Back

Diversity of pheromone temporal coding disruptions by plant volatiles

Clemencon, P.; Barta, T.; Monsempes, C.; Renou, M.; Lucas, P.

2026-03-27 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.03.24.713794 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Moth pheromone-sensitive olfactory receptor neurons (Phe-ORNs) encode the intermittent structure of pheromone plumes through precisely timed spikes, a mechanism that is essential for odor plume tracking behavior in flying insects. However, natural olfactory scenes are composed of diverse volatile plant compounds (VPCs) with complex temporal dynamics whose effects on pheromone signal intermittency encoding remain unclear. Two lines of research, encoding of pheromone intermittency and background interference, remain largely disconnected. Here, we performed electrophysiological recordings from moth Phe-ORNs to quantify their responses to turbulent plume-like flickering pheromone stimuli in constant or fluctuating backgrounds of a diversity of VPCs. We found that some VPCs reversibly disrupted the temporal coding of various subregions of the pheromone stimulus and the trial-to-trial variability. While Phe-ORN activation by VPCs partially accounted for the decrease in coding performance, Phe-ORN gain reduction was insufficient to explain the full extent of the disruption. Some VPCs disrupt temporal coding without activating Phe-ORNs, and others activate Phe-ORNs without altering temporal coding. A continuous background noise can induce strong adaptation and limit dynamic range, whereas a fluctuating background can interfere with pheromone pulse encoding by disrupting spike timing. Altogether, these results indicate that the pheromone detection system must contend with multiple forms of background noise rather than a uniform disturbance. Timing is key for olfactory navigation, and our results raise questions regarding how downstream circuits would process noisy sensory inputs. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=196 SRC="FIGDIR/small/713794v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (39K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1c44fb6org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@14d5982org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@12f94a2org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@c731ee_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 2%
14.7%
2
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
14.3%
3
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 1%
10.1%
4
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
5
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 14%
4.8%
7
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
9
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.6%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.1%
11
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
79 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
12
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
13
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
14
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.5%
16
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
19
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
20
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.7%
22
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.6%