MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335318591 · doi:10.1139/gen-2014-0041

Two esterases from the genus <i>Spodoptera</i> degrade sex pheromones and plant volatiles

2014· article· en· W2335318591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peng He, Zhaoqun Li, Chengcheng Liu, Shijing Liu, Shuanglin Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouth China Agricultural University
KeywordsSex pheromoneBiologySpodopteraSensillumExiguaSpodoptera lituraPheromoneEnzymeOlfactionLepidoptera genitaliaBiochemistryGeneBotanyRecombinant DNAEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In moths, high temporal sensitivity in perception of sex pheromones and host plant volatiles suggests the existence of mechanisms acting to maintain antennal sensitivity. The antennal enzymes have been long hypothesized to play a central role in the mechanisms, by rapid metabolism of the odorants soon after the fulfillment of the sensillum receptor activation. In the present study, two putative homologous esterases, SexiCXE13 and SlituCXE13, were cloned by RT-PCR and RACE procedures from Spodoptera exigua and Spodoptera litura, respectively. The phylogenetic tree assigned the two genes into the same group with two previously identified male antennal-specific pheromone-degrading enzymes. SexiCXE13 and SlituCXE13 were expressed in High Five cells, and the enzymatic characteristics and substrate specificity were investigated using the purified recombinant enzymes. Both esterases showed high activity to a variety of acetate substrates, including the sex pheromones, their analogs, and some common plant odorants. Our study, for the first time, provides direct biochemical and molecular evidence that the ubiquitously expressed enzyme has the ability to degrade sex pheromones and plant volatiles, and thus this adds new knowledge to the mechanism underlying the sensitivity of moth olfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207