MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202121410

Design, synthesis and use of chiral pheromone-based probes to study pheromone enantiomer discrimination in the pheromone binding proteins from the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar

2021· dissertation· en· W3202121410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Govardhana R. Pinnelli

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymantria disparGypsy mothPheromoneEnantiomerSex pheromoneBiologyStereochemistryChemistryZoologyEcologyLepidoptera genitalia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gypsy moth is a widespread and harmful pest causing extensive damage to the Canada’s forest and orchard ecosystems. It uses (+)-disparlure as a sex pheromone. Discovery of the pheromone, including its absolute configuration, has enabled monitoring of gypsy moth populations. Disparlure of low enantiopurity is not attractive to the moths and, for this reason, enantiopure (+)-disparlure has been a synthetic target for many years. To access (+)-disparlure of high enantiopurity we have used a diastereoselective nucleophilic addition reaction with the enantiopure α-chloroaldehyde (2-chlorododecanal) that yields a stereocontrolled access to the 1,2-anti chlorohydrin core. The (+)-disparlure was prepared through a series of transformations that include a Mitsunobu inversion. We have successfully completed the synthesis of (+)-disparlure in 5 steps as compared to Iwaki’s first synthesis in 12 steps and Sharpless’s widely used synthesis in 6 steps. The same approach was used to produce 18-hydroxydisparlure enantiomers, which were coupled to a linker with an alkyne moiety at the end. The alkyne was then coupled to azide-based commercial fluorescent probes, to furnish fluorescent disparlure-based probes for physical studies. The gypsy moth has two different pheromone binding proteins, LdisPBP1 and LdisPBP2. Previously, our group has addressed the enantiomer selectivity of these two PBPs and found that PBP1 binds (-)-disparlure more strongly than (+)-disparlure, while PBP2 binds (+)-disparlure more strongly. Despite several binding assays, the interaction and discrimination of gypsy moth PBPs towards disparlure enantiomers are not fully understood due to lack of binding interaction and kinetic studies, which are technically demanding, due to the hydrophobicity of the pheromone. In this thesis, we have studied the binding interaction of deuterium-labelled (+)-disparlure and (-)-disparlure with LdisPBPs by 2H NMR spectroscopy. The results from NMR studies were correlated with the results from docking simulations of (+)-disparlure and (-)-disparlure bound to one internal site and multiple external sites of LdisPBP1 and LdisPBP2. These results indicated that (+)-disparlure and (-)-disparlure adopt different conformations and orientations in the binding pockets of LdisPBP1 and LdisPBP2. Most of the reported work on PBPs focuses on the pheromone binding affinities of PBPs. However, the pheromone-PBP interactions require more than half an hour to establish equilibrium, whereas male moths respond to female pheromones in milliseconds. Therefore, the interactions between pheromones and olfactory components such as PBPs and pheromone receptors may not be under thermodynamic control. In this thesis, we aimed to provide a dynamic perspective of pheromone-PBP interactions and to link these to the functions of PBPs. We have studied thermodynamic (Kd) and kinetic properties (kon and koff) of LdisPBPs-disparlure enantiomer interaction by fluorescence binding assays and kinetic experiments using fluorophore-tagged disparlure enantiomers. The result indicated that the binding preference of disparlure enantiomers to LdisPBPs. Based on the kinetic data of LdisPBPs with fluorophore-tagged disparlure enantiomers, we propose a kinetic model that includes a two-step binding process. Each of these two steps may contribute to a different function of the LdisPBPs.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207