Agonists and Antagonists of Antennal Responses of Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) to the Pheromone (+)-Disparlure and Other Odorants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects use the sense of smell to guide many behaviors that are important for their survival. The gypsy moth uses a pheromone to bring females and males together over long distances. Male moth antennae are equipped with innervated sensory hairs that selectively respond to pheromone components and other odors. Host plant odors, in particular, are detected by moths and sometimes cause an enhancement of the antennal and behavioral responses of the moths to their pheromone. Inspired by naturally occurring agonists and antagonists of insect pheromone responses, we have screened, by electroantennogram (EAG) recordings, a collection of compound sets and of individual compounds. We have detected interference of some compounds with the EAG responses of male gypsy moth antennae to the pheromone. We describe three activities: (1) short-term inhibition or enhancement of mixed compound + pheromone plumes, (2) long-term inhibition of pure pheromone plumes following a mixed compound + pheromone plume, and (3) inhibition of the recovery phase of mixed compound + pheromone plumes. Long-term inhibition was robust, decayed within 30 s, and correlated with the inhibition of recovery; for both activities clear structure-activity patterns were detected. The commercial repellent N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEET) was included for comparison. The most active and reproducible short-term inhibitor was a mixture of 1-allyl-2,4-dimethoxybenzene and 2-allyl-1,3-dimethoxybenzene. The most active long-term inhibitors were a set of 1-alkoxy-4-propoxybenzenes, DEET, and 1-ethoxy-4-propoxybenzene. DEET was more specific in the olfactory responses it inhibited than 1-ethoxy-4-propoxybenzene, and DEET did not inhibit recovery, whereas 1-ethoxy-4-propoxybenzene did. Target sites for the three activities are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".