ArticleScientific reports2022
A closer look at sex pheromone autodetection in the Oriental fruit moth.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Can We Learn from Dissecting Tortricid Females About the Efficacy of Mating Disruption Programs?Insects · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Female moths emit sex pheromone to attracts males, and although they are not attracted to their own sex pheromone, they appear to detect it as it affects their behavior. In order to elucidate the mechanism of pheromone "autodetection" we compared responses of olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) of male and female Grapholita molesta, a species with reported pheromone autodetection. Two concentrations of the major (Z8-12:Ac) and minor (E8-12:Ac) sex pheromone components, a plant-volatile blend containing methyl salicylate, terpinyl acetate and (E)-β-farnesene, and the male-produced hair-pencil (i.e., courtship) pheromone (ethyl trans-cinnamate) were tested in 45 male and 305 female ORNs. Hierarchical cluster analysis showed radically different peripheral olfactory systems between sexes that could be linked to their specific roles. In males 63% of the ORNs were tuned specifically to the major or minor female sex pheromone components, and 4% to the plant volatile blend, while the remaining 33% showed unspecific responses to the stimulus panel. In females 3% of the ORNs were specifically tuned to the male hair-pencil pheromone, 6% to the plant volatile blend, 91% were unspecific, and no ORN was tuned their own sex pheromone components. The lack of sex pheromone-specific ORNs in females suggests that they are not able to discriminate pheromone blends, and thus pheromone autodetection is unlikely in this species. We discuss our results in the context of the methodological limitations inherent to odor stimulation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.