Effects of Aromatic Compounds on Antennal Responses and on the Pheromone-Binding Proteins of the Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female gypsy moths emit a pheromone, (+)-disparlure, which the males follow until they locate the emitter. The male moths' antennae are covered with innervated sensory hairs, specialized in detection of the pheromone. The neurons in these sensory hairs are bathed by a solution rich in pheromone-binding protein (PBP). PBPs are soluble proteins that bind the pheromone and other odorants reversibly with variable thermodynamic and kinetic selectivity and are essential for olfactory responses. Here, we have studied the interaction between 2 gypsy moth PBPs with aromatic compounds that modulate the responses of male moth antennae to (+)-disparlure. The aromatic compounds do not elicit responses by themselves, but when administered together with pheromone, they inhibit, enhance, or prolong the electrophysiological response to the pheromone. Three interactions between the compounds and PBPs were studied: 1) the equilibrium binding of the compounds by themselves to the PBPs, 2) the equilibrium binding of the compounds in the presence of pheromone or a fluorescent reporter ligand, and 3) the effect of the compounds on the conformation of the pheromone-PBP complex. A subset of compounds causes a prolongation of the electroantennogram response, and from this study, we conclude that these compounds follow a structure-activity pattern and stabilize a particular conformer of the PBPs that appears to activate the olfactory response.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".