Responses of <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes with co-expressed HarmOR13/HarmOR2 to stimulation with pheromone compounds.

<p>(A) Inward current responses of HarmOR13/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes in response to 10⁻⁴ M solution of pheromone compounds. (B) Response profile of HarmOR13/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 7). (C) HarmOR13/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes stimulated with a range of Z11-16:Ald concentrations. (D) Dose–response curve of HarmOR13/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes to Z11-16:Ald. Responses are normalized by defining the maximal response as 100. EC50 = 3.403×10⁻⁶ M. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 6).</p

Functional Specificity of Sex Pheromone Receptors in the Cotton Bollworm <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i>

<div><p>Male moths can accurately perceive the sex pheromone emitted from conspecific females by their highly accurate and specific olfactory sensory system. Pheromone receptors are of special importance in moth pheromone reception because of their central role in chemosensory signal transduction processes that occur in olfactory receptor neurons in the male antennae. There are a number of pheromone receptor genes have been cloned, however, only a few have been functionally characterized. Here we cloned six full-length pheromone receptor genes from <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> male antennae. Real-time PCR showing all genes exhibited male-biased expression in adult antennae. Functional analyses of the six pheromone receptor genes were then conducted in the heterologous expression system of <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes. HarmOR13 was found to be a specific receptor for the major sex pheromone component Z11-16:Ald. HarmOR6 was equally tuned to both of Z9-16: Ald and Z9-14: Ald. HarmOR16 was sensitively tuned to Z11-16: OH. HarmOR11, HarmOR14 and HarmOR15 failed to respond to the tested candidate pheromone compounds. Our experiments elucidated the functions of some pheromone receptor genes of <i>H. armigera</i>. These advances may provide remarkable evidence for intraspecific mating choice and speciation extension in moths at molecular level.</p> </div

No ligand was identified of three candidate pheromone receptor genes in <i>H.armigera</i>.

<p>(A) HarmOR11/HarmOR2. (B) HarmOR14/HarmOR2 and (C) HarmOR15/HarmOR2. The concentrations of all tested pheromone compounds were 10⁻⁴ M.</p

Responses of <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes with co-expressed HarmOR6/HarmOR2 to stimulation with pheromone compounds.

<p>(A) Inward current responses of HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes in response to 10⁻⁴ M solution of pheromone compounds. (B) Response profile of HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 7). (C) HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes stimulated with a range of Z9-14:Ald concentrations. (D) Dose–response curve of HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes to Z9-14:Ald. Responses are normalized by defining the maximal response as 100. EC50 = 4.338×10⁻⁶ M. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 6). (E) HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes stimulated with a range of Z9-16:Ald concentrations. (F) Dose–response curve of HarmOR6/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes to Z9-16:Ald. Responses are normalized by defining the maximal response as 100. EC50 = 3.531×10⁻⁶ M. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 6).</p

Phylogenetic tree of the <i>H. armigera</i> PRs and other lepidopterans ORs.

<p>Harm: <i>H. armigera</i> (red), Hvir: <i>H. virescens</i> (blue), Bmor: <i>B. mori</i> (black). The clade of PRs was masked by yellow shadow. The clade of Orco was masked by pink shadow.</p

Responses of <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes with co-expressed HarmOR16/HarmOR2 to stimulation with pheromone compounds.

<p>(A) Inward current responses of HarmOR16/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes in response to 10⁻⁴ M solution of pheromone compounds. (B) Response profile of HarmOR16/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 7). (C) HarmOR16/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes stimulated with a range of Z11-16:OH concentrations. (D) Dose–response curve of HarmOR16/HarmOR2 <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes to Z11-16:OH. Responses are normalized by defining the maximal response as 100. EC50 = 2.988×10⁻⁷ M. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 6).</p

Tissue- and sex-specific expression of the <i>H. armigera</i> PRs.

<p>A: Expression of the <i>H. armigera</i> PRs in eight tissues of two sexes including antennae (A), heads (H), thoraxes (T), maxillary palps (MP), proboscises (PR), abdomens (AB), legs (L) and genitals (G). B: Comparison of PR expression between male and female antenna of <i>H.armigera</i>. Error bars indicate SE.</p

Amino acid sequence alignments of the <i>H. armigera</i> and <i>H. virescens</i> PRs.

<p>Predicted seven-transmembrance domains are identified with roman numbers. Amino acid numbering is given on the right of the alignment. Gaps in the alignment are indicated by a dash.</p

DataSheet_1_Brandt’s vole hole detection and counting method based on deep learning and unmanned aircraft system.docx

Rodents are essential to the balance of the grassland ecosystem, but their population outbreak can cause major economic and ecological damage. Rodent monitoring is crucial for its scientific management, but traditional methods heavily depend on manual labor and are difficult to be carried out on a large scale. In this study, we used UAS to collect high–resolution RGB images of steppes in Inner Mongolia, China in the spring, and used various object detection algorithms to identify the holes of Brandt’s vole (Lasiopodomys brandtii). Optimizing the model by adjusting evaluation metrics, specifically, replacing classification strategy metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score with regression strategy-related metrics FPPI, MR, and MAPE to determine the optimal threshold parameters for IOU and confidence. Then, we mapped the distribution of vole holes in the study area using position data derived from the optimized model. Results showed that the best resolution of UAS acquisition was 0.4 cm pixel–1, and the improved labeling method improved the detection accuracy of the model. The FCOS model had the highest comprehensive evaluation, and an R2 of 0.9106, RMSE of 5.5909, and MAPE of 8.27%. The final accuracy of vole hole counting in the stitched orthophoto was 90.20%. Our work has demonstrated that UAS was able to accurately estimate the population of grassland rodents at an appropriate resolution. Given that the population distribution we focus on is important for a wide variety of species, our work illustrates a general remote sensing approach for mapping and monitoring rodent damage across broad landscapes for studies of grassland ecological balance, vegetation conservation, and land management.</p

PBP-mediated responses of PxylOR4/PxylOrco <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes to Z9-14: Ac.

<p>(<b>A</b>) Inward current responses of PxylOR4/PxylOrco <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes in response to 10⁻⁵ M of Z9-14: Ac solubilized by 1XRinger, or each of three PxylPBPs, respectively. (<b>B</b>) Response profile of PxylOR4/PxylOrco <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes. Error bars indicate SEM (<i>n = </i>5). Statistical comparison of responses of oocytes was assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). (<b>C</b>) Dose–response profile of PxylOR4/PxylOrco <i>Xenopus</i> oocytes upon stimulation with different Z9-14: Ac concentrations solubilized by 1XRinger (n = 7), 1 µM PxylPBP1 (n = 4), 1 µM PxylPBP2 (n = 4), 1 µM PxylPBP3 (n = 4), respectively. Responses are normalized by defining the maximal response as 100%. Error bar indicates SEM.</p