Next Article in Journal
First Report of Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus in Egypt Resistant to Ivermectin
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of the Expression and Functions of Two Odorant-Binding Proteins of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea)
Previous Article in Journal
Descriptive Bacterial and Fungal Characterization of Propolis Using Ultra-High-Throughput Marker Gene Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Recent Advances in Management by Pheromones of Thaumetopoea Moths in Urban Parks and Woodland Recreational Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/insects10110403
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Electrophysiological Responses of Eighteen Species of Insects to Fire Ant Alarm Pheromone

by
Yuzhe Du
,
Michael J. Grodowitz
and
Jian Chen
*
National Biological Control Laboratory, Biological Control of Pests Research Unit, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 59 Lee Road, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(11), 403; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110403
Submission received: 12 September 2019 / Revised: 1 November 2019 / Accepted: 7 November 2019 / Published: 14 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Semiochemicals and Insect Behavior)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Olfaction plays a dominant role in insect communication. Alarm pheromones, which alert other insects of the same species of impending danger, are a major class of releaser pheromones. The major components of alarm pheromones in red imported fire ants, honeybees and aphids have been identified as 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine (2E-3,6-DP), isopentyl acetate (IPA), and E-β-farnesene (EβF), respectively. In this study, electroantennography (EAG) responses to EDP (a mixture of 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine), IPA and EβF were investigated in a wide range of insect species. Beside imported fire ants, the EDP (2-ethyl-3,6(5)-dimethylpyrazine) elicited significant EAG response from all other tested insects, including six ant species and one hybrid ant, honeybee, bagrada bug, lady beetle, housefly, small hive beetle, yellow fever mosquito, termite, bedbug, water hyacinth weevil, southern green stink bug and two aphid species. In contrast, IPA elicited significant EAG response only in the honeybee, red imported fire ant, an Aphaenogaster ant, and the water hyacinth weevil. The EβF only elicited EAG responses in two aphids, small hive beetle and housefly. The results clearly indicate that EDP can be detected by widespread insect species that did not coevolve with S. invicta and further suggested alkylpyrazine may activate multiple generally tuned olfactory receptors (ORs) across a wide number of insect species.

1. Introduction

The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), is one of the worst invasive alien species in the world [1]. S. invicta was introduced from South America into the United States in Mobile, Alabama in the 1930s. Since then, it has spread extensively and become well established in 15 states in the U.S. [2]. Fire ants are a significant public health hazard and an important pest in agriculture with an annual loss estimated to surpass $7 billion due to damage repair and control costs [3].
Like all other social insects, S. invicta, depend on sophisticated pheromonal communication for maintaining colony cohesiveness, sociality, and defense. Several pheromones have been identified in S. invicta, including trail following, queen recognition and alarm pheromones [4,5,6,7]. An alkylpyrazine compound released by the mandibular gland, 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine, has been identified as the primary component of the alarm pheromone in S. invicta [6]. The alarm pheromone can induce S. invicta to express a variety of behaviors, including rapid running, attraction to the source, colony dispersal, and aggressive postures [8]. Several other alkylpyrazine analogs can elicit electroantennogram (EAG) response and alarm behaviors of S. invicta and 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine, an isomer of the pheromone, does so with nearly the same effectiveness as 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine [9].
Extensive research has also been conducted on alarm pheromones of honeybee and aphids. In the early 1960s, two main alarm pheromones were defined in the workers of the honeybee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus [10,11]. These included isopentyl acetate (IPA), the major component in the sting alarm pheromone released by the Koschevnikov gland [10], and the mandibular gland pheromone containing 2-heptanone [11]. Both substances elicit defensive behavior against intruders at the hive entrance [10,11]. In the 1970s, E-β-farnesene (EβF) was confirmed as the key alarm pheromone for many aphid species [12,13]. It is released from the cornicles, a pair of specialized structures located dorsally on the 5th or 6th abdominal segments. The response of aphids to EβF is species-dependent [14,15] and context-dependent [16,17]. Typical behaviors in response to EβF include cessation of feeding, moving away from the signal source, and often dropping from the host plant [18].
Defense is critical to ant colony survival, therefore, alarm signals generally evoke rapid and robust behavioral responses [19,20]. Although alarm pheromones may belong to many different types of molecules, such as terpenoids, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, nitrogen heterocycles, and sulfur-containing compounds [21], in general, they are small molecules with high volatility. Alarm pheromones are considered to be the least specific insect pheromone [6]. When fire ant, honeybee and aphids release alarm pheromones for defense, the alarm signals may be detected by other insect species. For example, Apis cerana Fabricius foragers avoid the distinctive alarm pheromones of Apis dorsata Fabricius and A. mellifera, species that share the same floral resources and predators [22]. Phorid flies in the genus Pseudacteon are highly specific parasitoids to red imported fire ants. Phorid flies apparently use fire ant alarm pheromone to locate their hosts [23]. Many aphid natural enemies use aphid alarm pheromones (EβF) to find their hosts [24]. Even mammals may detect and respond to insect alarm pheromones. For example, African bush elephants have been shown to respond to a honeybee alarm pheromone blend and express avoidance behaviors [25]. Therefore, knowledge of how alarm pheromones affect other species in natural environments will enhance our understanding of such interspecific interactions.
Insects can detect a large number of volatile compounds using various morphologically distinct olfactory sensilla [26,27]. Such sensilla are most commonly found associated with the antenna, though they have also been identified on the maxillary palps or proboscis, wings, and other bodily surfaces. Sensilla morphologies often relate to what odors a sensillum can detect most effectively, however, the odors detected are ultimately determined by the olfactory receptors (ORs). ORs are expressed on the dendritic membranes of olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) suspended in an aqueous sensillar lymph [27]. Formation of a heteromeric complex is required in insect chemoreception, which requires at least one OR and a co-expressed OR (Orco) [28,29]. Interestingly, while Orco [30] is highly conserved among insects, the sequences of other OR genes exhibit very little sequence similarity even within the same insect order [31]. However, ORs being broadly tuned, able to respond to wide variety of molecules and the ratio of responses creates the odor signal [32,33]. This ability to detect a broad number of odors often allows insects to detect odorants they did not coevolve with. The EAG technique, which measures the electric potential between two ends of the antenna, has been used to study olfactory mechanisms in insects for several decades. The EAG represents the summation of bioelectrical potentials generated by many antennal ORs responding almost simultaneously [34].
Red imported fire ants are effective predators of insects, however, little or no information is available on whether other insects can detect fire ant alarm pheromone and aid in avoiding predation. Such information is important in understanding the interaction of fire ants and their prey. Discrimination of honeybee and aphid alarm pheromones by other insects have been reported in a few cases though more research is warranted. In this study, we use EAG as a probe to investigate the electrophysiological response to alarm pheromones of red imported fire ants, honeybees and aphids in a wide range of insect species to assess the potential olfactory discrimination of these well-defined alarm pheromones by other insects.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Insects

Eighteen species of insects and one hybrid ant, belonging to five orders and 11 families, were used in this study (Table 1). Solenopsis invicta colonies were maintained in trays coated using Fluon (BioQuip Products, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) and kept in insect rearing rooms at 26 °C. The social form of S. invicta colonies was determined using PCR on Gp-9 alleles [35]. All S. invicta ants used in this study were from monogyne colonies. Colonies were fed with 10% sucrose and frozen house crickets, Acheta domesticus L. at ~70% humidity and 16:8 dark: light photoperiod. Black imported fire ants, Solenopsis richteri Forel, hybrid imported fire ants, S. invicta ×S. richteri, aphenogaster ants, Aphaenogaster picea Wheeler, pharaoh ants, Monomorium pharaonic Linnaeus, and little black ant, Monomorium minimum Buckley were maintained in insect rearing rooms using the same environmental conditions. Nine-spotted lady beetle, Coccinella novemnotata Herbst, houseflies, Musca domestica Linnaeus and yellow fever mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti Linnaeus were kept in insect rearing rooms with the same humidity and light condition. Small hive beetle, Aethina tumida Murray, southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula Linnaeus, eastern subterranean termite, Reticulitermes flavipes Kollar, water hyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae Warner, and oleander aphid, Aphis nerii Boyer de Foscolombe were field-collected in Mississippi (see the detail in Table 1). Honeybee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus was obtained from colonies maintained by the Southern Insect Management Research Unit (SIMRU), USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS. Bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi Linnaeus was obtained from laboratory colonies maintained at the Biological Control of Pests Research Unit (BCPRU), USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS. Tawny crazy ant, Nylanderia fulva Mayr were collected from Jackson County, MS and bagrada bug, Bagrada hilaris Burmeister was obtained from colonies maintained at the USDA-ARS, the BCPRU, Stoneville, Mississippi since 2012. The original individuals used to establish this colony were obtained near the University of California (Riverside, CA, USA) from London rocket (Sisymbrium irio L.) and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana (L.) Lagr.-Foss.) in the fall of 2010. The bed bug, Cimex lectularius Linnaeus, was obtained from Dr. Changlu Wang, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ and kept at room temperature (−~25 °C).

2.2. Chemicals

Red imported fire ant alarm pheromone 2-ethyl-3,5(6)-dimethyl pyrazine (EDP) (a mixture of the 3,5- and 3,6-dimethyl isomers) with 90% purity was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Honeybee alarm pheromone component, isopentyl acetate (IPA), and aphid alarm pheromone, E-β-farnesene (EβF) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) as well. The purities for IPA and EβF were ≥90% and ≥95%, respectively.

2.3. Electrophysiological Recordings

Electroantennography was performed to determine the antennal responses of 18 insect species and one hybrid ant to EDP and EβF, and eight species to IPA. Most insects were not anesthetized prior to antenna excision, except for houseflies, M. domestica, yellow fever mosquitoes, A.aegypti and honeybee, A. mellifera. EAG were recorded using saline-filled capillary glass electrodes [9]. EAG responses of S. invicta to its own alarm pheromone (EDP) were determined for major workers and male and female alates. Only workers were used for the following social insects: S. richteri, S. invicta × S. richteri, A. picea, M. pharaonis, M. minimum, N. fulva, A. mellifera, and R. flavipes. Males and females were evaluated for the non-social insects including B. hilaris, C. novemnotata, M. domestica, A. aegypti, A. tumida, N. viridula, N. eichhorniae, and C. lectularius. Only females were evaluated for the two aphid species, A. merii and R. padi. Procedures for the EAG on a majority of the species tested were similar to those used for S. invicta with the exception of R. flavips, M. pharaonis, M. minimum, M. domestica, R. padi, and A. nerii because of their small size and/or morphology of the antennae.
For EAG, silver wires in two glass capillary (1.1 mm in diameter) electrodes filled with saline solutions served as the reference and recording electrodes. The antenna was excised using fine-tipped forceps. The base and tip of the antenna were connected to the reference electrode and the recording electrode based on procedures modified after Kaissling and Thorson (1980) [36]. Due to the small size of the antennae in R. flavipes, M. pharaonis, M. minimum, R. padi, and A. nerii, the reference electrode was connected to the isolated head, while the recording electrode was connected to the tip of the antenna. Since the housefly has aristate antenna, the reference electrode was inserted to the isolated head and the recording electrode was connected to the third antennal segment.
To test the EAG response, each pheromone was dissolved in pentane and a 10 μL aliquot of the solution was then applied to a Whatman filter paper strip (3 mm × 40 mm). The pentane was allowed to evaporate by gently shaking for 10 s under a fume hood. Then the strip was inserted into the glass Pasteur pipette (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), and the tip and the end of the pipette were immediately sealed with parafilm. Filter paper strips treated only with pentane in a glass pipette served as the control. The tip of the pipette was fitted into a side port of an L-shaped glass tube (130 mm in length and × 12 mm in diameter) oriented 5 mm away from the antennal preparation. The antenna was exposed to a solvent control blank (10 μL pentane) at the start and the end of recordings for each antenna. The stimuli were provided as 0.5 s puffs of air into a continuous humidified air stream as generated by an air stimulus controller (CS-55, Syntech®, Buchenbach, Baden-Württemberg, The Netherlands, Europe). EAG signals were recorded for 10 s, starting 1 s before the onset of the stimulus pulse. At least 1 min was allowed between each puff for the recovery of antennal receptors. The analog signal was detected through a probe (INR-II, Syntech®), captured, and processed with a data acquisition controller (IDAC-4, Syntech®), and later analyzed using EAGPro computer software (Syntech® ).
In order to select an adequate concentration of EDP for measuring EAG response of other insects, a dose–response relationship between EDP and S. invicta was established. Four concentrations of EDP were used, including 0.1, 1, 10, 100 ug/μL dissolved in pentane. A linear relationship was found between 100 μg/μL and 0.1 μg/μL, and 100 μg/μL elicited the maximum EAG responses in S. invicta. Therefore, 100 μg/μL EDP was used for all EAG measurements for other insect species. For IPA and EβF, 100 μg/μL was also used for all the insect species.

2.4. GC-EAD Analysis on Commercial 2-ethyl-3,6(5)-dimethylpyrazine

In order to confirm S. invicta’s EAG response to the commercial EDP product (a mixture of 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine), gas chromatography–electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) analyses were performed with S. invicta workers. The antennal preparation was the same as described for EAG previously.
We used an Agilent7890B GC (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a flame ionization detector (FID) equipped with an HP-5 MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm ID × 0.25 μm film thickness, Agilent) with nitrogen as the carrier. The oven temperature was held at 50 °C for 2 min, increased to 240 °C at 10 °C/min, and then held at this temperature for 4 min. The column effluent was split 1:1 for simultaneous detection by both detectors (FID and EAD). The transfer tube to the EAD preparation was heated to 230 °C and the outlet for the EAD was delivered to the insect antenna through an L-shaped glass tube (12 cm × 6 mm I.D.) in a humidified airstream. 1 μL EDP at 10 μg/μL was injected, EAD and FID signals were captured and processed with GC/EAD 2000 software (Syntech, Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China).

2.5. Data Analysis

All EAG responses were recorded in mV. For establishing a dose–response relationship of EAG response to EDP for S. invicta, EAG recordings were obtained from 6–12 antennal preparations from each of three colonies for each dose. Results are reported as mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean). EAG response to the pentane control (average of two recordings per antennal preparation) was deducted from the EAG amplitudes. For each of the tested insect species, 6–12 antennal was prepared and its EAG responses to EDP, IPA, and EβF at 100 μg/μL were compared to their responses to pentane. For each compound, EAG responses were obtained from antennal preparations. Statistical significance in EAG response among doses for each caste of S. invicta, among castes for each dose, among compounds for each insect species or among species for each compound was determined using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test, with the significance threshold set at p < 0.05 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). A positive EAG response was defined if a compound elicited EAG signals with an average amplitude significantly higher than that of the solvent control using ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.

3. Results

3.1. Gas Chromatography-Electroantennographic Detection (GC-EAD) Analysis of S. invicta to 2-ethyl-3,5(6)-dimethyl pyrazine (EDP)

The commercially available 2-ethyl-3,5(6)-dimethyl pyrazine mainly contains 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethyl pyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethyl pyrazine (Figure 1A) were detected by FID (Figure 1B (6)). The 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine reported as fire ant alarm pheromone elicited electroantennographic detection (EAD) response in S. invicta females (Figure 1B (1) and (5)), males (Figure 1B (2)) alate and workers (Figure 1B (3) and (4)). However, 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine could not be detected in several antennae preparations (Figure 1B (4) and (5)). Overall, GC-EAD signals were generally very small for 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine. Since pure fire ant alarm pheromone was not available, we originally thought that GC-EAD might be useful to measure the response of other insects to fire ant alarm pheromone in the isomer mixture. However, since the GC-EAD response was too small to meet the need in this study, we elected to use the isomer mixture EDP with direct EAG measurement.

3.2. Concentration Dependent EAG Responses to EDP in S. invicta Workers, Male, and Female Alates

EAG responses of S. invicta workers, female and male alates to EDP were measured at four doses, 0.1, 1, 10, 100 μg/μL. EDP elicited clear concentration-dependent EAG-responses in workers (Figure 2A) and both female (Figure 2B) and male alates (Figure 2C). A positive correlation was found between EAG responses and the doses of EDP. The r-value (correlation coefficient) was 0.9, 0.87, and 0.93 for workers (n = 7), female alates (n = 6) and male alates (n = 8), respectively. The EAG amplitude reached 0.26 ± 0.05 mV, 0.35 ± 0.07 mV and 0.36 ± 0.05 mV at 100 μg/μL for workers or female and male alates, when pentane control signal was subtracted from original EAG amplitude (Figure 2D). There was no significant difference in EAG response among workers, as well as female and male alates (p > 0.05).

3.3. EAG Response of Other Ants to Red Imported Fire Ant, Honeybee and Aphid Alarm Pheromones

In addition to S. invicta, we examined EAG responses of S. richteri, S. invicta x S. richteri, A. picea, M. pharaonis, M. minimum and N. fulva to EDP, IPA and EβF. Only workers were used in all tests. EDP elicited EAG response in S. richteri and S. invicta x S. richteri (Figure 3A–C), M. pharaonic and M. minimum (Figure 3D–E), A. picea (Figure 3F) and N. fulva, (Figure 3G). IPA elicited EAG response in S. invicta, S. richteri, S. invicta x S. richteri and A. picea, however, all responses were significantly lower than their responses to EDP (p < 0.05), which were only about one-half of the amplitude of EDP. In addition, IPA didn’t elicit EAG response in M. pharaonic and M. minimum and EβF did not elicit any EAG responses in all six ant species (Figure 3G).

3.4. EAG Response of Other Insects to Red Imported Fire Ant, Honeybee and Aphid Alarm Pheromones.

As shown in Figure 4A–L, EDP elicited EAG responses in all 12 insect species tested (Figure 4M) (p < 0.05), including workers of A. mellifera (Figure 4A) and R. flavipes (Figure 4E). Moreover, EDP also elicited EAG responses in A. tumida (Figure 4B), B. hilaris (Figure 4C), C. novemnotata (Figure 4D), N. viridula (Figure 4F), N. eichhorniae (Figure 4G), C. lectularius (Figure 4H), A. aegypti (Figure 4I), M. domestica (Figure 4J) and two aphids species R. padi (Figure 4K) and A. merii (Figure 4L) (data on male not shown) (p < 0.05).
Honeybee alarm pheromone IPA elicited EAG responses in honeybee A. mellifera (Figure 4A) and aphid alarm pheromone EβF also elicited EAG responses in two aphid species, R. padi (Figure 4K) and A. merii (Figure 4L). Their EAG amplitudes were not significantly different from their EAG responses to EDP (p > 0.05) (Figure 4M). Besides honeybee A. mellifera, we also tested three other species for their EAG response to IPA. As a result, IPA elicited insignificant EAG response in R. flavipes (Figure 4E) and A. aegypti (Figure 4I), but significant responses in N. eichhorniae (Figure 4G). EβF were tested in 12 insect species. Except A. tumida (Figure 4B) and M. domestica (Figure 4J), EβF did not elicit EAG responses in any other insect species (Figure 4M).
As shown in Figure 4A–L, probably due to a quite different antenna morphology, EAG amplitudes induced by alarm pheromones were quite different among insect species. EDP elicited the highest EAG responses in A. mellifera, and the lowest in C. novemnotata and C. lectularius (Figure 4M). EAG amplitude reached over 900 μV in A. mellifera worker (Figure 4A), and only about 100 μV in C. novemnotata (Figure 4D) and C. lectularius (Figure 4H). However, irrespective of the size of the EAG peak (amplitude), those EAG responses were all statistically significant to EDP (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

Our results may provide useful information on the heterospecific effect of S. invicta alarm pheromone. As one of the most aggressive ants, S. invicta is an effective predator and includes many insects in its diet [37,38]. Sensing the predator’s alarm pheromone has an advantage for prey since it can help prey detect the presence of the predators faster and consequently improve their survival by having more time to escape. Natural selection often favors organisms with ability to rapidly and acutely sense their enemies. Sensing fire ant alarm pheromone by other insects has been demonstrated in their interaction with phorid flies, parasitoids of fire ant workers [39]. In this study, all 18 insect species from 5 different orders exhibited EAG response to EDP. Unlike Pseudacteon, these insects are not sympatric to S. invicta since it was introduced to North America in 1930s. This is strong evidence that many insects that did not coevolve with S. invicta can detect fire ant alarm pheromone. It is not possible for these insects evolve the ability to detect S. invicta alarm pheromone in just under a century. The most likely explanation is that alkylpyrazine compounds are not only confined to S. invicta. For example, EDP has been identified as the alarm pheromone of several other ant species in the genus of Solenopsis [40], and alkylpyrazines have also been found in other ant species, such as Wasmannia auropunctata [41] and Aphaenogaster rudis [42] in the subfamily Myrmicinae, Myrmecia gulosa [43], in the subfamily Myrmiciinae, Calomyrmex splendidus [44] and Notoncus ectatommoide [45] in subfamily Formicinae, and Linepithema humile [46], I. purpurreus [47], I. nitidus, I. rufoniger, and Dolichoderus clarkia [48] in subfamily Dolichoderinae. Alkylpyrazines are also commonly seen in the subfamily Ponerinae. Among 33 analyzed species of ponerine ants, alkylpyrazines were found in 24 species [49]. Ants are generalist predators and “are arguably the greatest success story in the history of terrestrial metazoa” [50]. Ants thrive in most ecosystems and may form 15–25% of the terrestrial animal biomass [50]. Alkylpyrazines were also found in other insects besides ants, including Triatoma dimidiate Latreille (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) which feeds on the blood of a wide variety of animals [51]. Interestingly, alkylpyrazines were also found to be kairomones in wolf urine and induce avoidance and fear-related behaviors in deer and mice [52,53,54]. In the course of evolution, predatory pressure from ants and other animals that use EDP or alkylpyrazine analogs as alarm pheromones may be common for many insects.
The ability of an animal to detect, discriminate, and respond to odors depends on the function of its OSNs, which in turn depends ultimately on ORs [55]. The OSN dendrites express OR proteins, which function as odor-gated ion channels in insects [56]. There were at least 60 receptors in the well-studied adult fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, with additional chemosensory receptors in the larva [57]. ORs can be narrowly tuned to certain odorants, but are often more broadly tuned, able to respond to a wide variety of odorants [32,33]. Insect chemosensory systems contain both narrowly and broadly tuned receptors, providing the basis for both specified dedicated channels for certain compounds and combinatorial coding for others as EDP [33]. In Anopheles gambiae, a family of 79 AgORs were cloned and expressed in South African clawed frog, Xenopus lavis, oocytes and most AgORs responded strongly to heterocyclic or aromatic compounds that contain a benzene ring, molecules close in structure to EDP. Some odorants, especially aromatic and heterocyclic compounds, elicited responses from multiple receptors, and other odorants strongly activated only a single AgOR [58]. S. invicta has 333 SiOrs identified [59]. EDP elicited strong and significant EAG response in S.invicta and all other 17 insect species tested, which means these insect species can detect EDP, and further indicated that many insect species might bear homology to S. invicta ORs, which can be activated by fire ant alarm pheromone. Although the sequences of ORs genes exhibit very little sequence similarity among insect orders [25], ORs for EDP may be highly conserved across different insect orders. Or, EDP may activate multiple more generally tuned ORs across a widespread number of insect species. These may provide useful information to others seeking to identify the responsive ORs in the future.
This study demonstrated for the first time that EβF elicited significant EAG response in housefly and small hive beetle in addition to aphids. Since both insects are important pests, it is worth defining their behavioral responses to EβF. It was demonstrated that ApisOR5, as well as two A. pisum odorant binding proteins (OBPs, ApisOBP3 and ApisOBP7), bind to EβF in A. pisum [60]. EDP elicited strong EAG in two tested aphids. Whether EDP can also bind to the same ORs and OBPs as EβF does in R. padi and A. merii is an interesting topic for future research.
Alarm pheromones from predators may be a rich source of general insect repellants. Insects are major agricultural pests and their control largely depends on synthetic insecticides. Such dependence on insecticides has caused the development of insecticide resistance, environmental pollution and negative impact on non-target organisms. Metabolic engineering of crops for resistance to pest insects using a non-toxic mode of action is a potential alternative strategy. For example, engineering crops to have ability to synthesize and emit EβF could reduce aphid infestations by repelling aphids and attracting their natural enemies [61]. Although these show considerable potential for aphid control, field trials employing the single and double constructs showed no reduction in aphids or increase in parasitism [62]. Since alkylpyrazine compounds may impact various insect species, heteroexpression of alkylpyrazine synthases in crops may enhance the resistance of the crop to diverse pest insects.

Author Contributions

Designed research, Y.D. and J.C.; Performed research, Y.D.; Writing-Review & Editing, Y.D., J.C. and M.J.G.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We thank Maribel Portilla, USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS, USA and Tahir Rashid, Alcorn State University, Extension/Research Demonstration Farm & Technology Transfer Center, Mound Bayou, Mississippi, USA for critical reviews of an early version of the manuscript. We thank Yucheng Zhu and Eric Riddick, USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS for providing insects. We thank Leon Hicks for technical assistance. The mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely to provide specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the author institutions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lowe, S.; Browne, M.; Boudjelas, S.; De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database; Invasive Species Specialist Group: Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ascunce, M.S.; Yang, C.C.; Oakey, J.; Calcaterra, L.; Wu, W.J.; Shih, C.J.; Goudet, J.; Ross, K.G.; Shoemaker, D. Global invasion history of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Science 2011, 331, 1066–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lard, C.; Schmidt, J.; Morris, B.; Estes, L.; Ryan, C.; Bergquist, D. An Economic Impact of Imported Fire Ants in the United States of America; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2006. Available online: https://ant-pests.extension.org/other-impacts-of-fire-ants/ (accessed on 8 November 2019).
  4. Rocca, J.R.; Tumlinson, J.H.; Glancey, B.M.; Lofgren, C.S. The queen recognition pheromone of solenopsis invicta, preparation of (E-6-(1-pentenyl)-2H-pyran-2-one. Tetrahedron Lett. 1983, 24, 1889–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vander Meer, R.K.; Alvarez, F.; Lofgren, C.S. Isolation of the trail recruitment pheromone of Solenopsis invicta. J. Chem. Ecol. 1988, 14, 825–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vander Meer, R.K.; Preston, C.A.; Choi, M.Y. Isolation of a pyrazine alarm pheromone component from the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vander Meer, R.K.; Williams, F.D.; Lofgren, C.S. Hydrocarbon components of the trail pheromone of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Tetrahedron Lett. 1981, 22, 1651–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vander Meer, R.K.; Alonso, L.E. Pheromone directed behavior in ants. In Pheromone Communication in Social Insects Ants, Wasps, Bees, and Termites; Vander Meer, R.K., Breed, M., Winston, M., Espelie, K.E., Eds.; Westview: Boulder, CO, USA, 1998; pp. 159–192. [Google Scholar]
  9. Guan, D.; Lu, Y.Y.; Liao, X.L.; Wang, L.; Chen, L. Electroantennogram and behavioral responses of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, to an alarm pheromone component and its analogues. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11924–11932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boch, R.; Shearer, D.A.; Stone, B.C. Identification of isoamyl acetate as an active component in the sting pheromone of the honey bee. Nature 1962, 195, 1018–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shearer, D.; Boch, R. 2-Heptanone in the mandibular gland secretion of the honey-bee. Nature 1965, 206, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bayendi Loudit, S.M.; Boullis, A.; Verheggen, F.; Francis, F. Identification of the alarm pheromone of cowpea aphid, and comparison with two other aphididae species. J. Insect Sci. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Edwards, L. Trans-farnesene, alarm pheromone of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Nature 1973, 241, 126–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Montgomery, M.E.; Nault, L.R. Effects of age and wing polymorphism on the sensitivity of Myzus perstcae to alarm pheromone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1978, 71, 788–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Montgomery, M.; Nault, L. Comparative response of aphids to the alarm pheromone,(E)-ß-farnesene. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1977, 22, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arakaki, N. Alarm pheromone eliciting attack and escape responses in the sugar cane woolly aphid, Ceratovacuna lanigera (Homoptera, Pemphigidae). J. Ethol. 1989, 7, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roitberg, B.D.; Myers, J.H. Adaptation of alarm pheromone responses of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Can. J. Zool. 1978, 56, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pickett, J.A.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M. The chemical ecology of aphids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1992, 37, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Allan, S.A.; Slessor, K.N.; Winston, M.L.; King, G.G.S. The influence of age and task specialization on the production and perception of honey bee pheromones. J. Insect Physiol. 1987, 33, 917–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Collins, M.A.; Rothenbuhler, C.W. Laboratory test of the response to an alarm chemical, isopentyl acetate, by Apis tnelufera. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1978, 71, 906–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Billen, J.; Morgan, E.D. Pheromone communication in social insects:sources and secretions. In Pheromone Communication in Social Insects Ants, Wasps, Bees, and Termites; Vander Meer, R.K., Breed, M., Winston, M., Espelie, K.E., Eds.; Westview: Boulder, CO, USA, 1998; pp. 3–33. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang, Z.; Wen, P.; Qu, Y.; Dong, S.; Li, J.; Tan, K.; Nieh, J.C. Bees eavesdrop upon informative and persistent signal compounds in alarm pheromones. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sharma, K.; Vander Meer, R.K.; Fadamiro, H.Y. Phorid fly, Pseudacteon tricuspis, response to alkylpyrazine analogs of a fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, alarm pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 2011, 57, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hatano, E.; Kunert, G.; Bartram, S.; Boland, W.; Gershenzon, J.; Weisser, W.W. Do aphid colonies amplify their emission of alarm pheromone? J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 1149–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wright, M.G.; Spencer, C.; Cook, R.M.; Henley, M.D.; North, W.; Mafra-Neto, A. African bush elephants respond to a honeybee alarm pheromone blend. Curr. Biol. CB 2018, 28, R778–R780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carey, A.F.; Carlson, J.R. Insect olfaction from model systems to disease control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 12987–12995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Leal, W.S. Odorant reception in insects: Roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 373–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Benton, R.; Sachse, S.; Michnick, S.W.; Vosshall, L.B. Atypical membrane topology and heteromeric function of Drosophila odorant receptors in vivo. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Larsson, M.C.; Domingos, A.I.; Jones, W.D.; Chiappe, M.E.; Amrein, H.; Vosshall, L.B. Or83b encodes a broadly expressed odorant receptor essential for Drosophila olfaction. Neuron 2004, 43, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Vosshall, L.B.; Hansson, B.S. A unified nomenclature system for the insect olfactory coreceptor. Chem. Sens. 2011, 36, 497–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krieger, J.; Klink, O.; Mohl, C.; Raming, K.; Breer, H. A candidate olfactory receptor subtype highly conserved across different insect orders. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2003, 189, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hallem, E.A.; Carlson, J.R. The odor coding system of Drosophila. Trends Genet. TIG 2004, 20, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Andersson, M.N.; Löfstedt, C.; Newcomb, R.D. Insect olfaction and the evolution of receptor tuning. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 3, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olsson, S.B.; Hansson, B.S. Electroantennogram and single sensillum recording in insect antennae. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 1068, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Valles, S.M.; Porter, S.D. Identification of polygyne and monogyne fire ant colonies (Solenopsis invicta) by multiplex PCR of Gp-9 alleles. Insect Soc. 2003, 50, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kaissling, K.E.; Thorson, J. Insect Olfactory Sensilla: Structural, Chemical and Electrical Aspects of the Functional Organisation; Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1980; pp. 261–282. [Google Scholar]
  37. Vogt, J.T.; Grantham, R.A.; Smith, W.A.; Arnold, D.C. Prey of the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Oklahoma peanuts. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rashid, T.; Chen, J.; Vogt, J.T.; McLeod, P.J. Arthropod prey of imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Mississippi sweetpotato fields. Insect Sci. 2013, 20, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sharma, K.R.; Fadamiro, H.Y. Fire ant alarm pheromone and venom alkaloids act in concert to attract parasitic phorid flies, Pseudacteon spp. J. Insect Physiol. 2013, 59, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hu, L.; Balusu, R.R.; Zhang, W.Q.; Ajayi, O.S.; Lu, Y.Y.; Zeng, R.S.; Fadamiro, H.Y.; Chen, L. Intra- and inter-specific variation in alarm pheromone produced by Solenopsis fire ants. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2018, 108, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Howard, D.F.; Blum, M.S.; Jones, T.H.; Tomalski, M.D. Behavioral responses to an alkylpyrazine from the mandibular gland of the ant Wasmannia auropunctata. Insectes Sociaux 1982, 29, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wheeler, J.; Avery, J.; Olubajo, O.; Shamin, M.; Storm, C.; Duffield, R. Alkylpyrazines from hymenoptera: Isolation, identification and synthesis of 5-methyl-3-n-propyl-2-(1-butenyl) pyrazine from Aphaenogaster ants (Formicidae). Tetrahedron 1982, 38, 1939–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brophy, J.; Nelson, D. 2, 5-Dimethyl-3-n-propylpyrazine from the head of the bull ant Myrmecia gulosa (Fabr.). Insect Biochem. 1985, 15, 363–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brown, M.W.; Moore, B.P. Volatile secretory products of an Australian formicine ant of the genus Calomyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Biochem. 1979, 9, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brophy, J.J.; Cavill, G.W.K.; Mcdonald, J.A.; Nelson, D.; Plant, W.D. Volatile constituents of two species of Australian formicine ants of the genera Notoncus and Polyrhachis. Insect Biochem. 1982, 12, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cavill, G.; Houghton, E. Volatile constituents of the Argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis. J. Insect Physiol. 1974, 20, 2049–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cavill, G.W.K.; Robertson, P.L.; Brophy, J.J.; Duke, R.K.; Mcdonald, J.A.; Plant, W.D. Chemical ecology of the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus sens. strict. Insect Biochem. 1985, 14, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brophy, J.J. Pyrazines Obtained from Insects: Their Source, Identification, Synthesis and Function; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  49. Morgan, E.D.; Do Nascimento, R.R.; Keegans, S.J.; Billen, J. Comparative study of mandibular gland secretions of workers of ponerine ants. J. Chem. Ecol. 1999, 25, 1395–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schultz, T.R. In search of ant ancestors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 14028–14029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. May-Concha, I.; Rojas, J.C.; Cruz-Lopez, L.; Ibarra-Cerdena, C.N.; Ramsey, J.M. Volatile compound diversity and conserved alarm behaviour in Triatoma dimidiata. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Osada, K.; Kurihara, K.; Izumi, H.; Kashiwayanagi, M. Pyrazine analogues are active components of wolf urine that induce avoidance and freezing behaviours in mice. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Osada, K.; Miyazono, S.; Kashiwayanagi, M. Pyrazine analogs are active components of wolf urine that induce avoidance and fear-related behaviors in deer. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Osada, K.; Miyazono, S.; Kashiwayanagi, M. The scent of wolves: Pyrazine analogs induce avoidance and vigilance behaviors in prey. Front. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Mathew, D.; Martelli, C.; Kelley-Swift, E.; Brusalis, C.; Gershow, M.; Samuel, A.D.; Emonet, T.; Carlson, J.R. Functional diversity among sensory receptors in a Drosophila olfactory circuit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E2134–E2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Sato, K.; Pellegrino, M.; Nakagawa, T.; Nakagawa, T.; Vosshall, L.B.; Touhara, K. Insect olfactory receptors are heteromeric ligand-gated ion channels. Nature 2008, 452, 1002–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Clyne, P.J.; Warr, C.G.; Freeman, M.R.; Lessing, D.; Kim, J.; Carlson, J.R. A novel family of divergent seven-transmembrane proteins: Candidate odorant receptors in Drosophila. Neuron 1999, 22, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Wang, G.; Carey, A.F.; Carlson, J.R.; Zwiebel, L.J. Molecular basis of odor coding in the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 4418–4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Zhou, X.; Rokas, A.; Berger, S.L.; Liebig, J.; Ray, A.; Zwiebel, L.J. Chemoreceptor evolution in hymenoptera and its implications for the evolution of eusociality. Genome Biol. Evol. 2015, 7, 2407–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zhang, R.; Wang, B.; Grossi, G.; Falabella, P.; Liu, Y.; Yan, S.; Lu, J.; Xi, J.; Wang, G. Molecular basis of alarm pheromone detection in aphids. Curr. Biol. CB 2017, 27, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Yu, X.D.; Pickett, J.; Ma, Y.Z.; Bruce, T.; Napier, J.; Jones, H.D.; Xia, L.Q. Metabolic engineering of plant-derived (E)-beta-farnesene synthase genes for a novel type of aphid-resistant genetically modified crop plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2012, 54, 282–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bruce, T.J.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M. Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 10 00403 g001 550
Figure 1. GC-EAD responses of S. invicta workers, female and male alates to the alarm pheromone 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine (2E-3,6,-DP) and its isomer 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine (2E-3,5,-DP). (A) Chemical structures of 2E-3,5,-DP and 2E-3,6,-DP. (B) EAD responses of female alates (1, 5), male alates (2) and workers (3, 4) and FID chromatogram (6) (peak a: 2E-3,6-DP and peak b: 2E-3,5-DP).
Figure 1. GC-EAD responses of S. invicta workers, female and male alates to the alarm pheromone 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine (2E-3,6,-DP) and its isomer 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine (2E-3,5,-DP). (A) Chemical structures of 2E-3,5,-DP and 2E-3,6,-DP. (B) EAD responses of female alates (1, 5), male alates (2) and workers (3, 4) and FID chromatogram (6) (peak a: 2E-3,6-DP and peak b: 2E-3,5-DP).
Insects 10 00403 g001
Insects 10 00403 g002 550
Figure 2. Fire ant alarm pheromone, EDP, elicited concentration-dependent EAG response in S. invicta workers (A), female alates (B) and male alates (C). Dose-response curves (D) for workers, male and female alates. Each point represents the mean (±SEM) of six to ten tested antennae (D).
Figure 2. Fire ant alarm pheromone, EDP, elicited concentration-dependent EAG response in S. invicta workers (A), female alates (B) and male alates (C). Dose-response curves (D) for workers, male and female alates. Each point represents the mean (±SEM) of six to ten tested antennae (D).
Insects 10 00403 g002
Insects 10 00403 g003 550
Figure 3. The representative EAG traces elicited by 100 μg/μL EDP, EβF and IPA in S. invicta (A), hybrid fire ant (S. invicta x S. richteri) (B), black imported fire ant (S. richteri) (C), pharaoh ant (M. pharaonis) (D), little black ant (M. minimum) (E), aphenogaster ant (A. picea)(F), and tawny crazy ant (N. fulva) (G) The histogram (H) shows the EAG responses in different ants species (mean ± SEM). Means sharing no letter on the top of bars are significantly different, as determined by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s test, and significant values were set at p < 0.05. The ANOVA was performed for each individual species response to the odorants and the differing letters only have meaning within a species, not between all species.
Figure 3. The representative EAG traces elicited by 100 μg/μL EDP, EβF and IPA in S. invicta (A), hybrid fire ant (S. invicta x S. richteri) (B), black imported fire ant (S. richteri) (C), pharaoh ant (M. pharaonis) (D), little black ant (M. minimum) (E), aphenogaster ant (A. picea)(F), and tawny crazy ant (N. fulva) (G) The histogram (H) shows the EAG responses in different ants species (mean ± SEM). Means sharing no letter on the top of bars are significantly different, as determined by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s test, and significant values were set at p < 0.05. The ANOVA was performed for each individual species response to the odorants and the differing letters only have meaning within a species, not between all species.
Insects 10 00403 g003
Insects 10 00403 g004 550
Figure 4. The representative EAG traces elicited by 100 μg/μL EDP, EβF and IPA dilution in honeybee (A. mellifera) (A), small hive beetle (A.tumida) (B), begrada bug (B. hilaris) (C), nine-spotted lady beetle (C. novemnotata) (D), eastern subterranean termite (R. flavipes) (E), southern green stink bug (N. viridula) (F), water hyacinth weevil (N. eichhorniae) (G), bed bug (C. lectularius) (H), yellow fever mosquito (A. aegypti) (I), housefly (M. domestica) (J), bird cherry oat aphid (R. padi) (K) and oleander aphid (A. merii) (L). M. the histogram (M) shows the EAG responses (mean ± SEM) in all 12 insect species. The sample for each insect species consisted of 6–12 antennae. Means sharing no letter on the top of bars are significantly different, as determined by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test, and significant values were set at p < 0.05. The ANOVA was performed for each individual species response to the odorants and the differing letters only have meaning within a species, not between all species.
Figure 4. The representative EAG traces elicited by 100 μg/μL EDP, EβF and IPA dilution in honeybee (A. mellifera) (A), small hive beetle (A.tumida) (B), begrada bug (B. hilaris) (C), nine-spotted lady beetle (C. novemnotata) (D), eastern subterranean termite (R. flavipes) (E), southern green stink bug (N. viridula) (F), water hyacinth weevil (N. eichhorniae) (G), bed bug (C. lectularius) (H), yellow fever mosquito (A. aegypti) (I), housefly (M. domestica) (J), bird cherry oat aphid (R. padi) (K) and oleander aphid (A. merii) (L). M. the histogram (M) shows the EAG responses (mean ± SEM) in all 12 insect species. The sample for each insect species consisted of 6–12 antennae. Means sharing no letter on the top of bars are significantly different, as determined by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test, and significant values were set at p < 0.05. The ANOVA was performed for each individual species response to the odorants and the differing letters only have meaning within a species, not between all species.
Insects 10 00403 g004
Table
Table 1. Insect species used in this study.
Table 1. Insect species used in this study.
Species Common nameOrderFamilySource
Reticulitermes flavipes Kollar Eastern subterranean termiteBlattodaeRhinotermitidaeCollected from Washington County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
Coccinella novemnotata HerbstNine-spotted lady beetleColeopteraCoccinellidaeReared at USDA-ARS, BCPRU, Stoneville, MS
Neochetina eichhorniae WarnerWater hyacinth weevilColeopteraCurculionidaeCollected from Washington County, MS
Aethina tumida MurraySmall hive beetleColeopteraNitidulidaeProvided by Dr. Yucheng Zhu, USDA-ARS, SIMRU, Stoneville, MS
Ades aegypti LinnaeusYellow fever mosquitoDipteraCulicidaeReared at USDA-ARS, BCPRU, Stoneville, MS
Musca domestica LinnaeusHouseflyDipteraMuscidaeReared at USDA-ARS, BCPRU, Stoneville, MS
Aphis nerii Boyer de FoscolombeOleander aphidHemipteraAphididaeCollected from Washington County, MS
Rhopalosiphum padi LinnaeusBird cherry oat aphidHemipteraAphididaeCollected from Washington County, MS
Cimex lectularius LinnaeusBed bugHemipteraCimicidaeProvided by Dr. Changlu Wang, Rutgers University, NJ
Bagrada hilaris Burmeister Bagrada bugHemipteraPentatomidaeReared at USDA-ARS, BCPRU, Stoneville, MS
Nezara virdula LinnaeusSouthern green stink bugHemipteraPentatomidaeReared at USDA-ARS, BCPRU, Stoneville, MS
Apis mellifera LinnaeusHoneybeeHymenopteraApidaeProvided by Dr. Yucheng Zhu, USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS
Solenopsis invicta BurenRed imported fire antHymenopteraFormicidaeField collected from Washington County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
Solenopsis richteri ForelBlack imported fire antHymenopteraFormicidaeCollected from Tunica County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
S. invicta X S. richteriHybrid imported fire antHymenopteraFormicidaeCollected from Washington County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
Aphaenogaster picea WheelerNoneHymenopteraFormicidaeCollected from Washington County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
Monomorium minimum BuckleyLittle black antHymenopteraFormicidaeCollected from Washington County, MS and maintained at BCPRU
Monomorium pharaonic LinnaeusPharaoh antHymenopteraFormicidaeProvided by Dr. Grzegorz A. Buczkowski, Purdue University, IN
Nylanderia fulva MayrTawny crazy antHymenopteraFormicidaeCollected from Jackson County, MS

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Du, Y.; Grodowitz, M.J.; Chen, J. Electrophysiological Responses of Eighteen Species of Insects to Fire Ant Alarm Pheromone. Insects 2019, 10, 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110403

AMA Style

Du Y, Grodowitz MJ, Chen J. Electrophysiological Responses of Eighteen Species of Insects to Fire Ant Alarm Pheromone. Insects. 2019; 10(11):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110403

Chicago/Turabian Style

Du, Yuzhe, Michael J. Grodowitz, and Jian Chen. 2019. "Electrophysiological Responses of Eighteen Species of Insects to Fire Ant Alarm Pheromone" Insects 10, no. 11: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110403

APA Style

Du, Y., Grodowitz, M. J., & Chen, J. (2019). Electrophysiological Responses of Eighteen Species of Insects to Fire Ant Alarm Pheromone. Insects, 10(11), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110403

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop