Discrimination of Pheromone Enantiomers by Two Pheromone Binding Proteins from the Gypsy Moth <i>Lymantria</i> <i>dispar</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, uses (7R, 8S)-cis-2-methyl-7, 8-epoxyoctadecane, (+)-disparlure, as a sex pheromone. The (-) enantiomer of the pheromone is a strong behavioral antagonist. Specialized sensory hairs, sensillae, on the antennae of male moths detect the pheromone. Once the pheromone enters a sensillum, the very abundant pheromone binding protein (PBP) transports the odorant to the sensory neuron. We have expressed the two PBPs found in gypsy moth antennae, PBP1 and PBP2, and we have studied the affinity of these recombinant PBPs for the enantiomers of disparlure. To study pheromone binding under equilibrium conditions, we developed and validated a binding assay. We have addressed the two major problems with hydrophobic ligands in aqueous solution: (1) concentration-dependent adsorption of the ligand on vial surfaces and (2) separation of the protein-bound ligand from the material remaining free in solution. We used this assay to demonstrate for the first time that pheromone binding to PBP is reversible and that the two PBPs from L. dispar differ in their enantiomer binding preference. PBP1 has a higher affinity for the (-) enantiomer, while PBP2 has a higher affinity for the (+) enantiomer. The PBP from the wild silk moth, Antheraea polyphemus (Apol-3) bound the disparlure enantiomers more weakly than either of the L. dispar PBPs, but Apol-3 was also able to discriminate the enantiomers. We have observed extensive aggregation of both L. dispar PBPs and an increase in pheromone binding at high (>2 microM) PBP concentrations. We present a model of disparlure binding to the two PBPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".