Olfactory Mechanisms for Discovery of Odorants to Reduce Insect-Host Contact
Insects have developed highly sophisticated and sensitive olfactory systems to find animal or plant hosts for feeding. Some insects vector pathogens that cause diseases in hundreds of millions of people and destroy billions of dollars of food products every year. There is great interest, therefore, in understanding how the insect olfactory system can be manipulated to reduce their contact with hosts. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of insect olfactory detection mechanisms, which may serve as a foundation for designing insect control programs based on manipulation of their behaviors by using odorants. Because every insect species has a unique set of olfactory receptors and olfactory-mediated behaviors, we focus primarily on general principles of odor detection that potentially apply to most insects. While these mechanisms have emerged from studies on model systems for study of insect olfaction, such as Drosophila melanogaster, they provide a foundation for discovery of odorants to repel vector insects or reduce their host-seeking behavior.
KeywordsInsect olfaction Odorant receptors Repellents DEET Chemical informatics
We thank Christine Pham for helpful suggestions. We acknowledge funding support from the National Institutes of Health (R01AI087785, R01DC014092). A. Ray is founder of Sensorygen Inc.
- Abd-Ella A, Stankiewicz M, Mikulska K, Nowak W, Pennetier C, Goulu M, Fruchart-Gaillard C, Licznar P, Apaire-Marchais V, List O, Corbel V (2015) The repellent DEET potentiates carbamate effects via insect muscarinic receptor interactions: an alternative strategy to control insect vector-borne diseases. PLoS One 10:e0126406CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Boyle SM, Guda T, Pham CK, Tharadra SK, Dahanukar A, Ray A (2016a) Natural DEET substitutes that are strong olfactory repellents of mosquitoes and flies. bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/060178
- Cardé RT, Gibson G (2010) Long-distance orientation of mosquitoes to host odours and other host-related cues. In: Takken W, Knols BGJ (eds) Ecology of vector-borne diseases, vol 2. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 115–141Google Scholar
- Ebrahim SAM, Dweck H, Stökl J, Hofferberth JE, Trona F, Weniger K, Rybak J, Seki Y, Stensmyr MC, Sachse S, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2015) Drosophila avoids parasitoids by sensing their semiochemicals via a dedicated olfactory circuit. PLoS Biology 13(12):e1002318Google Scholar
- Guda T, Kain P, Sharma KR, Pham CK, Ray A (2015) Repellent compound with larger protective zone than DEET identified through activity-screening of Ir40a neurons, does not require Or function. bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/017145
- Kurtovic A, Widmer A, Dickson BJ (2007) A single class of olfactory neurons mediates behavioural responses to a Drosophila Sex pheromone. Nature 446:542–546Google Scholar
- Legeay S, Clere N, Hilairet G, Do QT, Bernard P, Quignard JF, Apaire-Marchais V, Lapied B, Faure S (2016) The insect repellent N,N-diethyl- m-toluamide (DEET) induces angiogenesis via allosteric modulation of the M3 muscarinic receptor in endothelial cells. Sci Rep 6:28546CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Oliferenko PV, Oliferenko AA, Poda GI, Osolodkin DI, Pillai GG, Bernier UR, Tsikolia M, Agramonte NM, Clark GG, Linthicum KJ, Katritzky AR (2013) Promising Aedes aegypti repellent chemotypes identified through integrated QSAR, virtual screening, synthesis, and bioassay. PLoS One 8:e64547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Ribeiro C, Dickson BJ (2010) Sex peptide receptor and neuronal TOR/S6 K signaling modulate nutrient balancing in Drosophila. Curr Biol 20:1000–1005Google Scholar
- Schneider D, Kaissling K (1957) Der Bau der Antenne des Seidenspinners Bombyx mori. Sensillen, cuticulare Bildungen und innerer Bau. Zool Jhb Anat 76:223–250Google Scholar
- Swale DR, Sun B, Tong F, Bloomquist JR (2014) Neurotoxicity and Mode of Action of N,N-Diethyl-Meta- Toluamide (DEET). PloS One 9:e103713Google Scholar
- Wilson RI, Mainen ZF (2006) Early events in olfactory processing. Ann rev. Neuroscience 29:163–201Google Scholar