↓ Skip to main content

The Two Main Olfactory Receptor Families in Drosophila, ORs and IRs: A Comparative Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Two Main Olfactory Receptor Families in Drosophila, ORs and IRs: A Comparative Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2018.00253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Gomez-Diaz, Fernando Martin, Jose Manuel Garcia-Fernandez, Esther Alcorta

Abstract

Most insect species rely on the detection of olfactory cues for critical behaviors for the survival of the species, e.g., finding food, suitable mates and appropriate egg-laying sites. Although insects show a diverse array of molecular receptors dedicated to the detection of sensory cues, two main types of molecular receptors have been described as responsible for olfactory reception in Drosophila, the odorant receptors (ORs) and the ionotropic receptors (IRs). Although both receptor families share the role of being the first chemosensors in the insect olfactory system, they show distinct evolutionary origins and several distinct structural and functional characteristics. While ORs are seven-transmembrane-domain receptor proteins, IRs are related to the ionotropic glutamate receptor (iGluR) family. Both types of receptors are expressed on the olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) of the main olfactory organ, the antenna, but they are housed in different types of sensilla, IRs in coeloconic sensilla and ORs in basiconic and trichoid sensilla. More importantly, from the functional point of view, they display different odorant specificity profiles. Research advances in the last decade have improved our understanding of the molecular basis, evolution and functional roles of these two families, but there are still controversies and unsolved key questions that remain to be answered. Here, we present an updated review on the advances of the genetic basis, evolution, structure, functional response and regulation of both types of chemosensory receptors. We use a comparative approach to highlight the similarities and differences among them. Moreover, we will discuss major open questions in the field of olfactory reception in insects. A comprehensive analysis of the structural and functional convergence and divergence of both types of receptors will help in elucidating the molecular basis of the function and regulation of chemoreception in insects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 46 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 24%
Neuroscience 21 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 46 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,229,289
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#1,360
of 4,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,513
of 335,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#53
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.