title: Modeling and regression analysis of semiochemical dose-response curves of insect antennal reception and behavior.
abstract: Dose-response curves of the effects of semiochemicals on neurophysiology and behavior are reported in many articles in insect chemical ecology. Most curves are shown in figures representing points connected by straight lines, in which the x-axis has order of magnitude increases in dosage vs. responses on the y-axis. The lack of regression curves indicates that the nature of the dose-response relationship is not well understood. Thus, a computer model was developed to simulate a flux of various numbers of pheromone molecules (10(3) to 5 × 10(6)) passing by 10(4) receptors distributed among 10(6) positions along an insect antenna. Each receptor was depolarized by at least one strike by a molecule, and subsequent strikes had no additional effect. The simulations showed that with an increase in pheromone release rate, the antennal response would increase in a convex fashion and not in a logarithmic relation as suggested previously. Non-linear regression showed that a family of kinetic formation functions fit the simulated data nearly perfectly (R(2) >0.999). This is reasonable because olfactory receptors have proteins that bind to the pheromone molecule and are expected to exhibit enzyme kinetics. Over 90 dose-response relationships reported in the literature of electroantennographic and behavioral bioassays in the laboratory and field were analyzed by the logarithmic and kinetic formation functions. This analysis showed that in 95% of the cases, the kinetic functions explained the relationships better than the logarithmic (mean of about 20% better). The kinetic curves become sigmoid when graphed on a log scale on the x-axis. Dose-catch relationships in the field are similar to dose-EAR (effective attraction radius, in which a spherical radius indicates the trapping effect of a lure) and the circular EARc in two dimensions used in mass trapping models. The use of kinetic formation functions for dose-response curves of attractants, and kinetic decay curves for inhibitors, will allow more accurate predictions of insect catch in monitoring and control programs.
authors.affiliation: US Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, Maricopa, AZ 85138, USA. john.byers@ars.usda.gov
authors.forename: John A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Byers
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D057506:Arthropod Antennae / Q000378:metabolism / Q000502:physiology; D001522:Behavior, Animal / Q000187:drug effects*; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D007313:Insecta / Q000502:physiology; D007700:Kinetics; D008954:Models, Biological; D010675:Pheromones / Q000494:pharmacology*; D018035:Receptors, Odorant / Q000378:metabolism; D012044:Regression Analysis
chemical_list: D010675:Pheromones; D018035:Receptors, Odorant
references.citation: J Exp Biol. 2003 May;206(Pt 9):1575-88
references.pmid: 12654896
references.citation: J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2005 Sep;191(9):777-90
references.pmid: 16094545
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1987 Jul;13(7):1601-16
references.pmid: 24302330
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1988 Jan;14(1):199-212
references.pmid: 24277005
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1990 Apr;16(4):1321-9
references.pmid: 24263730
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1988 Jan;14(1):113-22
references.pmid: 24276998
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1981 Sep;7(5):791-8
references.pmid: 24420751
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1989 Feb;15(2):749-65
references.pmid: 24271814
references.citation: Micron. 2008 Jul;39(5):526-35
references.pmid: 17827023
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2003 Aug;29(8):1797-811
references.pmid: 12956508
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1988 Mar;14(3):797-813
references.pmid: 24276132
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1991 Jun;17(6):1159-76
references.pmid: 24259175
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1990 Jun;16(6):1997-2008
references.pmid: 24264001
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1983 Jan;9(1):129-42
references.pmid: 24408626
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1985 Jun;11(6):757-66
references.pmid: 24310220
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1996 Jan;22(1):123-37
references.pmid: 24226987
references.citation: Chem Senses. 2009 Mar;34(3):231-52
references.pmid: 19153252
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2009 Jan 7;256(1):81-9
references.pmid: 18845163
references.citation: Environ Entomol. 2011 Oct;40(5):1210-22
references.pmid: 22251732
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2001 Jul;27(7):1391-407
references.pmid: 11504035
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1994 Apr;20(4):909-27
references.pmid: 24242205
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1982 Nov;8(11):1333-44
references.pmid: 24414828
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2012 May;38(5):592-601
references.pmid: 22527056
references.citation: Environ Entomol. 2007 Dec;36(6):1328-38
references.pmid: 18284760