Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T08:53:44.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcriptomic insights into Smoothened-dependent modulation of olfactory receptor genes in Apis mellifera ligustica: Implications for olfactory signal processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2025

Lina Guo Open the ORCID record for Lina Guo [Opens in a new window] ,
Yu Zhang Open the ORCID record for Yu Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Jue Wang Open the ORCID record for Jue Wang [Opens in a new window] ,
Diandian Yu Open the ORCID record for Diandian Yu [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuan Guo Open the ORCID record for Yuan Guo [Opens in a new window]
Lina Guo
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China
Yu Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China
Jue Wang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China
Diandian Yu
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China
Yuan Guo*
Affiliation:
College of Horticulture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuan Guo; Email: yysgy3@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To investigate the effects of activating/inhibiting AmelSmo on the olfactory genes and signalling pathways of Apis mellifera ligustica, as well as the potential regulatory mechanisms involved. Transcriptomic sequencing was performed on Apis mellifera ligustica antennae using Illumina HiSeq platform following administration of cyclopamine (inhibitor) and purmorphamine (agonist). Differential gene expression analysis, coupled with GO and KEGG pathway annotations, facilitated the identification of olfactory receptor genes. The reliability of transcriptome data was subsequently validated through quantitative real–time–polymerase chain reaction analysis. Transcriptomic analysis revealed 12,356 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between inhibitor and control groups, with 276 genes showing significant differential expression. Similarly, 12,356 DEGs were identified between the agonist and control groups, among which 672 genes exhibited significant differential expression. The GO annotation revealed that the DEGs in the inhibitor group and the agonist group were mainly enriched in the biological process such as cellular process, metabolic process, and biological regulation; in cellular component, enrichment was mainly observed in cell, cell part, and organelle; and in molecular function, the main enrichment was in binding and catalytic activity. KEGG pathway analysis indicated that DEGs from both groups were primarily enriched in signal transduction pathways. Among the DEGs, three olfactory receptor genes were identified in the inhibitor group: odorant receptor 19, odorant receptor 22, and odorant receptor 5. The agonist group exhibited two olfactory receptor genes: odorant receptor 109 and odorant receptor 26. All these olfactory receptor genes demonstrated downregulated expression patterns. Transcriptomic sequencing analysis identified five olfactory receptor genes. The changes in gene expression levels suggest that the activation or inhibition of AmelSmo may regulate the expression of olfactory receptors via the Hedgehog signalling pathway. It is speculated that AmelSmo may play a regulatory role in the olfactory system of bees.

Keywords

agonistApis mellifera ligusticainhibitorolfactory-related genestranscriptome sequencing

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

#

These authors have contributed equally to this work

References

Abou, A, Wissam, A, Lo, ST and Nauli, SM (2009) Primary cilia: highly sophisticated biological sensors. Sensors 9(9), 7003–7020.10.3390/s90907003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, KL and Thérond, PP (2010) Evaluating Smoothened as a G-protein-coupled receptor for Hedgehog signalling. Trends in Cell Biology 20(5), 287–298.10.1016/j.tcb.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bisrat, D and Jung, C (2022) Roles of flower scent in bee-flower mediations: a review. Journal of Ecology and Environment 46(1), 18–30.10.5141/jee.21.00075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, JK, Taipale, J, Young, KE, Maiti, T and Beachy, PA (2002) Small molecule modulation of smoothened activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(22), 14071–14076.10.1073/pnas.182542899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeMaria, S and Ngai, J (2010) The cell biology of smell. Journal of Cell Biology 191(3), 443–452.10.1083/jcb.201008163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dötterl, S and Vereecken, NJ (2010) The chemical ecology and evolution of bee–flower interactions: A review and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88(7), 668–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahad Raza, M, Anwar, M, Husain, A, Rizwan, M, Li, Z, Nie, H, Hlaváč, P, Ali, MA, Rady, A and Su, S (2022) Differential gene expression analysis following olfactory learning in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). PLoS ONE 17(2), e0262441.10.1371/journal.pone.0262441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigante, ED and Caspary, T (2020) Signaling in the primary cilium through the lens of the Hedgehog pathway. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Developmental Biology 9(6), e377.10.1002/wdev.377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, L, Wang, J, Yu, D, Zhang, Y, Zhang, H and Guo, Y (2024) Expression and functional analysis of the Smo Protein in Apis mellifera. Insects 15(7), 555.10.3390/insects15070555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ha, TS and Smith, DP (2022) Recent insights into insect olfactory receptors and odorant-binding proteins. Insects 13(10), 926.10.3390/insects13100926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huangfu, D, Liu, A, Rakeman, AS, Murcia, NS, Niswander, L and Anderson, KV (2003) Hedgehog signalling in the mouse requires intraflagellar transport proteins. Nature 426, 83–87.10.1038/nature02061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hynes, M, Ye, W, Wang, K, Stone, D, Murone, M, Sauvage, FD and Rosenthal, A (2000) The seven-transmembrane receptor Smoothened cell-autonomously induces multiple ventral cell types. Nature Neuroscience 3, 41–46.10.1038/71114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, VE (2018) Current source density analysis of electroantennogram recordings: a tool for mapping the olfactory response in an insect antenna. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 12, 1–19.10.3389/fncel.2018.00287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K (2004) Molecular mechanisms of ligand binding, signaling, and regulation within the superfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors: molecular modeling and mutagenesis approaches to receptor structure and function. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 103(1), 21–80.10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laska, M, Galizia, CG, Giurfa, M and Menzel, R (1999) Olfactory discrimination ability and odor structure–activity relationships in honeybees. Chemical Senses 24(4), 429–438.10.1093/chemse/24.4.429CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paoli, M and Galizia, GC (2021) Olfactory coding in honeybees. Cell and Tissue Research 383(1), 35–58.10.1007/s00441-020-03385-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parachnowitsch, AL and Kessler, A (2010) Pollinators exert natural selection on flower size and floral display in penstemon digitalis. New Phytologist 188(2), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peitong, CHEN, Ru, YAN, Guonian, ZHU, Mengli, CHEN and Yirong, GUO (2024) Research progress on the interaction mechanism of honey bee odorant-binding proteins with exogenous compounds. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science 26(2), 257–265.Google Scholar
Pel, AV, Van Nest, BN, Hathaway, SR and Fahrbach, SE (2023) Impact of odorants on perception of sweetness by honey bees. PLoS ONE 18(12), e0290129.10.1371/journal.pone.0290129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramírez, G, Fagundez, C, Grosso, JP, Argibay, P, Arenas, A and Farina, WM (2016) Odor experiences during preimaginal stages cause behavioral and neural plasticity in adult honeybees. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 10, 105.10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riobo, NA (2015) Canonical and non-canonical Hedgehog signaling pathways: Role of G proteins. The Smoothened Receptor in Cancer and Regenerative Medicine 16, 13–42.10.1007/7355_2014_63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, HM and Wanner, KW (2006) The chemoreceptor superfamily in the honey bee, apis mellifera: Expansion of the odorant, but not gustatory, receptor family. Genome Research 16(11), 1395–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, GM, Alkhori, L, Hatano, E, Schultz, SW, Kuzhandaivel, A and Jafari, S (2016) Hedgehog Signaling regulates the Ciliary Transport of Odorant Receptors in Drosophila. Cell Reports 14(3), 464–470.10.1016/j.celrep.2015.12.059CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandoz, JC (2011) Behavioral and neurophysiological study of olfactory perception and learning in honeybees. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 5, 98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, HR and Benton, R (2020) Molecular mechanisms of olfactory detection in insects: Beyond receptors. Open Biology 10(10), 200252.10.1098/rsob.200252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinha, S and Chen, JK (2006) Purmorphamine activates the Hedgehog pathway by targeting Smoothened. Nature Chemical Biology 2(1), 29–30.10.1038/nchembio753CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, W, Ma, W, Zhang, Q, Hu, X, Ding, G, Jiang, Y and Huang, J (2022) Honey bee foraging decisions influenced by pear volatiles. Agriculture 12(8), 1074.10.3390/agriculture12081074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, H, Jafari, S, Pask, G, Zhou, X, Reinberg, D and Desplan, C (2020) Evolution, developmental expression and function of odorant receptors in insects. Journal of Experimental Biology 223(Suppl_1), jeb208215.10.1242/jeb.208215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed