Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22807691›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2012

Functional evolution of mammalian odorant receptors.

Kaylin A Adipietro, Joel D Mainland, Hiroaki Matsunami

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Microbial volatile organic compounds and olfactory receptors in wound malodor.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Convergent motifs of early olfactory processing are recapitulated by layer-wise efficient coding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Harnessing Odorant Receptor Activation to Suppress Real Malodor.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Evolution of Sensory Receptors.Annual review of cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaylin A AdipietroDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Joel D Mainland
Hiroaki Matsunami
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University Hospital · US

Funding

Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Odorant RecognitionR01DC005782 · NIDCD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MATSUNAMI, HIROAKI · 2002 to 2012
$3.5M
Ligand selectivity of vomeronasal receptorsR01DC010857 · NIDCD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MATSUNAMI, HIROAKI · 2010 to 2014
$1.6M
Variability in the human odorant receptor repertoireR03DC011373 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI MAINLAND, JOEL D · 2011 to 2013
$476k
The Genetic Basis of Specific AnosmiaF32DC008932 · NIDCD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAINLAND, JOEL D · 2007 to 2009
$162k
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC008932NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005782NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010857NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC011373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mammalian odorant receptor (OR) repertoire is an attractive model to study evolution, because ORs have been subjected to rapid evolution between species, presumably caused by changes of the olfactory system to adapt to the environment. However, functional assessment of ORs in related species remains largely untested. Here we investigated the functional properties of primate and rodent ORs to determine how well evolutionary distance predicts functional characteristics. Using human and mouse ORs with previously identified ligands, we cloned 18 OR orthologs from chimpanzee and rhesus macaque and 17 mouse-rat orthologous pairs that are broadly representative of the OR repertoire. We functionally characterized the in vitro responses of ORs to a wide panel of odors and found similar ligand selectivity but dramatic differences in response magnitude. 87% of human-primate orthologs and 94% of mouse-rat orthologs showed differences in receptor potency (EC50) and/or efficacy (dynamic range) to an individual ligand. Notably dN/dS ratio, an indication of selective pressure during evolution, does not predict functional similarities between orthologs. Additionally, we found that orthologs responded to a common ligand 82% of the time, while human OR paralogs of the same subfamily responded to the common ligand only 33% of the time. Our results suggest that, while OR orthologs tend to show conserved ligand selectivity, their potency and/or efficacy dynamically change during evolution, even in closely related species. These functional changes in orthologs provide a platform for examining how the evolution of ORs can meet species-specific demands.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularLigandsMacaca mulattaPan troglodytesReceptors, OdorantAnimalsHumansMicePhylogenyRatsSelection, GeneticSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Homology, Amino AcidSpecies SpecificityLigandsReceptors, Odorant

Identifiers

PMID22807691
PMCPMC3395614
OpenAlexW2099641023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.