Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35447810›Full record

ReviewInsects2022

Enantiomeric Discrimination in Insects: The Role of OBPs and ORs.

Cassie Sims, Michael A Birkett, David M Withall

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Circadian and daily rhythms of disease vector mosquitoes.Current opinion in insect science · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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.

Cassie SimsBiointeractions and Crop Protection Department, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8778-8253
Michael A BirkettBiointeractions and Crop Protection Department, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK.
David M WithallBiointeractions and Crop Protection Department, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK.
Rothamsted Research · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 1804053Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/OS/CP/000001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Olfaction is a complex recognition process that is critical for chemical communication in insects. Though some insect species are capable of discrimination between compounds that are structurally similar, little is understood about how this high level of discrimination arises. Some insects rely on discriminating between enantiomers of a compound, demonstrating an ability for highly selective recognition. The role of two major peripheral olfactory proteins in insect olfaction, i.e., odorant-binding proteins (OBPs) and odorant receptors (ORs) has been extensively studied. OBPs and ORs have variable discrimination capabilities, with some found to display highly specialized binding capability, whilst others exhibit promiscuous binding activity. A deeper understanding of how odorant-protein interactions induce a response in an insect relies on further analysis such as structural studies. In this review, we explore the potential role of OBPs and ORs in highly specific recognition, specifically enantiomeric discrimination. We summarize the state of research into OBP and OR function and focus on reported examples in the literature of clear enantiomeric discrimination by these proteins.

Indexed as

chemical ecologychemosensorychiralenantiomeric discriminationinsectodorant-binding proteinsodorant receptorsolfaction

Identifiers

PMID35447810
PMCPMC9030700
OpenAlexW4223425131

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.