Molecular and Functional Characterization of pheromone binding protein 1 from the Oriental Fruit Moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pheromone binding protein (PBP) is thought primarily to bind and transport the sex pheromone in moths. The accumulated studies suggest that three PBPs were identified in moth species. In Grapholita molesta, the functions of GmolPBP2 and GmolPBP3 have been previously studied. However, the function of GmolPBP1 is still unclear. Furthermore, the Cydia pomonella sex pheromone Codlemone can act as a sex pheromone synergist of G. molesta. In C. pomonella, CpomPBP1 specifically bind the Codlemone. CpomPBP1 displays high identity with GmolPBP1 (70%), indicating that the two PBPs may share a similar 3D structure thus can bind the similar or same ligands. In this study, we explored the molecular and functional characterization of GmolPBP1. GmolPBP1, bearing the typical characteristics of Lepidopteran odorant binding proteins, was closest phylogenetically to CpomPBP1. Binding studies demonstrated that GmolPBP1 exhibited strong binding affinities with (Z)-8-dodecenyl alcohol, 1-dodecanol and Codlemone. Molecular docking showed that GmolPBP1 has different ligand recognition mechanism for the three ligands. Our results suggest that GmolPBP1 functions as recognizer of (Z)-8-dodecenyl alcohol and 1-dodecanol of the female sex pheromone blend, and may be the potential transporter of Codlemone, which contributes to the synergism of the pheromone response of G. molesta by Codlemone.
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".