ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2025
Olfactory Receptor Responses to Pure Odorants in Drosophila melanogaster.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative transcriptomic analysis of functional and metabolic changes in mass-reared and wildFrontiers in insect science · 2026Article
- An anhydrobiotic cell line expressing odorant receptors shows odorant responses after dry storage.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Olfactory coding relies on primary information from olfactory receptor cells that respond to volatile airborne substances. Despite extensive efforts, our understanding of odor-response profiles across receptors is still poor, because of the vast number of possible ligands (odorants), the high sensitivity even to trace compounds (creating false positive responses), and the diversity of olfactory receptors. Here, we linked chemical purification with a gas chromatograph to single-receptor type recording with transgenic flies using calcium imaging to record olfactory responses to a large panel of chemicals in seven Drosophila ORs: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or42b, Or47a, Or56a, and Or92a. We analyze the data using linear-nonlinear modeling and reveal that most receptors have "simple" response types (mostly positive: Or10a, Or13a, Or22a, Or47a, and Or56a). However, two receptors (Or42b and Or92a) have, in addition to "simple" responses, "complex" response types to some ligands, either positive with a negative second phase or negative with a positive second phase, suggesting the presence of multiple binding sites and/or transduction cascades. We show that some ligands reported in the literature are false positives, because of contaminations in the stimulus. We recorded all stimuli across concentrations, showing that at different concentrations, different substances appear as best ligands. Our data show that studying combinatorial olfactory coding must consider temporal response properties and odorant concentration and, in addition, is strongly influenced by the presence of trace amounts of ligands (contaminations) in the samples. These observations have important repercussions for our thinking about how animals navigate their olfactory environment.
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.