Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Odorant receptors for floral- and plant-derived volatiles in the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

  • Heidi Pullmann-Lindsley,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States of America

  • Robert Mark Huff,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States of America

  • John Boyi,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States of America

  • Ronald Jason Pitts

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    jason_pitts@baylor.edu

    Affiliation Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States of America

Abstract

Adult mosquitoes require regular sugar meals, including nectar, to survive in natural habitats. Both males and females locate potential sugar sources using sensory proteins called odorant receptors (ORs) activated by plant volatiles to orient toward flowers or honeydew. The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762), possesses a large gene family of ORs, many of which are likely to detect floral odors. In this study, we have uncovered ligand-receptor pairings for a suite of Aedes aegypti ORs using a panel of environmentally relevant, plant-derived volatile chemicals and a heterologous expression system. Our results support the hypothesis that these odors mediate sensory responses to floral odors in the mosquito’s central nervous system, thereby influencing appetitive or aversive behaviors. Further, these ORs are well conserved in other mosquitoes, suggesting they function similarly in diverse species. This information can be used to assess mosquito foraging behavior and develop novel control strategies, especially those that incorporate mosquito bait-and-kill technologies.

Introduction

Arthropods rely on sensory receptors to interpret and interact with their environments. Arguably, olfaction is the most important sensory modality, conveying the ability to sense volatile chemical cues over large distances [13]. Olfaction is responsible for many arthropod behaviors, including host-seeking [4, 5], oviposition [6, 7], mate selection [8, 9], and nectar foraging [10, 11]. Odorant receptors (ORs) comprise the most prominent family of volatile odor detectors encoded in mosquito genomes [12]. Another family of proteins called ionotropic receptors (IRs) also functions in insect olfaction, especially in organic acid detection [13, 14]. ORs are transmembrane proteins expressed by odorant receptor neurons housed in hairlike projections called sensilla [15, 16]. Sensilla sensory appendages such as antennae, maxillary palps, labella, and leg tarsi constitute the primary olfactory appendages in insects [1719]. ORs are ligand-gated ion channels that respond to diverse, environmentally relevant volatile odorants [20]. ORs most likely form multimers that include co-expression of a single type of tuning OR complexed with an odorant receptor coreceptor (Orco), which is highly conserved across most insect taxa [2022]. Chemical volatiles enter the sensilla through tiny pores on their surfaces and either diffuse through the sensilla lymph or are shuttled by odorant binding proteins to the neuronal membrane, where they can interact with the OR/Orco complex [23, 24]. Generally, single ORs respond to one compound most robustly, though they may demonstrate the responsiveness of several other ligands. Most arthropod species have between 50 and 100 different ORs, which allow for complex and robust interactions with their respective environments through the perception of various volatile compounds. However, some species have as few as five or as many as 300 [25, 26]. The diversity of receptor proteins underlies distinct behavioral phenomena across arthropod species.

By investigating the molecular intricacies of how these receptors function, we can contribute to our understanding of insect chemical ecology, especially for mosquitoes that vector human pathogens. Deorphanizing single ORs has yielded valuable insights into many insect species, directly informing behavioral control strategies. Moth pheromones are examples of some of the most comprehensively studied ligand-OR relationships to date [27]. In the silk moth, Bombyx mori, BmOR1, responded with high specificity to the female-produced pheromone bombykol [28, 29] using a heterologous expression system [30]. Notably, disrupting BmOR1 led to the complete loss of sensitivity to bombykol, subsequently impacting pheromone source detection in male moths [31]. A pheromone and accompanying receptor have also been characterized in the cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis [32, 33]. As in Bombyx mori, the disruption of the pheromone receptor yielded a decreased response to the pheromone [34], and the knock-out of the co-receptor led to defects in mate-seeking behavior [35]. While the intricate relationships between pheromones, ORs, and mating behavior are highly species-specific, ORs are linked to several other critical behaviors, including nectar foraging in vector mosquitoes. Understanding their function could prove useful in improving existing surveillance methods, or designing new control strategies.

Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) is a prominent disease vector that transmits several arboviruses including Dengue, Zika, and yellow fever across much of Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania, and parts of North America and Europe [36]. As climate change continues to alter ecosystems and global urbanization accelerates, the viable range of Ae. aegypti may also expand, potentially increasing its threat to human health [37, 38]. Despite the significant impact of this species, relatively few of the >125 ORs that are encoded in the Ae. aegypti genome and expressed in various tissues and life stages have been functionally characterized [3943]. Studies have reported ORs presumed to contribute to female host-seeking behaviors and single sensillum recordings (SSR) have revealed that Ae. aegypti neurons responded to a variety of chemical compounds collected from human volunteers, including octanal and nonanal [4446]. Another study demonstrated that a highly conserved OR in Culicidae responds to carboxylic acids present on human skin [5]. Despite this progress, insights into the molecular aspects of volatile odor detection for other essential behaviors like floral odor detection across divergent species like Ae. aegypti and Anopheles gambiae (Giles 1902), are generally lacking, especially for larger sets of ORs. Remarkably, little is known about the shared behavior of nectar foraging between males and females, which is crucial for mosquito survival and reproductive fitness [47]. Mosquitoes inhabit a variety of ecological settings in which they must be able to adapt to local conditions to accurately respond to odors associated with flowers for nectar foraging. While preference between nectar sources has been documented in numerous mosquito species, the sensory underpinnings are yet to be thoroughly elucidated, particularly in Ae. aegypti [4851]. Recent studies have begun to characterize receptors that may be linked to floral odor sensing in mosquitoes [43], yet a more comprehensive set of OR-ligand profiles is warranted. Characterizing the ORs that mediate the detection of plant-derived compounds may provide vital information about nectar-seeking attractants that can be used in mosquito bait-and-kill systems (MBAKS) or attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs) [5254]. While MBAKS and ATSBs have demonstrated relative success in reducing mosquito populations [55], pursuing a more specific attraction to mosquito species could reduce off-target effects [56]. The present study aims to expand upon both the number of receptors characterized and the number of chemical compounds tested.

In this study, we investigated ORs in Ae. aegypti that are conserved in several disease vector mosquito species and are closely related to other ORs that function in floral odor sensing [43, 57, 58]. These receptors are expressed mainly in male and female antennae [39, 40, 42], suggesting they may function in a shared behavior such as nectar foraging. We initiated this study by combining manual gene annotations with heterologous expression and two-electrode voltage clamping (TEVC) to identify activating ligands from a library of 147 chemical compounds [5961]. Using this method, we characterized ORs in Ae. aegypti to improve our understanding of the molecular basis for mosquito nectar seeking or other vital behaviors.

Materials and methods

Phylogenetic analysis and gene annotations

A conserved clade of genes appears to be activated by floral or nectar odors and utilized by mosquitoes in foraging. These genes were identified via BLAST via tBLASTn or BLASTp using VectorBase and confirmed using available RNAseq data (S1 and S2 Files). Closely related ORs from Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say, 1823) were also identified (S3 and S4 Files). DNA sequences from the reference genomes (Ae. aegypti LVP_AGWG, Ae. albopictus Foshan FPA, Cx. quinquefasciatus JHB 2020) were downloaded and the genes were manually annotated using SnapGene (Dotmatics, Boston, MA, USA). Intron analysis was conducted for the Ae. aegypti genes and compared with previously identified conserved introns [39]. A Neighbor-Joining tree was constructed sing Geneious Prime software (Biomatters Ltd., Boston, MA, USA) from a multiple alignment of amino acids for homologous receptors.

Gene cloning and sequencing

The coding regions of ten AaegOR genes of interest (S3 File) and AaegOrco were synthesized by Twist Bioscience (San Francisco, CA, USA) and cloned into the pENTR plasmid. The Gateway LR directional cloning system (Invitrogen Corp., Carlsbad, CA, USA) was utilized to subclone AaegOR coding regions into the pSP64t-RFA oocyte expression plasmid. Plasmids were purified using the GeneJet Plasmid Miniprep Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Purified plasmids were sequenced in both directions to confirm coding regions.

OR gene expression analysis and de novo transcript assembly

OR expression values in Transcripts Per Million (TPM) were obtained from VectorBase (vectorbase.org) using data from a published study of Ae. aegypti chemosensory appendages (S5 File) [42]. De novo transcripts were assembled using non-bloodfed female antennae and maxillary palp RNAseq data sets [42, 62] using the Trinity software package [41] on the Galaxy server (usegalaxy.org) and aligned using ClustalW with character counts (S2 File) [63].

Chemical reagents

Chemical compounds (S6 File) used in the deorphanization of AaegORs were purchased from Acros Organics (Morris, NJ, USA), Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, MA, USA), and ThermoFisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA) at the highest purity available. Compounds were stored as 1M stocks in 100% DMSO. Serial dilutions of each compound were prepared in 10% DMSO and blended by chemical class.

Two-electrode voltage clamping

pSP64t-RFA: AaegOR clones were linearized using Xbal, and cRNAs were synthesized using the mMESSAGE mMACHINE ® SP6 kit (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Xenopus laevis stage V-VII oocytes purchased from Xenopus1 (Dexter, MI, USA) were stored at 18°C in Incubation medium (ND96 96 with 5% dialyzed horse serum, 50μg/mL gentamycin, 100μg/mL streptomycin, 100μg/mL penicillin, and 550μg/mL sodium pyruvate). 30nL of cRNA was injected into multiple oocytes using a microinjection syringe pump (World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL, USA) maintained at 18°C for 48–72 hrs. Odorant blends were perfused across individual oocytes for 10–15 seconds, held at a resting membrane potential of -80 mV using an OC-725C oocyte clamp (Warner Instruments, LLC, Hamden, CT, USA). Induced currents were measured indirectly using the two-electrode voltage clamp technique (TEVC). Following each stimulus, currents were allowed to return to baseline before further stimulation. Data was captured using the Digidata 1550 B digitizer and PClamp10 software (Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA, USA). Concentration-response curves were generated by perfusing unitary odorants over oocytes at increasing concentrations from [10-3M] to [10-9M]. Data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). At least two biological replicates were conducted at each concentration and for each compound. Data for at least seven oocytes responding to each compound was analyzed (S7 File).

Results

1. Aedes aegypti odorant receptors are expressed in male and female antennae and conserved in other disease vector mosquitoes

A comparison of sequences used in this study against publicly available RNAseq datasets [40] confirmed AaegOR gene structures (S1 File) and quantified expression of transcrips in adult sensory appendages (Table 1 and S5 File). AaegORs are most abundant in the antennae of both sexes, with the exception of AaegOR8, which is expressed in the maxillary palps (Table 1) [39, 42]. Phylogenetic reconstrcutions using conceptual translations of candidate floral volatile sensing odorant receptors in three major disease vectors, Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus, revealed conserved lineages (Fig 1A), while manually curated gene structures (Fig 1B) and amino acid alignments (S4 File) further support close evolutionary relationships among homologs in Culicinae. In the course of our studies, we identified six new ORs in Ae. albopictus, including two OR11 homologs, named AalbOR11a and AalbOR11b, a second OR13 homolog, AalbOR13b, and three previously unannotated OR31 homologs, AalbOR31a, AalbOr31b, AalbOR31c. Overall, our observations provide a subset of ORs that are likely to share similar ligands across multiple mosquito species.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Phylogenetic analysis of candidate floral volatile sensing ORs in major disease vectors.

(A) Neighbor-joining tree showing relationships among floral volatile sensing ORs for three disease vector species of mosquitoes: Ae. aegypti (black), Ae. albopictus (Blue), and Cx. quinquefasciatus (green). Bootstrap values from 1000 pseudoreplicates are given at each node. (B) Odorant receptor gene structures. Circles indicate introns, numbers within circles are intron phases. Letters and colors mark conserved positions accoding to [39].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.g001

thumbnail
Table 1. Transcripts per million in Ae. Aegypti sensory appendages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.t001

2. AaegORs respond to environmentally relevant compounds in a concentration-dependent manner

Oocytes expressing Ae. aegypti ORs responded robustly to blends of chemical compounds (Fig 2 and S6 File). While we observed some low-level activation to multiple blends by each AaegOR (Fig 2), all demonstrated a pronounced selectivity for one blend over the others, as indicated by highly positive kurtosis values (Table 2). The blends that most frequently activated ORs were indole or alcohol blends. Unitary compounds from the highest activating blend for each OR were tested individually. We determined the primary ligand for each AaegOR from our chemical library and, in some cases, noted other secondary ligands (Table 2 and Fig 3). As with the blends, ORs exhibited pronounced activation by a single chemical compound, again supported by highly positive kurtosis values (Table 2). A defining feature of chemical receptor responsiveness is concentration-dependent activation. To investigate this aspect of OR function, we challenged oocytes with increasing concentrations of unitary compounds and estimated their potencies by calculating the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) for each primary ligand (Table 2 and Fig 4).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Heat map gradation of normalized AaegOR responses.

Blends of chemical compounds used for receptor screening are listed on the left-hand side, while receptor identities are listed as columns below. The scale to the right spans the normalized response range from highest (100, yellow) to lowest (0, blue).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.g002

thumbnail
Fig 3. Ae. aegypti odorant receptor responses to blend components.

Normalized mean current responses of AaegORX/Orco expressing oocytes (n = 7–10) to individual chemical compounds. (A) 4-chromanone, (B) 1-octen-3-ol, (C) 3-methylindole, (D) cis-decahydro-1-napthol, (E) 4-ethylphenol, (F) 1-hexanol, (G) tetrahydrolinalool, (H) farnesol, (I) 2,3-dimethylindole, and (J) 4-quinolinecarboxyaldehyde. The structure of each compound is shown in figure inserts.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.g003

thumbnail
Fig 4. Ae. aegypti odorant receptor concentration-response curves.

Normalized mean current responses of AaegORX/Orco expressing oocytes (n>10) to increasing log [M] concentrations of individual compounds. (A) 4-chromanone, (B) 1-octen-3-ol, (C) 3-methylindole (D) cis-decahydro-1-napthol, (E) 4-ethylphenol, (F) 1-hexanol, (G) tetrahydrolinalool, (H) farnesol, (I) 2,3-dimethylindole, and (J) 4-quinolinecarboxyaldehyde. Representative traces from individual oocyte recordings are shown above each curve, and EC50 values are given in figure insets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.g004

thumbnail
Table 2. Functional responses of Ae. aegypti odorant receptors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.t002

Three AaegORs responded robustly to the Indole 1 blend (Fig 2) with distinct unitary responses (Fig 3) producing potencies in the low micromolar range (Table 2 and Fig 4). For example, OR10, OR13, and OR55 responded to 3-methylindole (EC50 ∼0.16 μM), 4-ethylphenol (EC50 ∼0.17 μM), and 2,3-dimethylindole (EC50 ∼8.65 μM), respectively (Figs 3 and 4). OR6 and OR71 responded with the highest efficacies to the Indole 2 blend (Fig 2) and low-micromolar concentration-dependent responses to 4-chromanone (EC50 ∼6.84 μM) and 4-quinoline carboxaldehyde (EC50 ∼0.96 μM), respectively (Figs 3 and 4). Four AaegORs were activated by one or more alcohols from various blends (Fig 3): OR31 was specifically activated by farnesol, a sesquiterpene compound, from the Alcohols 1 blend (EC50 ∼14.32 μM), OR8 responded with the highest efficacy to 1-octen-3-ol (EC50 ∼2.14 μM), OR15 responded best to 1-hexanol (EC50 ∼1.07 μM) with additional responses to phenethyl propionate and other gree-leaf volatiles trans-2-hexanol and cis-3-henen-2-ol, and OR28 responded to tetrahydrolinalool (EC50 ∼44.13 μM) from the Alcohols 3 blend (Figs 3 and 4). Finally, the only receptor to respond to a compound not belonging to an indole or alcohol blend was OR11, which responded to cis-decahydro-1-naphthal (EC50 ∼68.40 μM) from the Terpenes 3 blend (Figs 3 and 4). Overall, we successfully identified ligands for a number of AaegORs that provide new insights into their potential function in physiological sensitivities of olfactory sensory neurons and, ultimately, behavioral responses to floral odors, as discussed below.

Discussion

For mosquitoes, nectar foraging to obtain sugar meals is essential for survival. Moreover, individuals who locate and access higher-quality nectar sources exhibit extended lifespans and increased fecundity [47, 64, 65]. Therefore, exploring the molecular mechanisms driving selective preferences is imperative to a more complete understanding of mosquito chemical ecology. While prior studies have demonstrated the existence of nectar source preferences in various mosquito species corresponding to nectar qualities [49, 50, 6670], a substantial gap in our comprehension of the sensory components facilitating these preferences remains. In other insect species, investigating OR function has been instrumental in deciphering behavioral patterns and formulating effective control measures [7173].

ORs function as sensory gateways, providing critical information about the surrounding environment and enabling mosquitoes to discern and select nectar sources based on the chemical signals they receive [3]. In this context, our research centers on the responsiveness of a series of ORs to a library of ecologically relevant compounds, linking OR-ligand relationships to floral- or plant-derived odor sensing. By expanding our knowledge of the chemoreceptive basis of this critical mosquito sensory function, we expect to contribute to enhanced surveillance and control measures by developing more effective MBAKS. In turn, these improvements may help to mitigate the impact of mosquitoes on human health.

We initiated this study by examining Ae. aegypti OR gene structures, expression patterns, and relatedness to ORs from two other prominent disease vectors, Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus [43, 57, 61, 74]. While we have identified numerous chemoreceptors of interest in the three mosquito species that could respond to floral odors, we selected a subset of highly conserved ORs for our initial investigations in Ae. aegypti (Fig 1 and S3 File). Given their well-characterized response profiles, we selected AaegORs 8 and 10 as a means of verifying the accuracy of our heterologous cell expression platform [61, 74, 77]. Additional Ae. aegypti ORs were chosen because of their homologies to ORs that have been previously shown to respond to floral odors or other behaviorally relevant volatile compounds and the potential to identify novel ligands in our compound library (S6 File) [6, 43, 57, 7578]. While AaegORs are expressed in various chemosensory tissues, antennae are the primary structures involved in odor sensing [1]. Their expression in the antennae of both sexes suggests that ORs are used for shared behaviors, such as nectar feeding (Table 1 and S5 File). Furthermore, by refining and examining Ae. aegypti ORs gene structures, we identified homologs of interest in both Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus, two medically important mosquito species. The existence of numerous closely related genes leads us to propose that the essential act of nectar foraging in vector mosquitoes shares a common underlying OR mechanism, indeed that OR-ligand pairs may have been conserved through the divergence of these species. Future studies will be required to characterize the response profiles of conserved ORs and to establish the requirement of these receptors in nectar foraging in Ae. aegypti and other species.

Using two-electrode voltage clamping in conjunction with the Xenopus laevis oocyte expression system, we assessed the responses of the AaegORs to our chemical library, which contains 147 compounds organized into 14 blends (S6 File). Our library was intentionally developed to include compounds that have been shown to influence insect behaviors. Many AaegORs responded robustly to the blends containing indole or indole-like compounds (Fig 2 and S7 File). Indoles are relatively ubiquitous in natural settings and are present in potential nectar sources [81, 82]. AaegOR71 responded to 4-quinoline carboxaldehyde, a compound identified in honey samples and endophytic bacteria, via gas chromatography [79, 80]. However, indoles are emitted naturally from many sources, including flowers, vertebrate hosts, and oviposition sites of microbiotic origin, suggesting they influence multiple behaviors across species [81, 82]. AaegOR6 responded best to 4-chromanone, a compound that is found in shrubs of the Asteraceae family, is structurally related to quinolines, and is a key constituent of flavonoid skeletons [83, 84]. AaegOR10 responded to 3-methylindole (skatole) found in animal feces and produces behavioral responses in other Dipteran species [8588], while AaegOR55 responded to the structurally related compounds 2,3-dimethylindole and 3-methylindole. The best ligand identified for AaegOR13 was 4-ethylphenol, a volatile constituent of foral odors that is found in wine and has been linked to oviposition behavior in Culex pipiens [89, 90]. Other ORs were activated by plant-associated compounds from the alcohol blends. For example, AaegOR8 responded to 1-octen-3-ol, a well-characterized response to a floral odor and fungal volatile that variously attracts or deters insects depending on concentration [77, 91, 92]. A green-leaf volatile, 1-hexanol, is another compound with well-characterized physiological effects in many arthropods [9396]. In our study, we discovered that 1-hexanol activates AaegOR15 with the highest efficacy and a very low threshold of response (EC50 ∼1.07 μM), as compared with phenethyl propionate identified in a previous study [43]. AaegOR28 responded best to tetrahydrolinalool, with lower responses to the isomers of linalool, which are plant/floral-derived compounds that have been shown to activate ORs from Anophelines [58]. AaegOR31 responds to farnesol, a common sesquiterpene extract in plant essential oils and a significant constituent of the honeybee Nasanov pheromone [97, 98]. Lastly, the AaegOR11 ligand, cis-decahydro-1-napthol, is structurally related to geosmin, a known oviposition attractant [99]. One limitation of oocyte studies is the number of compounds that can be screened. More efficacious or potent ligands may exist for AaegOR11 and AaegOR28, which resulted in estimated EC50 values greater than 40μM (Table 2). In the future, we will expand our library to further explore structure-activity relationships for ligand-receptor pairs identified in this study.

While ligands for four of the ORs in this study (AaegORs 8, 10, 11, and 15) had been identified in prior studies, we utilized them as positive controls and to search for new activating compounds, as our chemical library is more expansive than the ones previously tested. For AaegOR8 and AaegOR10, our results confirm high selectivity and sensitivity to 1-octen-3-ol and skatole, respectively [61, 100]. However, for AaegOR11 and AaegOR15, we discovered novel ligands with higher efficacies than those previously described. For AaegOR11, we found that cis-decahydro-1-napthol produced a greater magnitude of response than (-)-fenchone or (+)-fenchone [101], and we identified 1-hexanol as a potent activator of AaegOR15 in addition to phenethyl propionate [43]. This demonstrates that even for deorphanized ORs, assessing their function with expanded chemical libraries can aid in improving our understanding receptor-ligand interactions.

Ae. aegypti and other vector mosquitoes remain persistent global threats to human health and flourishing. Pursuing receptor-ligand pairings is paramount, as it opens doors to identifying potential attractants for behavioral control or targets for genetic knockout. In our investigation of floral-odor sensing receptors, we aim to pinpoint compounds that impart behavioral attraction for both sexes that can be applied in MBAKS. While these technologies have been successfully deployed in some studies [5456], identifying compounds that activate Ae. aegypti ORs offer the potential to refine and enhance their effectiveness while minimizing the impact on non-target species. OR deorphanization is a crucial initial step in unraveling the intricate sensory systems of arthropods, providing valuable insights for future experiments and control strategies. While we have demonstrated OR- ligand interacts on a molecular level, more research is needed to determine how these ligands might influence behavior. Future studies will include olfactometry with wild-type and gene-knockout mosquitoes to verify the roles of these ORs and potential changes in their expression patterns in response to ligand exposure [102]. These studies can help to identify specific attractants in surveillance systems or MBAKS to monitor and control mosquito populations and combat the spread of disease. This focused endeavor not only aids in addressing the immediate threats posed by vector mosquitoes but also contributes to our broader understanding of insect behavior and the development of sustainable control measures.

Supporting information

S1 File. RNA sequencing validation of ORs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s001

(DOCX)

S2 File. Alignments of conceptual translations of AaegORs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s002

(DOCX)

S3 File. Odorant receptor homologs in Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, and Culex quinquefasciatus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s003

(XLSX)

S4 File. Odorant receptor homolog alignments and intron positions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s004

(DOCX)

S5 File. Expression of Aedes aegypti odorant receptors in adult head appendages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s005

(XLSX)

S7 File. Raw data for two-electrode voltage clamping.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302496.s007

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge members of the Pitts Laboratory (Baylor University) and Drs. Jeffrey Riffell (University of Washington) and Omar Akbari (University of California San Diego) for helpful discussions. They are also grateful to the Baylor University Molecular Biosciences Center (Dr. Michelle Nemec, Director) for the use of equipment.

References

  1. 1. Hansson BS, Stensmyr MC. Evolution of insect olfaction. Neuron. 2011 Dec 8;72(5):698–711. pmid:22153368
  2. 2. Ray A. Reception of odors and repellents in mosquitoes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2015 Oct 1;34:158–64. pmid:26202080
  3. 3. Lutz EK, Lahondère C, Vinauger C, Riffell JA. Olfactory learning and chemical ecology of olfaction in disease vector mosquitoes: a life history perspective. Current Opinion in Insect Science. 2017 Apr 1;20:75–83. pmid:28602240
  4. 4. Sun H, Liu F, Ye Z, Baker A, Zwiebel LJ. Mutagenesis of the orco odorant receptor coreceptor impairs olfactory function in the malaria vector Anopheles coluzzii. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2020 Dec;127:103497. pmid:33188923
  5. 5. Huff RM, Pitts RJ. Carboxylic acid responses by a conserved odorant receptor in culicine vector mosquitoes. Insect Mol Biol. 2020 Dec;29(6):523–30. pmid:32715523
  6. 6. Hughes DT, Pelletier J, Luetje CW, Leal WS. An odorant receptor from the southern house mosquito narrowly tuned to the oviposition attractant skatole. J Chem Ecol. 2010 Aug;36(8):797–800.
  7. 7. Liu H, Liu L, Cheng P, Huang X, Gong M. An odorant receptor from Anopheles sinensis in China is sensitive to oviposition attractants. Malar J. 2018 Oct 5;17(1):348. pmid:30290802
  8. 8. Dahanukar A, Hallem EA, Carlson JR. Insect chemoreception. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005 Aug;15(4):423–30. pmid:16006118
  9. 9. Sun YL, Dong JF, Yang HB, Li DX, Tian CH. Identification and characterization of chemosensory receptors in the pheromone gland-ovipositor of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Insects. 2022 May;13(5):481. pmid:35621815
  10. 10. Huff RM, Pitts RJ. An odorant receptor from Anopheles gambiae demonstrates enantioselectivity to the plant volatile linalool. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0225637.
  11. 11. Dekel A, Yakir E, Bohbot JD. The sulcatone receptor of the strict nectar-feeding mosquito Toxorhynchites amboinensis. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2019 Aug 1;111:103174. pmid:31129164
  12. 12. Robertson HM. Molecular evolution of the major arthropod chemoreceptor gene families. Annual Review of Entomology. 2019;64(1):227–42. pmid:30312552
  13. 13. Raji JI, Melo N, Castillo JS, Gonzalez S, Saldana V, Stensmyr MC, et al. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes detect acidic volatiles found in human odor using the Ir8a pathway. Curr Biol. 2019 Apr 22;29(8):1253–1262.e7. pmid:30930038
  14. 14. Stocker RF. Drosophila as a focus in olfactory research: Mapping of olfactory sensilla by fine structure, odor specificity, odorant receptor expression, and central connectivity. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2001;55(5):284–96. pmid:11754508
  15. 15. Jiang X, Breer H, Pregitzer P. Sensilla-specific expression of odorant receptors in the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1052. pmid:31507434
  16. 16. Sutcliffe JF. Sensory bases of attractancy: morphology of mosquito olfactory sensilla—a review. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994 Jun;10(2 Pt 2):309–15. pmid:8965084
  17. 17. Zahran N, Sawires S, Hamza A. Piercing and sucking mouth parts sensilla of irradiated mosquito, Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) with gamma radiation. Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 25;12(1):17833. pmid:36284127
  18. 18. Yamany AS, Abdel-Gaber R. Studies on the sensory sensilla on the tarsi and external genitalia of the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Skuse). Microsc Res Tech. 2023 Feb;86(2):242–51. pmid:36398839
  19. 19. del Mármol J, Yedlin MA, Ruta V. The structural basis of odorant recognition in insect olfactory receptors. Nature. 2021 Sep;597(7874):126–31. pmid:34349260
  20. 20. Tiwari V, Sowdhamini R. Structure modelling of odorant receptor from Aedes aegypti and identification of potential repellent molecules. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2023 Jan 1;21:2204–14. pmid:37013002
  21. 21. Stengl M, Funk NW. The role of the coreceptor Orco in insect olfactory transduction. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2013 Nov;199(11):897–909. pmid:23824225
  22. 22. Butterwick JA, del Mármol J, Kim KH, Kahlson MA, Rogow JA, Walz T, et al. Cryo-EM structure of the insect olfactory receptor Orco. Nature. 2018 Aug;560(7719):447–52. pmid:30111839
  23. 23. Zhou JJ. Chapter Ten ‐ Odorant-binding proteins in insects. In: Litwack G, editor. Vitamins & Hormones [Internet]. Academic Press; 2010 [cited 2023 Jul 6]. p. 241–72. (Pheromones; vol. 83).
  24. 24. Li RT, Huang LQ, Dong JF, Wang CZ. A moth odorant receptor highly expressed in the ovipositor is involved in detecting host-plant volatiles. Elife. 2020 May 21;9:e53706. pmid:32436842
  25. 25. Leal WS. Odorant reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annual Review of Entomology. 2013;58(1):373–91. pmid:23020622
  26. 26. Brand P, Robertson HM, Lin W, Pothula R, Klingeman WE, Jurat-Fuentes JL, et al. The origin of the odorant receptor gene family in insects. Benton R, Tautz D, editors. eLife. 2018 Jul 31;7:e38340. pmid:30063003
  27. 27. Fleischer J, Krieger J. Insect pheromone receptors ‐ key elements in sensing intraspecific chemical signals. Front Cell Neurosci. 2018;12:425. pmid:30515079
  28. 28. Sakurai T, Nakagawa T, Mitsuno H, Mori H, Endo Y, Tanoue S, et al. Identification and functional characterization of a sex pheromone receptor in the silkmoth Bombyx mori. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004 Nov 23;101(47):16653–8. pmid:15545611
  29. 29. Krieger J, Große-Wilde E, Gohl T, Breer H. Candidate pheromone receptors of the silkmoth Bombyx mori. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;21(8):2167–76 pmid:15869513
  30. 30. Nakagawa T, Sakurai T, Nishioka T, Touhara K. Insect sex-pheromone signals mediated by specific combinations of olfactory receptors. Science. 2005 Mar 11;307(5715):1638–42. pmid:15692016
  31. 31. Sakurai T, Mitsuno H, Mikami A, Uchino K, Tabuchi M, Zhang F, et al. Targeted disruption of a single sex pheromone receptor gene completely abolishes in vivo pheromone response in the silkmoth. Sci Rep. 2015 Jun 5;5(1):11001.
  32. 32. Montagné N, Chertemps T, Brigaud I, François A, François MC, de Fouchier A, et al. Functional characterization of a sex pheromone receptor in the pest moth Spodoptera littoralis by heterologous expression in Drosophila. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;36(5):2588–96. pmid:22748123
  33. 33. Walker WB, Roy A, Anderson P, Schlyter F, Hansson BS, Larsson MC. Transcriptome analysis of gene families involved in chemosensory function in Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). BMC Genomics. 2019 May 28;20(1):428. pmid:31138111
  34. 34. Koutroumpa F, Monsempès C, Anton S, François MC, Montagné N, Jacquin-Joly E. Pheromone receptor knock-out affects pheromone detection and brain structure in a moth. Biomolecules. 2022 Feb 22;12(3):341. pmid:35327533
  35. 35. Koutroumpa FA, Monsempes C, François MC, de Cian A, Royer C, Concordet JP, et al. Heritable genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 induces anosmia in a crop pest moth. Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 12;6(1):29620.
  36. 36. Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQN, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015 Jun 30;4:e08347.
  37. 37. Iwamura T, Guzman-Holst A, Murray KA. Accelerating invasion potential of disease vector Aedes aegypti under climate change. Nat Commun. 2020 May 1;11(1):2130. pmid:32358588
  38. 38. Khormi HM, Kumar L. Climate change and the potential global distribution of Aedes aegypti: spatial modelling using GIS and CLIMEX. Geospat Health. 2014 May;8(2):405–15. pmid:24893017
  39. 39. Bohbot J, Pitts RJ, Kwon HW, Rützler M, Robertson HM, Zwiebel LJ. Molecular characterization of the Aedes aegypti odorant receptor gene family. Insect Mol Biol. 2007 Oct;16(5):525–37. pmid:17635615
  40. 40. Matthews BJ, McBride CS, DeGennaro M, Despo O, Vosshall LB. The neurotranscriptome of the Aedes aegypti mosquito. BMC Genomics. 2016 Jan 6;17:32. pmid:26738925
  41. 41. Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644–52. pmid:21572440
  42. 42. Matthews BJ, Dudchenko O, Kingan SB, Koren S, Antoshechkin I, Crawford JE, et al. Improved reference genome of Aedes aegypti informs arbovirus vector control. Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7732):501–7. pmid:30429615
  43. 43. Zeng F, Xu P, Leal WS. Odorant receptors from Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes aegypti sensitive to floral compounds. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019 Oct;113:103213. pmid:31442487
  44. 44. Coutinho-Abreu IV, Riffell JA, Akbari OS. Human attractive cues and mosquito host-seeking behavior. Trends in Parasitology. 2022 Mar 1;38(3):246–64. pmid:34674963
  45. 45. Wang X, Chen Z, Wang Y, Liu F, Jiang S, Liu N. Heterologous expression and functional analysis of aedes aegypti odorant receptors to human odors in Xenopus oocytes. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments). 2021 Jun 8;(172):e61813. pmid:34180875
  46. 46. Ghaninia M, Larsson M, Hansson BS, Ignell R. Natural odor ligands for olfactory receptor neurons of the female mosquito Aedes aegypti: use of gas chromatography-linked single sensillum recordings. J Exp Biol. 2008 Sep;211(Pt 18):3020–7. pmid:18775939
  47. 47. Nyasembe VO, Tchouassi DP, Muturi MN, Pirk CWW, Sole CL, Torto B. Plant nutrient quality impacts survival and reproductive fitness of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors. 2021 Jan 4;14(1):4. pmid:33397448
  48. 48. Dieng H, Satho T, Binti Arzemi NA, Aliasan NE, Abang F, Wydiamala E, et al. Exposure of a diurnal mosquito vector to floral mimics: Foraging responses, feeding patterns, and significance for sugar bait technology. Acta Tropica. 2018 Sep 1;185:230–8. pmid:29856985
  49. 49. Grimstad PR, DeFoliart GR. Nectar sources of Wisconsin mosquitoes1. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1974 Jul 15;11(3):331–41.
  50. 50. Nikbakhtzadeh MR, Terbot JW II, Otienoburu PE, Foster WA. Olfactory basis of floral preference of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) among common African plants. Journal of Vector Ecology. 2014;39(2):372–83 pmid:25424267
  51. 51. Kashiwagi GA, von Oppen S, Harburguer L, González-Audino P. The main component of the scent of Senecio madagascariensis flowers is an attractant for Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes. Bull Entomol Res. 2022 Dec;112(6):837–46. pmid:35792561
  52. 52. Sissoko F, Junnila A, Traore MM, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Dembele SM, et al. Frequent sugar feeding behavior by Aedes aegypti in Bamako, Mali, makes them ideal candidates for control with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB). PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0214170. pmid:31206547
  53. 53. Fikrig K, Johnson BJ, Fish D, Ritchie SA. Assessment of synthetic floral-based attractants and sugar baits to capture male and female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasit Vectors. 2017 Jan 17;10(1):32. pmid:28095875
  54. 54. Qualls WA, Müller GC, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Beier JC, et al. Evaluation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)-barrier for control of vector and nuisance mosquitoes and its effect on non-target organisms in sub-tropical environments in Florida. Acta Tropica. 2014;131(1):104–10. pmid:24361724
  55. 55. Junnila A, Revay EE, Müller GC, Kravchenko V, Qualls WA, Xue R de, et al. Efficacy of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) against Aedes albopictus with garlic oil encapsulated in beta-cyclodextrin as the active ingredient. Acta Trop. 2015 Dec;152:195–200. pmid:26403337
  56. 56. Fiorenzano JM, Koehler PG, Xue RD. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) for control of mosquitoes and its impact on non-target organisms: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 10;14(4):398. pmid:28394284
  57. 57. Wang G, Carey AF, Carlson JR, Zwiebel LJ. Molecular basis of odor coding in the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010 Mar 2;107(9):4418–23. pmid:20160092
  58. 58. Huff RM, Pitts RJ. Functional conservation of Anopheline linalool receptors through 100 million years of evolution. Chemical Senses. 2022 Jan 1;47:bjac032. pmid:36458901
  59. 59. Mowry KL. Using the Xenopus oocyte toolbox. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2020 Apr 1;2020(4):095844. pmid:31980467
  60. 60. Baak-Baak CM, Rodríguez-Ramírez AD, García-Rejón JE, Ríos-Delgado S, Torres-Estrada JL. Development and laboratory evaluation of chemically-based baited ovitrap for the monitoring of Aedes aegypti. J Vector Ecol. 2013 Jun;38(1):175–81. pmid:23701623
  61. 61. Ruel DM, Yakir E, Bohbot JD. Supersensitive odorant receptor underscores pleiotropic roles of indoles in mosquito ecology. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2019;12.
  62. 62. Hill SR, Taparia T, Ignell R. Regulation of the antennal transcriptome of the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti, during the first gonotrophic cycle. BMC Genomics. 2021 Jan 21;22(1):71. pmid:33478394
  63. 63. Li W, Cowley A, Uludag M, Gur T, McWilliam H, Squizzato S, et al. The EMBL-EBI bioinformatics web and programmatic tools framework. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jul 1;43(W1):W580–584. pmid:25845596
  64. 64. Foster WA. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annual Review of Entomology. 1995;40(1):443–74. pmid:7810991
  65. 65. Stone CM, Taylor RM, Roitberg BD, Foster WA. Sugar deprivation reduces insemination of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae), despite daily recruitment of adults, and predicts decline in model populations. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2009 Nov 1;46(6):1327–37. pmid:19960677
  66. 66. Barredo E, DeGennaro M. Not Just from Blood: Mosquito nutrient acquisition from nectar sources. Trends Parasitol. 2020 May;36(5):473–84. pmid:32298634
  67. 67. Vargo AM, Foster WA. Responsiveness of female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to flower extracts. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1982 Nov 30;19(6):710–8.
  68. 68. Gouagna LC, Poueme RS, Dabiré KR, Ouédraogo JB, Fontenille D, Simard F. Patterns of sugar feeding and host plant preferences in adult males of An. gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Vector Ecology. 2010;35(2):267–76. pmid:21175931
  69. 69. Chen Z, Kearney CM. Nectar protein content and attractiveness to Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens in plants with nectar/insect associations. Acta Trop. 2015 Jun;146:81–8. pmid:25792420
  70. 70. Lahondère C, Vinauger C, Okubo RP, Wolff GH, Chan JK, Akbari OS, et al. The olfactory basis of orchid pollination by mosquitoes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020 Jan 7;117(1):708–16. pmid:31871198
  71. 71. Wang Q, Xu P, Andreazza F, Liu Y, Nomura Y, Duran P, et al. Identification of multiple odorant receptors essential for pyrethrum repellency in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2021 Jul;17(7):e1009677. pmid:34237075
  72. 72. Cattaneo AM. Current status on the functional characterization of chemosensory receptors of Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2018;12. pmid:30210318
  73. 73. Xia Y, Wang G, Buscariollo D, Pitts RJ, Wenger H, Zwiebel LJ. The molecular and cellular basis of olfactory-driven behavior in Anopheles gambiae larvae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 29;105(17):6433–8. pmid:18427108
  74. 74. Bohbot JD, Jones PL, Wang G, Pitts RJ, Pask GM, Zwiebel LJ. Conservation of indole responsive odorant receptors in mosquitoes reveals an ancient olfactory trait. Chem Senses. 2011 Jan;36(2):149–60. pmid:20956733
  75. 75. Syed Z, Leal WS. Maxillary palps are broad spectrum odorant detectors in Culex quinquefasciatus. Chem Senses. 2007 Oct;32(8):727–38. pmid:17569743
  76. 76. Carey AF, Wang G, Su CY, Zwiebel LJ, Carlson JR. Odorant reception in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Nature. 2010 Mar 4;464(7285):66–71. pmid:20130575
  77. 77. Bohbot JD, Dickens JC. Characterization of an enantioselective odorant receptor in the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. PLOS ONE. 2009 Sep 15;4(9):e7032. pmid:19753115
  78. 78. Pelletier J, Hughes DT, Luetje CW, Leal WS. An odorant receptor from the southern house mosquito Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus sensitive to oviposition attractants. PLOS ONE. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10090. pmid:20386699
  79. 79. Rodríguez-Cabo T, Moniruzzaman M, Rodríguez I, Ramil M, Cela R, Gan SH. Time-of-flight accurate mass spectrometry identification of quinoline alkaloids in honey. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015 Aug 1;407(20):6159–70. pmid:26041455
  80. 80. Moniruzzaman M, Rodríguez I, Ramil M, Cela R, Sulaiman SA, Gan . Assessment of gas chromatography time-of-flight accurate mass spectrometry for identification of volatile and semi-volatile compounds in honey. Talanta. 2014 Nov 1;129:505–15. pmid:25127626
  81. 81. Naama-Amar A, Gitman S, Shoshana N, Bahar O, Naor V, Zchori-Fein E, et al. Antimicrobial activity of metabolites secreted by the endophytic bacterium Frateuria defendens. Plants. 2020 Jan;9(1):72. pmid:31935875
  82. 82. Tomberlin JK, Crippen TL, Wu G, Griffin AS, Wood TK, Kilner RM. Indole: An evolutionarily conserved influencer of behavior across kingdoms. BioEssays. 2017;39(2):1600203. pmid:28009057
  83. 83. Bohlmann F, Jakupovic J, Schuster A, King RM, Robinson H. Guaianolides and homoditerpenes from Lasiolaena morii. Phytochem. 1982; 21(1):161–65.
  84. 84. Liu Y, Qian X, Xing J, Li N, Li J, Su Q, et al. Accurate determination of 12 lactones and 11 volatile phenols in nongrape wines through headspace-solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) combined with high-resolution gas chromatography-orbitrap mass spectrometry (GC-Orbitrap-MS). J Agric Food Chem. 2022 Feb 16;70(6):1971–83. pmid:35112570
  85. 85. Yokoyama M, Carlson J. Microbial metabolites of tryptophan in the intestinal tract with special reference to skatole1 2. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1979 Jan 1;32(1):173–8.
  86. 86. Cook KL, Rothrock MJ, Loughrin JH, Doerner KC. Characterization of skatole-producing microbial populations in enriched swine lagoon slurry. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 May;60(2):329–40. pmid:17374129
  87. 87. Jeanbourquin P, Guerin PM. Sensory and behavioural responses of the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans to rumen volatiles. Med Vet Entomol. 2007 Sep;21(3):217–24. pmid:17897361
  88. 88. Johnson SD, Sivechurran J, Doarsamy S, Shuttleworth A. Dung mimicry: the function of volatile emissions and corolla patterning in fly-pollinated Wurmbea flowers. New Phytologist. 2020;228(5):1662–73. pmid:33460187
  89. 89. Musonye HA, Njeru EM, Hassanali A, Langata LM, Mijele D, Kaitho T, et al. 16S rRNA gene profiling of bacterial communities mediating production of tsetse attractive phenols in mammalian urine. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 2019 Jul 17;86(1):12. pmid:31368325
  90. 90. Zhu F, Xu P, Barbosa RMR, Choo YM, Leal WS. RNAi-based demonstration of direct link between specific odorant receptors and mosquito oviposition behavior. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2013 Oct 1;43(10):916–23. pmid:23911547
  91. 91. Kline DL. Olfactory attractants for mosquito surveillance and control: 1-octen-3-ol. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994 Jun;10(2 Pt 2):280–7. pmid:8965080
  92. 92. Xu P, Zhu F, Buss GK, Leal WS. 1-Octen-3-ol ‐ the attractant that repels. F1000Res. 2015 Jun 18;4:156. pmid:26543554
  93. 93. De Jong R, Visser JH. Integration of olfactory information in the Colorado potato beetle brain. Brain Research. 1988 Apr 26;447(1):10–7. pmid:3382944
  94. 94. Dickens JC, Prestwich GD, Ng CS, Visser JH. Selectively fluorinated analogs reveal differential olfactory reception and inactivation of green leaf volatiles in insects. J Chem Ecol. 1993 Sep 1;19(9):1981–91. pmid:24249373
  95. 95. Williams L, Blackmer JL, Rodriguez-Saona C, Zhu S. Plant volatiles influence electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Lygus hesperus. J Chem Ecol. 2010 May 1;36(5):467–78. pmid:20401755
  96. 96. von Arx M, Schmidt-Büsser D, Guerin PM. Host plant volatiles induce oriented flight behaviour in male European grapevine moths, Lobesia botrana. J Insect Physiol. 2011 Oct;57(10):1323–31. pmid:21729701
  97. 97. Sonigra P, Meena M. Metabolic profile, bioactivities, and variations in the chemical constituents of essential oils of the ferula genus (Apiaceae). Front Pharmacol. 2021 Mar 12;11:608649. pmid:33776754
  98. 98. Williams IH, Pickett JA, Martin AP. The Nasonov pheromone of the honeybee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Part II. Bioassay of the components using foragers. J Chem Ecol. 1981 Mar;7(2):225–37. pmid:24420468
  99. 99. Melo N, Wolff GH, Costa-da-Silva AL, Arribas R, Triana MF, Gugger M, et al. Geosmin attracts Aedes aegypti mosquitoes to oviposition sites. Current Biology. 2020 Jan 6;30(1):127–134.e5. pmid:31839454
  100. 100. Grant AJ, Dickens JC. Functional characterization of the octenol receptor neuron on the maxillary palps of the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21785. pmid:21738794
  101. 101. Lu W, Leal WS, Brisco KK, An S, Cornel AJ. A highly expressed odorant receptor from the yellow fever mosquito, AaegOR11, responds to (+)- and (-)-fenchone and a phenolic repellent. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2022 Dec;151:103866. pmid:36347453
  102. 102. Mappin F, Bellantuono AJ, Ebrahimi B, DeGennaro M. Odor-evoked transcriptomics of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. PLOS ONE. 2023 Oct 24;18(10):e0293018. pmid:37874813