Back

Single-point mutation alters odorant receptor sensitivity associated with host plant specialization in Spodoptera moths

Comte, A.; Lalis, M.; Zhang, S.; Thorhallsson, A.; Moracci, R.; Gevar, J.; Montagne, N.; Topin, J.; Mitchell, A.; Fiorucci, S.; Jacquin-Joly, E.

2026-09-28 molecular biology
10.64898/2026.09.24.754037 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Host specialization in herbivorous insects is often associated with divergence in chemosensory abilities. Here, we investigated the possible contribution of odorant receptors (ORs) in host plant restriction in the lily moth Spodoptera picta, a species specialized on Amaryllidaceae. Manual annotation of S. picta ORs in its genome revealed a repertoire similar in size and composition to those of its polyphagous sister species, S. littoralis and S. litura, suggesting that specialization did not involve major gene loss or expansion in the lily moth. To assess functional divergence beyond gene number, we applied a large scaled structure-based virtual screening approach to the entire OR repertoires of these three Spodoptera species, generating ligand-binding profiles for 120,591 volatile compounds. Among 69 1:1:1 OR orthologs, 24 exhibited divergent predicted binding spectra. We pinpointed OR29 that we also found to be highly expressed in both male and female antennae of S. picta through a RNAseq approach. Functional assays demonstrated that S. picta OR29 acquired heightened sensitivity to limonene enantiomers, volatiles emitted by host Amaryllidaceae inflorescences. Site-directed mutagenesis revealed that a single amino acid substitution within the predicted binding region underlies this shift in sensitivity. These results show that host specialization in S. picta has not been accompanied by significant OR repertoire remodeling, but rather by subtle molecular changes that fine-tune receptor sensitivity to host-derived volatiles.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.