Mechanisms of Olfaction in Insects - ResearchSpace@Auckland ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Identification of putative odorant receptors from Epiphyas postvittana 118 These results were then compared with TM predictions using five other programs (as stated in section 4.2.16). Not all of these programs predicted the classical topology of 7TMs for ORs. This could in part be due to the lack of structural information in the protein database for closely related proteins. Therefore, a consensus of the output from the different prediction programs was taken in order to assign TM domains to EpOR34. The placement of these TM domains correlate with the TM domains predicted for EpOR1, 2 and 3 in Jordan et al. (2009), and are shown in numerals on Figure 4.4. To draw a topology map of EpOR34, the TM predictions produced by the consensus (numbers I to VII on Figure 4.8) was used. A short C-terminus was predicted by both SPLIT and HMMTOP, comparable to the short C-terminus predicted for the topologies of EpOR1, EpOR2 and EpOR3, perhaps a feature conserved in insects (Jordon, 2006). Some Drosophila ORs are also predicted to have short C-termini (Clyne et al., 1999; Gao and Chess, 1999; Dobritsa et al., 2003; Kiely, 2008). This could just be an artefact of the prediction algorithms used and only the solved structure of such a protein will be able to confirm this theoretical observation. N Figure 4.11: Theoretical membrane topology of EpOR34 from the consensus of the predictions of seven different TM prediction algorithms. N = N- terminus and C = C- terminus. C
Identification of putative odorant receptors from Epiphyas postvittana 119 4.4 Discussion A total of 52 ORs have so far been identified using three different methods. Sanger sequencing identified three ORs, 454 transcriptome sequencing identified 29 ORs and 47 ORs were identified from low coverage whole genome sequencing of E. postvittana. Some ORs were identified by all three sequencing methods (three ORs), some by two (21 ORs) and some by only one method (28 ORs), as summarised in Table 4.6. Sanger sequencing gives longer sequence fragments hence contig assembly is easier and results in long contigs being assembled; however the drawback of this sequencing technology is the low depth of coverage, with only three ORs being identified from Sanger sequencing of E. postvittana antennal cDNA (Jordan et al., 2009). ORs are lowly expressed genes and due to their low copy number in cDNA populations are not efficiently picked up in shallow Sanger sequencing. 454 transcriptomics was more efficient at identifying E. postvittana ORs, as it was able to identify the three ORs identified by Sanger sequencing and a further 26 new ORs. The drawback of this system was the short read lengths obtained hence the OR sequences were in small fragments. Low coverage whole genome sequencing was able to identify 47 ORs. This is consistent with recovery of ORs from other moths such as B. mori where whole genome sequencing recovered most of the ORs. However, due to the presence of introns in insect ORs, prediction of coding regions of genes becomes a challenge. The degenerate PCR approach taken to identify new putative ORs from E. postvittana did not yield any significant results. This may be attributed to the low sequence homology between insect ORs, as only a few ORs have been identified using this method thus far (Mitsuno et al., 2008; Patch et al., 2009). Regions of homology among ORs are limited and result in high levels of degeneracy in designed primers. This leads to non-specific binding and amplification of undesirable genes, or genes present in high copy numbers in cells. In the Lepidoptera B. mori, 68 ORs (from both adult and larvae) have been identified so far, which is higher than the number of ORs identified in E. postvittana to date. Both these lists may be incomplete and further ORs might be identified from both these moths, however, for the purpose of this discussion, the 68 ORs identified in B.
Page 1 and 2:
http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz
Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Abstract Olfaction or the
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements I
Page 7 and 8:
Contents v Contents Abstract……
Page 9 and 10:
Contents 4.2.5 Degenerate PCR .....
Page 11 and 12:
List of Figures List of Figures Fig
Page 13 and 14:
List of Tables List of Tables Table
Page 15 and 16:
List of Abbreviations gDNA Genomic
Page 17 and 18:
1.1 General overview 1 General Intr
Page 19 and 20:
General Introduction 3 moth in loca
Page 21 and 22:
General Introduction 5 Figure 1.1:
Page 23 and 24:
General Introduction 7 1.5 Componen
Page 25 and 26:
General Introduction 9 OBPs have al
Page 27 and 28:
General Introduction 11 A model has
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
General Introduction 15 Tanaka et a
Page 33 and 34:
General Introduction 17 Table 1.1:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
General Introduction 21 et al., 200
Page 39 and 40:
General Introduction 23 the attract
Page 41 and 42:
General Introduction 25 leaves and
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
General Introduction 29 Expression
Page 47 and 48:
General Introduction 31 BmOr2 HvOr2
Page 49 and 50:
General Introduction 33 for lepidop
Page 51 and 52:
Functional characterisation of Epip
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
3.1 Introduction 3 The roles of Epi
Page 75 and 76:
The roles of Epiphyas postvittana G
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84: The roles of Epiphyas postvittana G
Page 95 and 96: 4.1 Introduction 4 Identification o
Page 97 and 98: Identification of putative odorant
Page 109 and 110: Microarray OR 454 Transcriptome OR
Page 133: Identification of putative odorant
Page 141 and 142: 5.1 Introduction 5 Concluding Discu
Page 143 and 144: Concluding Discussion 127 VOBA sett
Page 145 and 146: Concluding Discussion 129 redundant
Page 147 and 148: Concluding Discussion 131 against t
Page 149 and 150: Concluding Discussion 133 sequencin
Page 151 and 152: Appendix B 135 Buffered TB (Sambroo
Page 153 and 154: Appendix C 137 C. Appendix C - Clus
Page 155 and 156: Appendix D 139 D. Appendix D - Solu
Page 157 and 158: Appendix E 141 I II
Page 159 and 160: Appendix E 143 V
Page 161 and 162: Appendix E 145 VII continued Figure
Page 163 and 164: References 147 Ansebo, L., Ignell,
Page 165 and 166: References 149 Butenandt, A., Beckm
Page 167 and 168: References 151 Fedurco, M., Romieu,
Page 169 and 170: References 153 Große-Wilde, E., St
Page 171 and 172: References 155 Hrdy, I., F. Kuldova
Page 173 and 174: References 157 Kaissling, K. E. (19
Page 175 and 176: References 159 Krieger, J., Große-
Page 177 and 178: References 161 Lopez-Gomez, R. and
Page 179 and 180: References 163 Miura, N., Nakagawa,
Page 181 and 182: References 165 Pell, J. K., Macaula
Page 183 and 184: References 167 Røstelien, T., Stra
Page 185 and 186:
References 169 Stowers, L. and Loga
Page 187 and 188:
References 171 Turner, C. T., Davy,
Page 189 and 190:
References 173 Vogt, R. G., Riddifo
Page 191 and 192:
References 175 Widmayer, P., Heifet
show all

Mechanisms of Olfaction in Insects - ResearchSpace@Auckland ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?