory receptors belong to two distinct protein families, the ionotropic receptors (IRs), which are related to the ionotropic glutamate receptor family, and the odorant receptors (ORs), which evolved from the gustatory receptor family. Both receptor types assemble to heteromeric ligand-gated cation channels composed of odor-specific receptor proteins and co-receptor proteins. We here present in short the current view on evolution, function, and regulation of IRs and ORs. Special attention is given on how their functional properties can meet the environmental and ecological challenges an insect has to face.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The olfactory system is dedicated to detect and to encode information from volatile chemical signals. Such signals can be categorized according to the information they transfer. For example, chemosignals involved in social communication may be informative solely for the receiver as an olfactory cue, or they may carry useful information for both the emitter and the receiver as semiochemicals (Hansson and Wicher 2016). Semiochemicals emitted and perceived within a species act as pheromones while interspecific signals are allelochemicals. The latter may be beneficial for the receiver as kairomones or for the emitter as allomones. For insects the sense of smell is essential for central tasks such as to find food sources or mating partners or to avoid life-threatening events.
The insect olfactory receptors belong to two families, the odorant receptors (ORs), and the so-called ionotropic receptors (IRs). The first members of the OR family were discovered two decades ago (Clyne et al. 1999; Gao and Chess 1999; Vosshall et al. 1999), whereas the IRs that are related to ionotropic glutamate receptors were first reported ten years later (Benton et al. 2009).
While ORs solely detect volatile chemosignals, IRs are multimodal receptive entities (Fig. 1a). In addition to their olfactory role, IRs are involved in taste sensation, in hygrosensation, and in cool temperature sensation thereby, for example, synchronizing circadian rhythms (Rimal and Lee 2018). The olfactory receptors are localized in the olfactory sensory organs, the antennae, and the maxillary palps (Fig. 1b). These organs are covered with sensilla, i.e., cuticular, hair-like structures that house the receptor expressing dendrites of olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs). Each sensillum contains one to four OSNs that express different receptors. The odor molecules pass into the sensilla through pores and diffuse to the dendrites, facilitated by odor binding proteins (OBPs), especially for hydrophobic odor molecules. The sensillum lymph contains K+ at an unusually high concentration (Kaissling and Thorson 1980). Sensilla are classified according to their shape in coeloconic, basiconic, intermediate, and trichoid (Fig. 1b). These sensilla types differ in localization and in the OSN types they contain. IR expressing cells occur in coeloconic sensilla, while OR expressing OSNs appear in basiconic, intermediate, and in trichoid sensilla.
The olfactory system has to detect and to identify a large number of different volatile signal molecules that belong to such diverse chemical classes as acids, alcohols, esters, or aromatics (Keller and Vosshall 2016). Additional complexity arises from the presentation of odors as plumes containing many individual odorants. Given these challenging tasks, the olfactory system has to be equipped with a sufficient number of sensory units and it has to allow an efficient processing of input information. The resolution of chemoreceptors is limited by the noise due to Brownian motion of signaling molecules. First investigated in bacterial chemotaxis, the accuracy of concentration detection were limited when only a few molecules occupied the space of a cell volume (Berg and Purcell 1977). In such a case, the fractional accuracy of the detected chemosignal concentration is inversely related to its diffusion coefficient, the cell radius, and the detection time. The resolution can thus be enhanced by increasing the receptive area or by prolonging the detection time (Bialek and Setayeshgar 2005). The sometimes impressive size of insect antenna may apply the principle to improve odor detection by enhancing the detector area. The other way, to improve the resolution by prolonged detection time is limited during insect flight as they have to detect odors present at varying concentrations as fast as possible.
For an appropriate processing of olfactory signals, two main strategies have been developed (Fig. 1c). The first one is combinatorial coding; the second one is based on so-called labeled lines (Galizia 2014; Grabe and Sachse 2018; Haverkamp et al. 2018). For a combinatorial coding IRs and ORs are broadly tuned; i.e., a range of different odors activate one receptor type. Alternatively, one specific odor can activate various receptor types. The odor identity is coded by the subpopulation of receptor types it activates. By contrast, in labeled lines the receptor types are narrowly tuned and detect especially important compounds such as pheromones or ecologically relevant odors. For example, in Drosophila melanogaster, the Or56a solely detects geosmin, an odor released by toxin-producing molds, and the OR activation immediately triggers an avoidance response (Stensmyr et al. 2012). Furthermore, Drosophila OSNs expressing Ir92a mediate attraction towards ammonia and amines (Min et al. 2013). As another example, activation of Ir84a by food-derived odors triggers male fly courtship behavior (Grosjean et al. 2011) (Fig. 1c). The internal representation of the outside world provided by the sensory machinery and the subsequent processing by the nervous system constitutes the basis for behavioral decisions. The success of behavioral responses relies on the quality of this representation. While a very precise representation may be metabolically costly and an inappropriate representation can cause wrong decisions, the choice of an appropriate quality level is the subject of an optimizing process (Mlynarski and Hermundstad 2018).
Genetic basis and evolution
There are remarkable similarities between neuronal synapses and chemosensory systems with regard to structures, mechanisms, and expressed molecules (Shaham 2010). At the receptive region, i.e., the postsynapse or the dendrite of a chemosensory cell, respectively, the signaling molecules bind to their specific receptors. An important subpopulation in mammalian central synapses is the ionotropic glutamate receptors. Insect olfactory receptors belonging to the IR family are structurally related to these glutamatergic receptors (Benton et al. 2009). A comparative genomic analysis revealed that IR proteins occur in all Protostomia but not outside (Fig. 2a). The IRs form subfamilies displaying a pronounced gain and loss dynamic as illustrated in Fig. 2b. The IRs form heterotetramers that contain variable, odor-specific IRX proteins, and co-receptor IRcoY proteins. In Drosophila, for example, co-receptor proteins are Ir8a and IR25a. As the co-receptor proteins show an extended amino terminal domain (ATD) as well as a ligand-binding domain (LBD), there is a quite pronounced similarity to iGluRs. In addition, the tetrameric IR complexes can contain up to three different subunits. An example for an IR tetramer built up by dimerisation of dimers was seen in Drosophila IR84a and IR8a (Abuin et al. 2011).
Regarding the functional principle, chemoreceptors operate as ionotropic or as metabotropic receptors (Wicher and Große-Wilde 2017). The actual choice depends on the properties required for the task. For fast chemosignal processing, ionotropic receptors were preferred, whereas the signal amplification by intracellular cascades are advantageous for a weak signal strength. As complement to the ligand-gated IRs, many chemoreceptive proteins belong to the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family (Bargmann 2006). Insect OR proteins share the 7-transmembrane domain topology but they differ from GPCRs in various aspects. They are inversely oriented within the membrane as the N-terminus of OR proteins is intracellular and the C-terminus is extracellular (Benton et al. 2006; Lundin et al. 2007). Furthermore, OR proteins have no sequence similarity with GPCRs (Nordström et al. 2011). Considering structure and function, ORs are related to gustatory receptors (GRs), and they constitute an expanded lineage within the GR superfamily (Robertson et al. 2003). While GRs occur in all arthropods sequenced so far, the ORs are restricted to insects. Genes related to the GRs were found as gustatory related (GUR) genes in the nematode C. elegans and across the Protostomia as gustatory receptor-like (GRL) genes (Benton 2015; Robertson 2015). In the plant A. thaliana there are six proteins that contain a domain of unknown function (DUF3537) which shares some characteristics with GR, GUR, and GRL proteins, such as sequence similarity, heptahelical structure, and orientation within the plasma membrane (Benton 2015). Whereas the origin of the GR family goes back to the evolution of animals, the GRs disappeared in vertebrates (Benton 2015; Robertson 2015). (Fig. 2a).
The evolution of ORs may have happened in parallel with that of terrestrial insects from their aquatic ancestors (Brand et al. 2018; Robertson et al. 2003). Regarding functionality, this corresponds to the transition from detecting dissolved to volatile chemosignals. While OR genes were absent in non-insect hexapods such as springtails, they were found in winged and non-winged insects ( Brand et al. 2018). According to a phylogenetic analysis of OR genes there is an intermediate clade of primitive ORs expressed in bristletails, firebrats, or silverfish between GRs and the ORs of flying insects (Thoma et al. 2019). These primitive ORs then disappeared in flying insects, e.g., in damselflies and dragonflies. Furthermore, in winged insects there was a massive expansion of OR genes (Missbach et al. 2014; Thoma et al. 2019). These ORs are heteromeric constructs containing variable, odor-specific OrX proteins, and highly conserved co-receptor proteins (Orco) (Larsson, et al. 2004; Neuhaus et al. 2005; Soffan et al. 2018). Compared with the more ancient IRs, the ORs are more sensitive and are capable of resolving fast changing odor pulses (Getahun et al. 2012). Furthermore, these ORs are tunable as their sensitivity can be regulated depending on previous odor stimuli (Getahun et al. 2013). Taken together, these properties improve the performance of the olfactory system in a situation-dependent manner. This may constitute a functional adaptation to the challenge flying insects that are exposed in that they need to detect and to follow faint filaments of odor plumes.
The current state of knowledge supports the view that the ORs evolved from the GRs in a stepwise process. Starting with primitive ORs in early terrestrial insects (Thoma et al. 2019), the olfactory system has expanded its receptor repertoire with the occurrence of Orco proteins in Zygentoma (Brand et al. 2018) and ended up with the versatile OR complexes in flying insects (Brand et al. 2018; Thoma et al. 2019) (Fig. 2c). For more detailed genomic information on olfactory receptors see the two recent reviews (Gomez-Diaz et al. 2018; Fleischer et al. 2018).
Structure and function
Similar to the related iGluRs, insect IRs are ligand-gated ion channels with odor molecules as ligands. They constitute nonselective cation channels passing Na+ and K+; some of them also Ca2+ (Abuin et al. 2011; Rytz et al. 2013). Within the IRX/IRcoY complexes of the odor specificity is determined by the tuning IRX partner (Abuin et al. 2011) (Fig. 3b). This is not so obvious as for the ORs as outlined below as there is also a LBD in IRcoY (Fig. 3a). But the LBD of co-receptors may serve other purposes than odor binding as shown for IR8a where the LBD is responsible for traffic and correct dendritic localization (Abuin et al. 2011; Abuin et al. 2019) (Fig. 3c). Odors may enhance the OSN activity, but they can also reduce it. Odor specificity for IRs and ORs is in general complementary, yet there is some overlap (Silbering et al. 2011). IR expressing OSNs need longer or stronger stimuli to become activated than OR-expressing neurons. On the other hand, IR-expressing neurons adapt more slowly (Getahun et al. 2012). And, also in contrast to ORs, IRs cannot be sensitized by repeated subthreshold odor stimuli (Getahun et al. 2013).
In winged insects the ORs are heteromeric complexes of heptahelical odor-specific OrX proteins (tuning OR) and the co-receptor protein Orco (German et al. 2013; Larsson et al. 2004; Neuhaus et al. 2005) (Fig. 3d). The OrX show a high degree of variability which usually reflects the ecological niche of a given species. By contrast, Orco proteins are quite conserved among species and they form a separate clade within OR proteins (Soffan et al. 2018). ORs represent ligand-gated ion channels (Sato et al. 2008; Wicher et al. 2008). They are non-selective cation channels that pass Na+, K+, and Ca2+. In the heterologous expression system Orco proteins also associate as non-selective cation channels, yet these channels are insensitive to odors. Instead, Orco channels are activated by cyclic nucleotides (Wicher et al. 2008) or synthetic agonists such as VUAA1 (Jones et al. 2011). While we still lack information on the subunit structure of OR channels, an Orco channel composition was recently elucidated by cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) for the wasp Apocrypta bakeri (Butterwick et al. 2018). The central channel pore is formed by four Orco proteins and lined by the membrane spanning part of helix 7 (Fig. 3e). Near the cytoplasmic terminus the helices 5, 6, and 7 constitute four lateral conducting pathways as shown in Fig. 3e. The Orco channel can be activated by ligands such as the synthetic agonist VUAA1 by binding to an extracellular pocket formed by helices 1 to 6 (Fig. 3e). The Orco proteins bear cytoplasmic anchor domains that contribute to channel forming protein interaction (Fig. 3e). The selectivity filter is localized at the narrowest pore region near the extracellular face (Fig. 3f). Based on this Orco structure one might conclude that ORs are tetrameric assemblies of Orco and OrX subunits in which both proteins line up the pore. Such assumption gets support from the observation that specific channel properties rely on the specific OR composition (Pask et al. 2011). Composition with different OrX proteins leads to differences in the permeability to mono and divalent cations of the ORs. In addition, the effect of mutations in OrX and Orco proteins suggests that both protein types form the OR pore (Nakagawa et al. 2012).
While generally operating as odorant-gated channels, at least some ORs show a constitutive activity (Sato et al. 2008; Wicher et al. 2008). Such a background activity of cation channels confers pacemaker properties and thus determines the basal OSN activity. The response to an olfactory stimulus can be excitatory or inhibitory, and thus accelerate or slow down the OSN activity, respectively. Generation of an inhibitory response relies on a certain background activity of an OSN, and such activity requires a certain pacemaker activity. An odor-evoked inhibition can, for example, be obtained by inhibition of the constitutive OR activity (Cao et al. 2017).
The OSN background activity is determined by the OrX type expressed (Hallem et al. 2004). Moreover, OrX also determines whether the response to a given odor is excitatory or inhibitory (Hallem et al. 2004). It is also possible that one odor elicits an excitatory response, while another odor leads to an inhibitory response. The Drosophila Or59b, for example, is excited by ethyl acetate and inhibited by linalool (de Bruyne et al. 2001). A comprehensive analysis of Drosophila OR responses is given by Hallem and Carlson (2006). In general, ORs respond to more than one odor, and the responses may vary from narrowly tuned to broadly tuned.
Orco proteins occur both in somatic and in dendritic regions, but OrX proteins occur only in dendrites (Benton et al. 2006). The Orco proteins in the soma may form constitutively active channels acting as pacemakers that determine the resting activity of OSNs (Stengl and Funk 2013).
Regulation
Most players in biological systems are subject to regulative processes that adjust their functional properties according to the actual requirements. In special, the olfactory system needs to detect volatile chemical signals presented at enormously differing concentrations. In a big distance from the source, chemosignals are faint and dispersed, as for example sex pheromones released by a potential mating partner. On the other hand, the signal can be very strong, e.g., near a flowering plant. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, IRs need stronger stimuli and they show less adaptation in comparison with ORs. With these properties the IRs are olfactory receptors suitable to detect messages of considerable strength or near their source (Fig. 4a). By contrast, ORs respond to weak stimuli, but they also show fast adaptation (Nagel and Wilson 2011; Getahun et al. 2012).
Various intracellular signaling cascades regulate the OR performance (Fleischer et al. 2018; Wicher 2018). Though insect ORs are not GPCRs, the OR function in a heterologous expression system was characterized by means of its interaction with G proteins (Wetzel et al. 2001). In addition, the expression of G proteins in the insect antenna has been demonstrated (Boto et al. 2010) and an appropriate odor detection was found to rely on G protein function (Deng et al. 2011; Ignatious Raja et al. 2014; Kain et al. 2008). In line with this, the olfactory processing was found to be affected by manipulations within the cAMP cascade downstream stimulatory G proteins. A reduction of cAMP levels due to overexpression of the phosphodiesterase dunce or by adenylyl cyclase inhibition reduced olfactory responses (Getahun et al. 2013; Gomez-Diaz et al. 2004), while elevating the cAMP level lowered the detection threshold for an odor (Getahun et al. 2013) as well as increased the resting activity of OSNs (Deng et al. 2011). Also, the signaling cascade downstream Gq proteins play a role in olfactory processing (Krieger and Breer 1999). Impaired odor responses, for example, were observed in norpA and plc21 mutants lacking phospholipase C function (Kain et al. 2008; Riesgo-Escovar et al. 1995). Interestingly, the pheromone signal transduction process in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta operates exclusively via metabotropic pathways (Nolte et al. 2016; Stengl 2010).
The sensitivity of various ORs, e.g., food odor detecting receptors, can change in response to the strength of stimuli. For example, repetitive near-threshold stimuli enhance their sensitivity (Getahun et al. 2013). A key role in this sensitization process is played by Orco proteins (Fig. 4b). Orco channels are activated by cAMP (Wicher et al. 2008), but this requires a certain level of Orco phosphorylation by protein kinase C (PKC) (Sargsyan et al. 2011). Interestingly, the cAMP production is stimulated by odor induced OR activation (Miazzi et al. 2016). As Orco forms non-selective cation channels passing also Ca2+, Orco activation is accompanied by Ca2+ influx which activates calmodulin (CaM), stimulates CaM binding to Orco, and in turn enhances Orco channel activity (Mukunda et al. 2014). The CaM contribution is necessary for the sensitization process as pharmacological inhibition or mutation within the Orco CaM binding site abolishes the sensitization effect (Mukunda et al. 2016). There is another putative feedback loop in Orco function which involves PKC activation by Ca2+ and also elevates the current flow through Orco channels (Getahun et al. 2016; Sargsyan et al. 2011). These autoregulative processes lead to OR sensitization and cause larger ion fluxes (Fig. 4b).
The functional state of receptors is tuned according to strength and duration of their activation. For example, long-lasting or repetitively presented stimuli cause adaptation of the OR response as described by the Weber-Fechner law with logarithmic relationship between stimulus and perception (Cao et al. 2016; Nagel and Wilson 2011). An important parameter accounting for an adaptation is the cytoplasmic Ca2+ level which rises when OR channels are open (Cao et al. 2016). Prolonged odor stimuli lead to OR desensitization. In Drosophila, the Orco S289 residue is one of the PKC phosphorylation sites controlling Orco function (Sargsyan et al. 2011), and it becomes dephosphorylated under such circumstances. This reduces the sensitivity of the active OR to the permanently presented odor (Guo et al. 2017). Responsible for the Orco dephosphorylation is probably a Ca2+-activated phosphatase (Guo and Smith 2017) (Fig. 4c). An alternative way to regulate olfactory responses is the control of receptor protein expression. In Drosophila, the hedgehog pathway controls the transfer of OR proteins into the dendritic membrane (Sanchez et al. 2016). As hedgehog is expressed in the OSNs, this represents an autoregulatory process.
Other players in the peripheral odor response
The olfactory receptors are the first instance to detect and to process a chemosignal. However, they operate as a chain link within a broader cooperative system made of protein networks, organelles, and cellular interactions that influence how odors are perceived. The sensillum environment in which receptors are expressed strongly influences their activity. The relative size of OSNs sharing the same sensillum determines the degree of lateral inhibition that these OSNs are subjected to through ephaptic interactions (Zhang et al. 2019). The bigger neuron within a pair can exert a lateral inhibition on the smaller neuron by exercising a stronger influence on the extracellular potential at the shared sensillum lymph (Fig. 5a). Such effect allows a faster processing of odor mixtures at the periphery by favoring the information carried by the larger neuron (Zhang et al. 2019).
Olfactory receptors reside at the interface between the extracellular sensillum lymph and the intracellular environment. Their activity is influenced by many proteins that are present in these spaces (Fig. 5b). The sensillum lymph contains a variety of soluble proteins such as OBPs and pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs) and odor- and pheromone-degradating enzymes (ODEs and PDEs) that can influence the sensitivity of ORs and, in general, the availability of hydrophobic odor molecules in the extracellular aqueous environment (Leal 2013). The study of their function and modes of action is still an area of active investigation. The pH gradient between the lymph at the sensillum pores and the OSN plasma membrane at the sensory cilia is thought to play a major role in determining the binding of hydrophobic odor molecules to OBPs. By using such gradient, OBPs can bind to volatile molecules in close contact with the surface of the antenna and release them in proximity of ORs (Leal 2013). However, recent work showed that the deletion of the most abundant OBPs in six vinegar fly basiconic sensilla did not reduce the intensity of odor responses (Larter et al. 2016; Xiao et al. 2019). In addition, a large number of membrane proteins influence the function and regulation of insect olfactory receptors. The sensory neuron membrane protein 1 (SNMP1) is important for the detection of lipid-derived pheromones by facilitating their delivery to the binding pocket of their cognate OR (Benton et al. 2007; Gomez-Diaz et al. 2016; Rogers et al. 2001; Rogers et al. 1997). The phospholipid flippase ATP8B instead was found to be required for the correct trafficking of ORs to the sensory cilia and/or to influence the receptor sensitivity to odors (Ha et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2014). ORs and a subset of IRs, including Ir84a, are permeable to Ca2+ that can act as a second messenger and modulate the OSN response. In the vinegar fly, Or47b- and Ir84a-expressing OSNs also express Pickpocket 25 (PPK25) (Starostina et al. 2012). This DEG/ENaC channel is activated by Ca2+ through a CaM-dependent mechanism and is responsible for the age-dependent amplification of the response to aphrodisiac odors in male flies (Ng et al. 2019).
The dynamics of the intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i) after the activation of ORs is influenced by many players. Ca2+ can be sequestered by mitochondria through the mitochondrial calcium uniporter (mCU) and released through the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (mPTP) (Lucke et al. 2020). The resulting buffering effect of mitochondria on [Ca2+]i contributes in shaping the late phase and the termination of the OR response (Lucke et al. 2020). The Na+/Ca2+ exchanger CALX also plays a role in defining the termination of the odor response, by extruding the intracellular Ca2+ to the sensillum lymph (Halty-deLeon et al. 2018). Another role for Ca2+ in the odor response termination is to trigger Ca2+-activated Cl- channels (Pézier et al. 2010). Furthermore, Ca2+ can modulate the OSN response by acting as a second messenger even far away from the sensory cilia where the odor molecules are first detected. In the antennal lobe, GABAergic local interneurons (LNs) shape the OSN adaptation to long-lasting stimuli through a Ca2+ release from the endoplasmic reticulum via inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate (IP3R) and ryanodine (RyR) receptors (Murmu et al. 2010, 2011) (Fig. 5c). In addition, LN can adjust the gain of the OSN odor responses through inhibitory feedback mechanisms at the axon terminals (Olsen and Wilson 2008; Root et al. 2008).
Outlook and application
In conclusion, even decades after their discovery the insect IRs and ORs are still subject of intense research. The recent advances in understanding structure (Abuin et al. 2019; Butterwick et al. 2018) and evolution (Brand et al. 2018; Eyun et al. 2017; Thoma et al. 2019) of these receptor families impressively illustrate the dynamic progress in that research area and provide new tools to extend our knowledge and to explore new directions. Nevertheless important information such as the structure of native OR complexes is still missing. Similarly, the strong odor signal amplification that allows male moths to detect only a few pheromone molecules remains to be understood in detail.
A remarkable application of insect odorant receptor proteins is their use in the fabrication of biosensors (Bohbot and Vernick 2020). Such bioelectric noses utilize the odor-specific OrX proteins imbedded in liposomes (Khadka et al. 2019) or nanodiscs (Murugathas et al. 2019) as sensing elements for food screening. Binding of the odors the OrX proteins are specific for leads to an electric response that does not require any Orco protein. The advantage of OR proteins as biosensing elements is the combination of ligand specificity with a high sensitivity.
References
Abuin L, Bargeton B, Ulbrich MH, Isacoff EY, Kellenberger S, Benton R (2011) Functional architecture of olfactory ionotropic glutamate receptors. Neuron 69:44–60
Abuin L, Prieto-Godino LL, Pan HY, Gutierrez C, Huang L, Jin RS, Benton R (2019) In vivo assembly and trafficking of olfactory Ionotropic Receptors. BMC Biol 17:34
Bargmann CI (2006) Comparative chemosensation from receptors to ecology. Nature 444:295–301
Benton R (2015) Multigene family evolution: perspectives from insect chemoreceptors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:590–600
Benton R, Sachse S, Michnick SW, Vosshall LB (2006) Atypical membrane topology and heteromeric function of Drosophila odorant receptors in vivo. PLoS Biol 4:e20
Benton R, Vannice KS, Gomez-Diaz C, Vosshall LB (2009) Variant ionotropic glutamate receptors as chemosensory receptors in Drosophila. Cell 136:149–162
Benton R, Vannice KS, Vosshall LB (2007) An essential role for a CD36-related receptor in pheromone detection in Drosophila. Nature 450:289–293
Berg HC, Purcell EM (1977) Physics of chemoreception. Biophys J 20:193–219
Bialek W, Setayeshgar S (2005) Physical limits to biochemical signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:10040–10045
Bohbot JD, Vernick S (2020) The emergence of insect odorant receptor-based biosensors. Biosensors 10:26
Boto T, Gomez-Diaz C, Alcorta E (2010) Expression analysis of the 3 G-protein subunits, Galpha, Gbeta, and Ggamma, in the olfactory receptor organs of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Chem Senses 35:183–193
Brand P, Robertson HM, Lin W, Pothula R, Klingeman WE, Jurat-Fuentes JL, Johnson BR (2018) The origin of the odorant receptor gene family in insects. eLife
Butterwick JA, Mármol Jd, Kim KH, Kahlson MA, Rogow JA, Walz T, Ruta V (2018) Cryo-EM structure of the insect olfactory receptor Orco. Nature 1
Cao LH, Jing BY, Yang D, Zeng X, Shen Y, Tu Y, Luo DG (2016) Distinct signaling of Drosophila chemoreceptors in olfactory sensory neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:E902-911
Cao LH, Yang D, Wu W, Zeng X, Jing BY, Li MT, Qin S, Tang C, Tu Y, Luo DG (2017) Odor-evoked inhibition of olfactory sensory neurons drives olfactory perception in Drosophila. Nat Commun 8:1357
Cicconardi F, Di Marino D, Olimpieri PP, Arthofer W, Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM (2017) Chemosensory adaptations of the mountain fly Drosophila nigrosparsa (Insecta: Diptera) through genomics’ and structural biology’s lenses. Sci Rep 7:43770
Clyne PJ, Warr CG, Freeman MR, Lessing D, Kim J, Carlson JR (1999) A novel family of divergent seven-transmembrane proteins : candidate odorant receptors in Drosophila. Neuron 22:327–338
Corcoran JA, Sonntag Y, Andersson MN, Johanson U, Löfstedt C (2018) Endogenous insensitivity to the Orco agonist VUAA1 reveals novel olfactory receptor complex properties in the specialist fly Mayetiola destructor. Sci Rep 8:1–13
Croset V, Rytz R, Cummins SF, Budd A, Brawand D, Kaessmann H, Gibson TJ, Benton R (2010) Ancient protostome origin of chemosensory ionotropic glutamate receptors and the evolution of insect taste and olfaction. Plos Genetics 6:e1001064
de Bruyne M, Foster K, Carlson JR (2001) Odor coding in the Drosophila antenna. Neuron 30:537–552
Deng Y, Zhang W, Farhat K, Oberland S, Gisselmann G, Neuhaus EM (2011) The Stimulatory Galpha(s) protein is involved in olfactory signal transduction in Drosophila. PLoS One 6:e18605
Eyun SI, Soh HY, Posavi M, Munro JB, Hughes DST, Murali SC, Qu JX, Dugan S, Lee SL, Chao H, Dinh H, Han Y, Doddapaneni H, Worley KC, Muzny DM, Park EO, Silva JC, Gibbs RA, Richards S, Lee CE (2017) Evolutionary history of chemosensory-related gene families across the arthropoda. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34:1838–1862
Fleischer J, Pregitzer P, Breer H, Krieger J (2018) Access to the odor world: olfactory receptors and their role for signal transduction in insects. Cell Mol Life Sci 75:485–508
Frank DD, Enjin A, Jouandet GC, Zaharieva EE, Para A, Stensmyr MC, Gallio M (2017) Early integration of temperature and humidity stimuli in the drosophila brain. Current Biology 27:2381–2388
Galizia CG (2014) Olfactory coding in the insect brain: data and conjectures. Eur J Neurosci 39:1784–1795
Gao Q, Chess A (1999) Identification of candidate Drosophila olfactory receptors from genomic DNA sequence. Genomics 60:31–39
German PF, van der Poel S, Carraher C, Kralicek AV, Newcomb RD (2013) Insights into subunit interactions within the insect olfactory receptor complex using FRET. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 43:138–145
Getahun MN, Olsson SB, Lavista-Llanos S, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2013) Insect odorant response sensitivity is tuned by metabotropically autoregulated olfactory receptors. PLoS One 8:e58889
Getahun MN, Thoma M, Lavista-Llanos S, Keesey I, Fandino RA, Knaden M, Wicher D, Olsson SB, Hansson BS (2016) Intracellular regulation of the insect chemoreceptor complex impacts odour localization in flying insects. Journal of Experimental Biology 219:3428–3438
Getahun MN, Wicher D, Hansson BS, Olsson SB (2012) Temporal response dynamics of Drosophila olfactory sensory neurons depends on receptor type and response polarity. Front Cell Neurosci 6:54
Gomez-Diaz C, Bargeton B, Abuin L, Bukar N, Reina JH, Bartoi T, Graf M, Ong H, Ulbrich MH, Masson JF, Benton R (2016) A CD36 ectodomain mediates insect pheromone detection via a putative tunnelling mechanism. Nature Communications 7:11866
Gomez-Diaz C, Martin F, Alcorta E (2004) The cAMP transduction cascade mediates olfactory reception in Drosophila melanogaster. Behavior Genetics 34:395–406
Gomez-Diaz C, Martin F, Garcia-Fernandez JM, Alcorta E (2018) The Two main olfactory receptor families in drosophila, ors and irs: a comparative approach. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 12:253
Grabe V, Sachse S (2018) Fundamental principles of the olfactory code. Biosystems 164:94–101
Grosjean Y, Rytz R, Farine JP, Abuin L, Cortot J, Jefferis GS, Benton R (2011) An olfactory receptor for food-derived odours promotes male courtship in Drosophila. Nature 478:236–240
Guo H, Kunwar K, Smith D (2017) Odorant receptor sensitivity modulation in Drosophila. J Neurosci 37:9465–9473
Guo H, Smith DP (2017) Odorant receptor desensitization in insects. J Exp Neurosci 11:1179069517748600
Ha TS, Xia RH, Zhang HY, Jin X, Smith DP (2014) Lipid flippase modulates olfactory receptor expression and odorant sensitivity in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:7831–7836
Hallem EA, Carlson JR (2006) Coding of odors by a receptor repertoire. Cell 125:143–160
Hallem EA, Ho MG, Carlson JR (2004) The molecular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 117:965–979
Halty-deLeon L, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2018) The Drosophila melanogaster Na+/Ca2+ exchanger CALX controls the Ca2+ level in olfactory sensory neurons at rest and after odorant receptor activation. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 12:186
Hansson B, Wicher D (2016) Chemical ecology in insects. In: Zufall F, Munger SD (eds) Chemosensory transduction: the detection of odors, tastes, and other chemostimuli. Academic Press, London, pp 29–45
Haverkamp A, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2018) 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
Hopf TA, Morinaga S, Ihara S, Touhara K, Marks DS, Benton R (2015) Amino acid coevolution reveals three-dimensional structure and functional domains of insect odorant receptors. Nature Communications 6:1–7
Ignatious Raja JS, Katanayeva N, Katanaev VL, Galizia CG (2014) Role of Go/i subgroup of G proteins in olfactory signaling of Drosophila melanogaster. Eur J Neurosci 39:1245–1255
Jones PL, Pask GM, Rinker DC, Zwiebel LJ (2011) Functional agonism of insect odorant receptor ion channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:8821–8825
Kain P, Chakraborty TS, Sundaram S, Siddiqi O, Rodrigues V, Hasan G (2008) Reduced odor responses from antennal neurons of G(q)alpha, phospholipase Cbeta, and rdgA mutants in Drosophila support a role for a phospholipid intermediate in insect olfactory transduction. J Neurosci 28:4745–4755
Kaissling K-E, Thorson J (1980) Insect olfactory sensilla: structural, chemical and electrical aspects of the functional organization. In: Sattelle DB, Hall LM, Hildebrand JG (eds) Receptors for neurotransmitters, hormones and pheromones in insects. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 261–282
Keller A, Vosshall LB (2016) Olfactory perception of chemically diverse molecules. BMC Neurosci 17:55
Khadka R, Aydemir N, Carraher C, Hamiaux C, Colbert D, Cheema J, Malmström J, Kralicek A, Travas-Sejdic J (2019) An ultrasensitive electrochemical impedance-based biosensor using insect odorant receptors to detect odorants. Biosensors & bioelectronics 126:207–213
Knecht ZA, Silbering AF, Cruz J, Yang L, Croset V, Benton R, Garrity PA (2017) Ionotropic receptor-dependent moist and dry cells control hygrosensation in Drosophila. Elife 6:e26654
Koh TW, He Z, Gorur-Shandilya S, Menuz K, Larter NK, Stewart S, Carlson JR (2014) The Drosophila IR20a clade of ionotropic receptors are candidate taste and pheromone receptors. Neuron 83:850–865
Krieger J, Breer H (1999) Olfactory reception in invertebrates. Science 286:720–723
Larsson MC, Domingos AI, Jones WD, Chiappe ME, Amrein H, Vosshall LB (2004) Or83b encodes a broadly expressed odorant receptor essential for Drosophila olfaction. Neuron 43:703–714
Larter NK, Sun JS, Carlson JR (2016) Organization and function of Drosophila odorant binding proteins. Elife 5:e20242
Leal WS (2013) Odorant reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu Rev Entomol 58:373–391
Liu YC, Pearce MW, Honda T, Johnson TK, Charlu S, Sharma KR, Imad M, Burke RE, Zinsmaier KE, Ray A, Dahanukar A, de Bruyne M, Warr CG (2014) The Drosophila melanogaster Phospholipid Flippase dATP8B Is Required for Odorant Receptor Function. PLoS Genetics 10:e1004209
Lucke J, Kaltofen S, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2020) The role of mitochondria in shaping odor responses in Drosophila melanogaster olfactory sensory neurons. Cell Calcium 87:102179
Lundin C, Kall L, Kreher SA, Kapp K, Sonnhammer EL, Carlson JR, Heijne G, Nilsson I (2007) Membrane topology of the Drosophila OR83b odorant receptor. FEBS Lett 581:5601–5604
Mansourian S, Stensmyr MC (2015) The chemical ecology of the fly. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 34:95–102
Miazzi F, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2016) Odor induced cAMP production in Drosophila melanogaster olfactory sensory neurons. J Exp Biol 219:1798–1803
Min SH, Ai MR, Shin SA, Suh GSB (2013) Dedicated olfactory neurons mediating attraction behavior to ammonia and amines in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:E1321–E1329
Missbach C, Dweck HKM, Vogel H, Vilcinskas A, Stensmyr MC, Hansson BS, Grosse-Wilde E (2014) Evolution of insect olfactory receptors. eLife 2014:1–22
Mlynarski WF, Hermundstad AM (2018) Adaptive coding for dynamic sensory inference. Elife 7:32055
Mukunda L, Miazzi F, Kaltofen S, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2014) Calmodulin modulates insect odorant receptor function. Cell Calcium 55:191–199
Mukunda L, Miazzi F, Sargsyan V, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2016) Calmodulin affects sensitization of drosophila melanogaster odorant receptors. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 10:28
Murmu MS, Stinnakre J, Martin JR (2010) Presynaptic Ca2+ stores contribute to odor-induced responses in Drosophila olfactory receptor neurons. Journal of Experimental Biology 213:4163–4173
Murmu MS, Stinnakre J, Real E, Martin JR (2011) Calcium-stores mediate adaptation in axon terminals of olfactory receptor neurons in Drosophila. Bmc Neuroscience 12:105
Murugathas T, Zheng HY, Colbert D, Kralicek AV, Carraher C, Plank NOV (2019) Biosensing with insect odorant receptor nanodiscs and carbon nanotube field-effect transistors. ACS applied materials & interfaces 11:9530–9538
Nagel KI, Wilson RI (2011) Biophysical mechanisms underlying olfactory receptor neuron dynamics. Nat Neurosci 14:208–216
Nakagawa T, Pellegrino M, Sato K, Vosshall LB, Touhara K (2012) Amino acid residues contributing to function of the heteromeric insect olfactory receptor complex. PLoS One 7:e32372
Neuhaus EM, Gisselmann G, Zhang W, Dooley R, Störtkuhl K, Hatt H (2005) Odorant receptor heterodimerization in the olfactory system of Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Neurosci 8:15–17
Ng R, Salem SS, Wu ST, Wu ML, Lin HH, Shepherd AK, Joiner WJ, Wang JW, Su CY (2019) Amplification of Drosophila olfactory responses by a DEG/ENaC channel. Neuron 104:947–959
Nolte A, Gawalek P, Koerte S, Wei H, Schumann R, Werckenthin A, Krieger J, Stengl M (2016) No evidence for ionotropic pheromone transduction in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta. PLoS One 11:e0166060
Nordström KJ, Almen MS, Edstam MM, Fredriksson R, Schioth HB (2011) Independent HHsearch, Needleman-Wunsch-based and motif analyses reveals the overall hierarchy for most of the G protein-coupled receptor families. Mol Biol Evol 28:2471–2480
Olsen SR, Wilson RI (2008) Lateral presynaptic inhibition mediates gain control in an olfactory circuit. Nature 452:956-U953
Pask GM, Jones PL, Rützler M, Rinker DC, Zwiebel LJ (2011) Heteromeric anopheline odorant receptors exhibit distinct channel properties. PLoS One 6:e28774
Pézier A, Grauso M, Acquistapace A, Monsempes C, Rospars JP, Lucas P (2010) Calcium activates a chloride conductance likely involved in olfactory receptor neuron repolarization in the moth Spodoptera littoralis. J Neurosci 30:6323–6333
Prieto-Godino LL, Rytz R, Bargeton B, Abuin L, Arguello JR, Dal Peraro M, Benton R (2016) Olfactory receptor pseudo-pseudogenes. Nature 539:93–97
Prieto-Godino LL, Rytz R, Cruchet S, Bargeton B, Abuin L, Silbering AF, Ruta V, Dal Peraro M, Benton R (2017) Evolution of acid-sensing olfactory circuits in Drosophilids. Neuron 93:661-676.e666
Riesgo-Escovar J, Raha D, Carlson JR (1995) Requirement for a phospholipase C in odor response: overlap between olfaction and vision in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92:2864–2868
Rimal S, Lee Y (2018) The multidimensional ionotropic receptors of Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Molecular Biology 27:1–7
Robertson HM (2015) The insect chemoreceptor superfamily is ancient in animals. Chem Senses 40:609–614
Robertson HM, Warr CG, Carlson JR (2003) Molecular evolution of the insect chemoreceptor gene superfamily in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(Suppl):14537–14542
Rogers ME, Krieger J, Vogt RG (2001) Antennal SNMPS (sensory neuron membrane proteins) of lepidoptera define a unique family of invertebrate CD36-like proteins. Journal of Neurobiology 49:47–61
Rogers ME, Sun M, Lerner MR, Vogt RG (1997) Snmp-1, a novel membrane protein of olfactory neurons of the silk moth Antheraea polyphemus with homology to the CD36 family of membrane proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272:14792–14799
Root CM, Masuyama K, Green DS, Enell LE, Nassel DR, Lee CH, Wang JW (2008) A presynaptic gain control mechanism fine-tunes olfactory behavior. Neuron 59:311–321
Rytz R, Croset V, Benton R (2013) Ionotropic Receptors (IRs): Chemosensory ionotropic glutamate receptors in Drosophila and beyond. Insect Biochem Molec 43:888–897
Sánchez-Alcañiz JA, Silbering AF, Croset V, Zappia G, Sivasubramaniam AK, Abuin L, Sahai SY, Münch D, Steck K, Auer TO, Cruchet S, Neagu-Maier GL, Sprecher SG, Ribeiro C, Yapici N, Benton R (2018) An expression atlas of variant ionotropic glutamate receptors identifies a molecular basis of carbonation sensing. Nat Commun 9:4252
Sanchez GM, Alkhori L, Hatano E, Schultz SW, Kuzhandaivel A, Jafari S, Granseth B, Alenius M (2016) Hedgehog signaling regulates the ciliary transport of odorant receptors in Drosophila. Cell Rep 14:464–470
Sargsyan V, Getahun MN, Lavista Llanos S, Olsson SB, Hansson BS, Wicher D (2011) Phosphorylation via PKC regulates the function of the Drosophila odorant coreceptor. Front Cell Neurosci 5:5
Sato K, Pellegrino M, Nakagawa T, Nakagawa T, Vosshall LB, Touhara K (2008) Insect olfactory receptors are heteromeric ligand-gated ion channels. Nature 452:1002–1006
Schymkowitz J, Borg J, Stricher F, Nys R, Rousseau F, Serrano L (2005) The FoldX web server: an online force field. Nucleic acids research 33:W382-388
Shaham S (2010) Chemosensory organs as models of neuronal synapses. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:212–218
Silbering AF, Rytz R, Grosjean Y, Abuin L, Ramdya P, Jefferis GSXE, Benton R (2011) Complementary function and integrated wiring of the evolutionarily distinct Drosophila olfactory subsystems. Journal of Neuroscience 31:13357–13375
Soffan A, Subandiyah S, Makino H, Watanabe T, Horiike T (2018) Evolutionary analysis of the highly conserved insect odorant coreceptor (Orco) revealed a positive selection mode. Implying Functional Flexibility, J Insect Sci, p 18
Starostina E, Liu T, Vijayan V, Zheng Z, Siwicki KK, Pikielny CW (2012) A Drosophila DEG/ENaC subunit functions specifically in gustatory neurons required for male courtship behavior. Journal of Neuroscience 32:4665–4674
Stengl M (2010) Pheromone transduction in moths. Front Cell Neurosci 4:133
Stengl M, Funk NW (2013) The role of the coreceptor Orco in insect olfactory transduction. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 199:897–909
Stensmyr MC, Dweck HK, Farhan A, Ibba I, Strutz A, Mukunda L, Linz J, Grabe V, Steck K, Lavista-Llanos S, Wicher D, Sachse S, Knaden M, Becher PG, Seki Y, Hansson BS (2012) A conserved dedicated olfactory circuit for detecting harmful microbes in Drosophila. Cell 151:1345–1357
Thoma M, Missbach C, Jordan MD, Grosse-Wilde E, Newcomb RD, Hansson BS (2019) Transcriptome surveys in silverfish suggest a multistep origin of the insect odorant receptor gene family. Front Ecol Evol 7:281
Twomey EC, Yelshanskaya MV, Grassucci RA, Frank J, Obolevsky AIS (2017) Channel opening and gating mechanism in AMPA-subtype glutamate receptors. Nature 549:60–65
Twomey EC, Yelshanskaya MV, Vassilevski AA, Sobolevsky AI (2018) Mechanisms of channel block in calcium-permeable AMPA receptors. Neuron 99:956-968.e954
Vosshall LB, Amrein H, Morozov PS, Rzhetsky A, Axel R (1999) A spatial map of olfactory receptor expression in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 96:725–736
Waterhouse A, Bertoni M, Bienert S, Studer G, Tauriello G, Gumienny R, Heer FT, de Beer TAP, Rempfer C, Bordoli L, Lepore R, Schwede T (2018) SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res 46:W296–W303
Wetzel CH, Behrendt HJ, Gisselmann G, Stortkuhl KF, Hovemann B, Hatt H (2001) Functional expression and characterization of a Drosophila odorant receptor in a heterologous cell system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:9377–9380
Wicher D (2018) Tuning insect odorant receptors. Front Cell Neurosci 12:94
Wicher D, Große-Wilde E (2017) 1.11 - Chemoreceptors in Evolution. In: Kaas JH (ed) Evolution of Nervous Systems (Second Edition). Academic Press, Oxford, pp 245–255
Wicher D, Schafer R, Bauernfeind R, Stensmyr MC, Heller R, Heinemann SH, Hansson BS (2008) Drosophila odorant receptors are both ligand-gated and cyclic-nucleotide-activated cation channels. Nature 452:1007-U1010
Xiao SK, Sun JS, Carlson JR (2019) Robust olfactory responses in the absence of odorant binding proteins. Elife 8:e51040
Yang JY, Zhang Y (2015) I-TASSER server: new development for protein structure and function predictions. Nucleic Acids Res 43:W174–W181
Zhang Y, Tsang TK, Bushong EA, Chu LA, Chiang AS, Ellisman MH, Reingruber J, Su CY (2019) Asymmetric ephaptic inhibition between compartmentalized olfactory receptor neurons. Nature Communications 10:1560
Acknowledgments
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The writing of this review was supported by the Max Planck Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Wicher, D., Miazzi, F. Functional properties of insect olfactory receptors: ionotropic receptors and odorant receptors. Cell Tissue Res 383, 7–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-020-03363-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-020-03363-x