A method to rapidly screen host plant volatiles by measurement of the electrophysiological response of adult navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella) antennae to single components and blends via electroantennographic analysis is demonstrated.
Method Article
A method to rapidly screen host plant volatiles by measurement of the electrophysiological response of adult navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella) antennae to single components and blends via electroantennographic analysis is demonstrated.
Plant volatiles play an important role in plant-insect interactions. Herbivorous insects use plant volatiles, known as kairomones, to locate their host plant.1,2 When a host plant is an important agronomic commodity feeding damage by insect pests can inflict serious economic losses to growers. Accordingly, kairomones can be used as attractants to lure or confuse these insects and, thus, offer an environmentally friendly alternative to pesticides for insect control.3 Unfortunately, plants can emit a vast number volatiles with varying compositions and ratios of emissions dependent upon the phenology of the commodity or the time of day. This makes identification of biologically active components or blends of volatile components an arduous process. To help identify the bioactive components of host plant volatile emissions we employ the laboratory-based screening bioassay electroantennography (EAG). EAG is an effective tool to evaluate and record electrophysiologically the olfactory responses of an insect via their antennal receptors. The EAG screening process can help reduce the number of volatiles tested to identify promising bioactive components. However, EAG bioassays only provide information about activation of receptors. It does not provide information about the type of insect behavior the compound elicits; which could be as an attractant, repellent or other type of behavioral response. Volatiles eliciting a significant response by EAG, relative to an appropriate positive control, are typically taken on to further testing of behavioral responses of the insect pest. The experimental design presented will detail the methodology employed to screen almond-based host plant volatiles4,5 by measurement of the electrophysiological antennal responses of an adult insect pest navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella) to single components and simple blends of components via EAG bioassay. The method utilizes two excised antennae placed across a "fork" electrode holder. The protocol demonstrated here presents a rapid, high-throughput standardized method for screening volatiles. Each volatile is at a set, constant amount as to standardize the stimulus level and thus allow antennal responses to be indicative of the relative chemoreceptivity. The negative control helps eliminate the electrophysiological response to both residual solvent and mechanical force of the puff. The positive control (in this instance acetophenone) is a single compound that has elicited a consistent response from male and female navel orangeworm (NOW) moth. An additional semiochemical standard that provides consistent response and is used for bioassay studies with the male NOW moth is (Z,Z)-11,13-hexdecadienal, an aldehyde component from the female-produced sex pheromone.6-8
1. Preparation of Volatiles Detected from the Host Plant for EAG Screening
2. Preparation of Insect Antennae for EAG Bioassay
3. EAG Protocol for Individual Components
4. An Example of EAG Analysis of Blends or Other Matrices (Table 3)
5. Representative Results
For female navel orangeworm the following settings are used: 2 second puffs, 10 second recording times, 10 second window, and 5 mV scale. A negative deflection is the typical response, yet the absolute value is recorded (e.g., -3,400 μV deflection is recorded as 3,400 μV). A relatively weak response of the prep to the positive control is discarded. Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of a poor response to the positive control by navel orangeworm.
For example of a poor control result, the average female antennal response to acetophenone is typically ca. 2,600 μV (Figure 2), if the prep only gave a response of ca. 1,300 μV it would be discarded and another pair of antennae prepped. Similarly, the average male response to (Z,Z)-11,13-hexadecadienal was typically 3,000 μV; thus, any response less than 1,500 μV was typically discarded.
The positive control at the start and end of each experiment also provides information regarding the condition of the antennae. A rule of thumb we follow for rapid screening is if the antennal response to the puff of the post-control (record #12, Table 2) is either less than 75% of the 1st puff of the pre-control (record #1, Table 2) or less than the 2nd puff of the pre-control (record #2, Table 2) then the experiment is not used in the data analysis due to possible degradation of the prep (Figure 3). An example of the first rule of thumb would be record #1 = 2,730 μV and record #12 = 1,680 μV; and the second rule of thumb if record #2 = 2,350 μV and record #12 = 1,680 μV, In each of these cases, the prep and experiment's results would be discarded.
A representative example of correcting the EAG response values as measured to the positive control would be as follows.
| Run # | EAG (μV) | Run #2 | EAG (μV) | Run #3 | EAG (μV) |
| (+) Ctrl | 2800 | (+) Ctrl | 2420 | (+) Ctrl | 3030 |
| Cmpnd A | 3000 | Cmpnd A | 2500 | Cmpnd A | 3440 |
| (-) Ctrl | 530 | (-) Ctrl | 755 | (-) Ctrl | 910 |
| Cmpnd B | 2400 | Cmpnd B | 2000 | Cmpnd B | 2560 |
| (+) Ctrl | 2770 | (+) Ctrl | 2400 | (+) Ctrl | 3020 |
Using the values above for an N=3 experiment, the negative control response is subtracted from every value within each experiment under the assumption the negative control is the baseline antennal response to the mechanical puff and residual solvent.
| Run #1 | EAG (μV) | Run #2 | EAG (μV) | Run #3 | EAG (μV) |
| (+) Ctrl | 2270 | (+) Ctrl | 1665 | (+) Ctrl | 2120 |
| Cmpnd A | 2470 | Cmpnd A | 1745 | Cmpnd A | 2530 |
| (-) Ctrl | 0 | (-) Ctrl | 0 | (-) Ctrl | 0 |
| Cmpnd B | 1870 | Cmpnd B | 1245 | Cmpnd B | 1650 |
| (+) Ctrl | 2240 | (+) Ctrl | 1645 | (+) Ctrl | 2110 |
The positive controls for each experiment would then be averaged and corrected to 1,000 μV, noting the ratio for correction to 1,000 μV. A data sheet (e.g., Excel) can easily be manipulated to convert responses to usable data.
| Run #1 | Avg (μV) | Run #2 | Avg (μV) | Run #3 | Avg (μV) |
| (+) Ctrl | 2255 | (+) Ctrl | 1655 | (+) Ctrl | 2115 |
| (+) Ctrl adj. | 1000 (0.443) | (+) Ctrl adj. | 1000 (0.604) | (+) Ctrl adj. | 1000 (0.473) |
Multiplying by the correction ratio within each experiment, the values for compound A and compound B are then adjusted.
| Run #1 | Adj. EAG(μV) | Run #2 | Adj. EAG(μV) | Run #3 | Adj. EAG(μV) |
| Cmpnd A | 1094 | Cmpnd A | 1054 | Cmpnd A | 1197 |
| Cmpnd B | 828 | Cmpnd B | 752 | Cmpnd B | 780 |
The averages (means) for each compound are then determined along with other relevant statistical data and the EAG responses for the compounds tested can then be evaluated for candidacy for further investigation.
| Compound | EAG (μV) | No. Runs, N= |
| A | 1115 | 3 |
| B | 787 | 3 |

Figure 1. Representative EAG for male antennal response (1,180 μV) to the pre-control (1st positive control puff) that would be discarded due to poor antennal response after ensuring the antennae have good contact with the gel. Blue bars in bottom windows represent the two second puff of volatile. Click here to view larger figure.

Figure 2. Representative EAG for the female antennal response (3,400 μV) to the 1st puff pre-control that would be considered appropriate. Click here to view larger figure.

Figure 3. Representative EAG for the female antennal response (1,680 μV) to the post-control (last positive control for each experiment) that would be considered poor, and suggestive of antennae degradation (<75% of 1st pre-control or < 2nd puff value of pre-control). For this example the 1st pre-control puff was 2,730 μV and 2nd pre-control puff was 2,350 μV. Click here to view larger figure.

Figure 4. Representative EAG for the female antennal response (3,800 μV) to the puff of a candidate volatile blend and the subsequent measurements of the maximum initial deflection (3,800 μV), the initial slope during the puff duration (0.3 s/1.2 mV = 0.25 s/mV), and the slope for the remaining puff duration (1.6 s/1.9 mV = 0.84 s/mV). Click here to view larger figure.

Figure 5. Small modified vessel containing a sample matrix and associated volatiles to be puffed across A. transitella antennae.

Table 1. In situ volatile emission of Nonpareil almonds (2007) and EAG responses determined by a different and less sensitive configuration in the Autospike program.

Table 2. Example of a form for recording male and female antennal responses to individual volatile components.

Table 3. Example of a form for recording male and female antennal responses to volatile blends and/or bouquets.

Table 4. Examples of preparation of 10 mL of a 5 mg/mL solution for two different ratios of blends.

Table 5. Example of form for recording two consecutive puffs of single volatile components across male and female antennae.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
Use of electroantennogram recordings as a bioassay to determine chemoreception responses of a target insect is fairly common and numerous studies utilizing EAG as a detector for effluent from a gas chromatogram (GC-EAD) can be found in the literature.9,10 The method demonstrated will provide a rapid screening of equivalent amounts of volatile components with high replications for confident assignment of the relative responsiveness. The AutoSpike program in the Syntech software is a good program for screening v...
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
The author has an existing cooperative research and development agreement with Paramount Farming Company, a company with ties to Suterra LLC.
This research was conducted under USDA-ARS CRIS Project 5325-42000-037-00D and with results from CRADA 58-3K95-7-1198 and TFCA 58-5325-8-419. The authors gratefully acknowledge Suterra for the gift of the (Z,Z)-11,13-hexadecadienal, B. Higbee for productive discussions, and J. Baker for technical assistance.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request Permission