Orco regulates the circadian activity of pheromone-sensitive olfactory receptor neurons in hawkmoths

Article activity feed

1. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.108100.1 on eLife

   Oct 1, 2025
2. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.108100 on eLife

   Oct 1, 2025
3. 

   eLife

   Sep 30, 2025

   eLife Assessment

   In this manuscript, the authors used in vivo long-term tip recordings of the long trichoid sensilla of male hawkmoths to analyze spontaneous spiking activity indicative of the ORNs' endogenous membrane potential oscillations. The authors combine extracellular electrophysiology of the hawkmoth antennae with computational modeling to predict that Orco receptor neuron (ORN) activity is required for circadian, not ultradian, firing patterns. The work provides valuable support for the hypothesis that a posttranslational feedback loop regulates daily and ultradian rhythms in neuronal excitability. Nevertheless, the evidence reported provides only incomplete support for their conclusions, especially with regard to the biological implications of their assumption-heavy models.

   Read the original source
4. 

   eLife

   Sep 30, 2025

   Joint Public Review:

   This manuscript puts forward the provocative idea that a posttranslational feedback loop regulates daily and ultradian rhythms in neuronal excitability. The authors used in vivo long-term tip recordings of the long trichoid sensilla of male hawkmoths to analyze spontaneous spiking activity indicative of the ORNs' endogenous membrane potential oscillations. This firing pattern was disrupted by pharmacological blockade of the Orco receptor. They then use these recordings together with computational modeling to predict that Orco receptor neuron (ORN) activity is required for circadian, not ultradian, firing patterns. Orco did not show a circadian expression pattern in a qPCR experiment, and its conductance was proposed to be regulated by cyclic nucleotide levels. This evidence led the authors to conclude that a …

   Joint Public Review:

   This manuscript puts forward the provocative idea that a posttranslational feedback loop regulates daily and ultradian rhythms in neuronal excitability. The authors used in vivo long-term tip recordings of the long trichoid sensilla of male hawkmoths to analyze spontaneous spiking activity indicative of the ORNs' endogenous membrane potential oscillations. This firing pattern was disrupted by pharmacological blockade of the Orco receptor. They then use these recordings together with computational modeling to predict that Orco receptor neuron (ORN) activity is required for circadian, not ultradian, firing patterns. Orco did not show a circadian expression pattern in a qPCR experiment, and its conductance was proposed to be regulated by cyclic nucleotide levels. This evidence led the authors to conclude that a post-translational feedback loop (PTFL) clockwork, associated with the ORN plasma membrane, allows for temporal control of pheromone detection via the generation of multi-scale endogenous membrane potential oscillations. The findings will interest researchers in neurophysiology, circadian rhythms, and sensory biology. However, the manuscript has limited experimental evidence to support its central hypothesis and is undermined by several questionable assumptions that underlie their data analysis and model builds, as well as insufficient biological data, including critical controls to validate and/or fully justify the model the authors are proposing.

   Strengths:

   The study is notable for its combination of long-term in vivo tip recordings with computational modeling, which is technically challenging and adds weight to the authors' claims. The link between Orco, cyclic nucleotides, and circadian regulation is potentially important for sensory neuroscience, and the modeling framework itself - a stochastic Hodgkin-Huxley formulation that explicitly incorporates channel noise - is a solid and forward-looking contribution. Together, these elements make the study conceptually bold and of clear interest to circadian and olfactory biologists.

   Major weaknesses:

   At the same time, several limitations temper the conclusions. The pharmacological evidence relies on a single antagonist and concentration, without key controls. The circadian analysis is based on relatively small numbers of neurons, with rhythms detected only in subsets, and the alignment procedure used in constant darkness raises concerns of bias. The molecular evidence is sparse, with only three qPCR timepoints, and the model, while creative, rests on assumptions that are not yet fully supported by in vivo data.

   Detailed comments are provided below:

   (1) The role for Orco proposed in the authors' model largely stems from the effects seen following the administration of (a single dose) of the Orco antagonist, OLC15. However, this hypothesis is undercut by the lack of adequate pharmacological controls, including a basic multipoint OLC15 dose-response series in addition to the administration of blockers for the other channels that are embedded in their model, but which were ruled out as being involved in the modulation of biological rhythms. In addition, these studies would (ideally) also benefit from the inclusion of the same concentration (series) of an inactive OLC15 analog to better control for off-target effects.

   (2) The expression pattern of Orco was assessed using qPCR at only three timepoints. Rhythmic transcripts can easily be missed with such sparse sampling (Hughes et al., 2017). A minimum of six evenly spaced timepoints across a 24-hour cycle would be required to confidently rule out circadian transcriptional regulation. In addition, the use of the timeless mRNA control from another study is not acceptable. Furthermore, qPCR analysis measures transcript abundance, not transcription, as the authors repeatedly state. Transcriptional studies would require nuclear run-off or, more recently, can be done with snRNAseq analysis. Taken together, these concerns undermine the authors' desire to rule out TTFL-based control that directly led them to implicate a PTTF-based model.

   (3) The modelling presented is based on Orco as a ZT-dependent conductance tied to the cAMP oscillations that were reported by this group in the cockroach and from the presence and functionality in Manduca of homomeric Orco complexes that are devoid of tuning ORs. While these complexes have been generated in cell culture and other heterologous expression systems, as well as presumably exist in vivo in the Drosophila empty neuron and other tuning OR mutants, there is no evidence that these complexes exist in wild-type Manduca ORNs. While this doesn't necessarily undermine every aspect of their models, the authors should note the presence of Orco/OR complexes rather than Orco homomeric complexes.

   (4) Some aspects of the authors' models, most notably the decision to phase align/optimize their DD and OLC15 recordings, are likely to bias their interpretations.

   (5) The tip recordings from long trichoid sensilla are critical aspects of this study. These recordings were carried out on upper sensillar tips located on the distal-most second annulus. Since there are approximately 80 annuli on the Manduca antennae, it is unclear whether the recordings are representative of the antennal response.

   (6) The authors do not provide any data in support of their cAMP/cGMP-based Orco gating, and the PTTF model proposed is somewhat disappointing. The model seems to be influenced by their long-held proposal that insect olfactory signaling has a critical metabotropic component involving cyclic nucleotides, PKC, etc, a view that may be influenced by the use of Orco homomeric complexes generated in HEK cells. Nevertheless, structural studies on Orco do not support a cyclic nucleotide binding site, although PKC-based phosphorylation has been implicated in the fine-tuning/adaptation of olfactory signaling.

   (7) Because only 5/11 LD and 7/10 DD animals showed daily rhythms, with averages lacking clear daily modulation, the methods are not sufficiently reliable enough to reveal novel underlying mechanisms of circadian rhythm generation. The reported results are therefore not yet reliable or quantifiable. To quantify their results, the authors should apply tests for circadian rhythmicity using methods such as RAIN, JTK CYCLE, MetaCycle, or Echo. The use of FFT and Wavelet is applauded, but these methods do not have tests of significance for rhythms and can be biased when analyzing data in which there could only be 1-3 circadian cycles. Because the conclusions appear to be based on 11-12 neurons that were recorded for 2-4 days, the reader is concerned that the methods are not yet perfected to provide strong evidence for circadian regulation of spontaneous firing of ORNs. The average data (e.g., Figure 3Bii and 3Cii) highlight the apparent lack of daily rhythms. In summary, the results would be more compelling if more than 50% of the recordings had significant circadian amplitudes and with similar periods and phases.

   (8) The statement that circadian patterns of ORN firing are lost with the Orco antagonist (OLC15) is not strongly supported. The manuscript should be revised to quantify how Orco changed circadian amplitude in the 12 recorded neurons. Measures of circadian amplitude can avoid confusing/vague statements like Line 394 "low and high frequency bands appeared to merge during the activity phase around ZT 0 in the animals that showed clear circadian rhythms (N = 5 of 11 in LD)". The conclusion that Orco blocks circadian firing appears to be contradicted by Figure 6, which indicates that ~6 of these neurons had circadian periods detected by wavelet. The manuscript would be strengthened with details about the specificity and reproducibility of the Orco antagonist. The authors quantify the gradual decrease in firing with the slope of a linear fit to estimate how the "effectiveness [of OLC15] increased over time." They conclude that the drug "obliterated circadian rhythms and attenuated the spontaneous activity in several, but not all experiments (N = 8 of 12)." The report would be greatly strengthened with corroborating data from additional Orco antagonists and additional doses of OLC15 (the authors use only 50 uM OLC15).

   (9) The manuscript includes several statements that are more speculation than conclusion. For example, there is no evidence for tuning or plasticity in this report. Statements like the following should be removed or addressed with experiments that show changes in odor response specificity or sensitivity: "ORN signalosomes are highly plastic endogenous PTFL clocks comprising receptors for circadian and ultradian Zeitgebers that allow to tune into internal physiological and external environmental rhythms as basis for active sensing." (Discussion Line 622). The paper concludes that (line 380) "mean frequency of spontaneous spiking and the frequency of bursting expressed daily modulation, and are both most likely controlled via a circadian clock that targets the leak channel Orco." This is too bold given the available results.

   (10) Because Orco conductance is modulated by cyclic nucleotides, it remains highly plausible that circadian regulation occurs upstream at the level of signaling pathways (e.g., calcium, calcium-binding proteins, GPCRs, cyclases, phosphodiesterases). The possibility that circadian oscillations of cyclic nucleotides are generated by the canonical TTFL mechanism has not been excluded. In fact, extensive work in Drosophila has demonstrated that the TTFL-based molecular clock proteins are required for circadian rhythms in olfaction.

   (11) A defining feature of circadian oscillators is the feedback mechanism that generates a time delay (e.g., PERIOD/TIMELESS repressing their own transcription). While the authors describe how cyclic nucleotides can regulate Orco conductance, they do not provide a convincing explanation of how Orco activity could, in turn, feed back into the proposed PTFL to sustain oscillations. For these reasons, the authors should consider:

   (a) Providing a broader discussion of non-TTFL models of circadian rhythms (e.g., redox cycles, post-translational modifications).

   (b) Reassessing Orco expression using a higher-resolution temporal sampling ({greater than or equal to}6 timepoints per 24 h).

   (c) Clarifying or revising the PTFL model to explicitly address how feedback would be achieved. Alternatively, the data may be more consistent with Orco conductance rhythms being regulated by post-translational mechanisms downstream of the canonical TTFL oscillator, as suggested by the Drosophila olfactory system literature.

   Minor weaknesses:

   (1) The authors should compare the firing patterns of ORN neurons to the bursts, clusters, and packets of retinal efferent spikes reported in Liu JS and Passaglia CL (2011; JBR). By comparing measures in moths to measures in Limulus, the authors might be able to address the question: Is the daily firing pattern of ORN neurons likely a conserved feature of circadian control of sensory sensitivity?

   (2) The methods need further details. For example, it is unclear if or how single neuron activity was discriminated and whether the results were compromised by the relatively large environmental fluctuations in temperature (21-27oC), humidity (35-60%), or other cues known to modulate spontaneous firing.

   Read the original source
5. 

   eLife

   Sep 30, 2025

   Author response:

   Joint Public Review

   This manuscript puts forward the provocative idea that a posttranslational feedback loop regulates daily and ultradian rhythms in neuronal excitability. The authors used in vivo long-term tip recordings of the long trichoid sensilla of male hawkmoths to analyze spontaneous spiking activity indicative of the ORNs' endogenous membrane potential oscillations. This firing pattern was disrupted by pharmacological blockade of the Orco receptor. They then use these recordings together with computational modeling to predict that Orco receptor neuron (ORN) activity is required for circadian, not ultradian, firing patterns. Orco did not show a circadian expression pattern in a qPCR experiment, and its conductance was proposed to be regulated by cyclic nucleotide levels. This evidence led the authors to …

   Author response:

   Joint Public Review

   This manuscript puts forward the provocative idea that a posttranslational feedback loop regulates daily and ultradian rhythms in neuronal excitability. The authors used in vivo long-term tip recordings of the long trichoid sensilla of male hawkmoths to analyze spontaneous spiking activity indicative of the ORNs' endogenous membrane potential oscillations. This firing pattern was disrupted by pharmacological blockade of the Orco receptor. They then use these recordings together with computational modeling to predict that Orco receptor neuron (ORN) activity is required for circadian, not ultradian, firing patterns. Orco did not show a circadian expression pattern in a qPCR experiment, and its conductance was proposed to be regulated by cyclic nucleotide levels. This evidence led the authors to conclude that a post-translational feedback loop (PTFL) clockwork, associated with the ORN plasma membrane, allows for temporal control of pheromone detection via the generation of multi-scale endogenous membrane potential oscillations. The findings will interest researchers in neurophysiology, circadian rhythms, and sensory biology. However, the manuscript has limited experimental evidence to support its central hypothesis and is undermined by several questionable assumptions that underlie their data analysis and model builds, as well as insufficient biological data, including critical controls to validate and/or fully justify the model the authors are proposing.

   We thank the reviewers for their thorough and thoughtful comments and believe that the manuscript will be much stronger once we incorporate the requested changes.

   Please note that we used ORN as acronym for “olfactory receptor neuron” throughout the manuscript. ORNs contain odorant receptors (ORs), and in insects these ORs have to associate with the olfactory receptor co-receptor (Orco) in the cilium of the neuron to form functional OR-Orco complexes for odorant detection. Besides this chaperone function, Orco can form homomers with the potential to act as ionic pacemaker channels; a role which we explore in this study.

   Strengths:

   The study is notable for its combination of long-term in vivo tip recordings with computational modeling, which is technically challenging and adds weight to the authors' claims. The link between Orco, cyclic nucleotides, and circadian regulation is potentially important for sensory neuroscience, and the modeling framework itself - a stochastic Hodgkin-Huxley formulation that explicitly incorporates channel noise - is a solid and forward-looking contribution. Together, these elements make the study conceptually bold and of clear interest to circadian and olfactory biologists.

   Major weaknesses:

   At the same time, several limitations temper the conclusions. The pharmacological evidence relies on a single antagonist and concentration, without key controls. The circadian analysis is based on relatively small numbers of neurons, with rhythms detected only in subsets, and the alignment procedure used in constant darkness raises concerns of bias. The molecular evidence is sparse, with only three qPCR timepoints, and the model, while creative, rests on assumptions that are not yet fully supported by in vivo data.

   Please see our responses to the detailed comments.

   Detailed comments are provided below:

   (1) The role for Orco proposed in the authors' model largely stems from the effects seen following the administration of (a single dose) of the Orco antagonist, OLC15. However, this hypothesis is undercut by the lack of adequate pharmacological controls, including a basic multipoint OLC15 dose-response series in addition to the administration of blockers for the other channels that are embedded in their model, but which were ruled out as being involved in the modulation of biological rhythms. In addition, these studies would (ideally) also benefit from the inclusion of the same concentration (series) of an inactive OLC15 analog to better control for off-target effects.

   The Orco agonist VUAA1 (Jones et al., 2011) binds directly to Orco and increases the channel open time probability. In M. sexta hawkmoths, we have already published that VUAA 1 increases the low spontaneous activity of ORNs in a dose-dependent fashion (Nolte et al., 2016). Chen and Luetje (2012) systematically varied the chemical structure of VUAA1 to identify new Orco ligands and discovered 22 Orco Ligand Candidates (OLC) that either activated or inhibited Orco. In their heterologous expression system, Orco was most sensitive to inhibition by OLC15. Based on these results, we published a dose-response curve of OLC15 inhibition (1-100 µM) using in vivo tip recordings of pheromone-sensitive long trichoid sensilla of M. sexta (Nolte et al., 2016). In that study, we could also demonstrate that OLC15 antagonizes the VUAA1 activation of Orco.

   Furthermore, we tested other published Orco antagonists in in vivo assays in intact hawkmoths, focusing on amiloride-derived antagonists, because we previously identified an amiloride-sensitive cation channel in hawkmoth ORNs. We found that, in contrast to OLC15, the amilorides HMA and MIA were not Orco-specific but instead affected different targets depending on time-of-day (Nolte et al., 2016). Based on those experiments and the dose-response curves we determined that the Orco agonist VUAA1 (Jones et al., 2011) and the Orco antagonist OLC15 (Chen and Luetje, 2012) worked best in hawkmoth ORNs to target Orco pharmacologically. Based on comparative tests with other published Orco antagonists we settled since then in all further experiments on a dose of 50 µM OLC15.

   We will clarify the Methods section accordingly.

   (2) The expression pattern of Orco was assessed using qPCR at only three timepoints. Rhythmic transcripts can easily be missed with such sparse sampling (Hughes et al., 2017). A minimum of six evenly spaced timepoints across a 24-hour cycle would be required to confidently rule out circadian transcriptional regulation. In addition, the use of the timeless mRNA control from another study is not acceptable. Furthermore, qPCR analysis measures transcript abundance, not transcription, as the authors repeatedly state. Transcriptional studies would require nuclear run-off or, more recently, can be done with snRNAseq analysis. Taken together, these concerns undermine the authors' desire to rule out TTFL-based control that directly led them to implicate a PTTF-based model.

   We agree with the referees that more time points and a direct comparison between timeless and Orco mRNA levels should be included in this manuscript. We will include these additional qPCR experiments and edit the manuscript to make clear that we measure transcript abundance, but we will not perform snRNAseq analysis due to time- and financial constraints. We are currently working on the transcriptional control of Orco, both during ontogeny and throughout the day but this work in progress is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

   (3) The modelling presented is based on Orco as a ZT-dependent conductance tied to the cAMP oscillations that were reported by this group in the cockroach and from the presence and functionality in Manduca of homomeric Orco complexes that are devoid of tuning ORs. While these complexes have been generated in cell culture and other heterologous expression systems, as well as presumably exist in vivo in the Drosophila empty neuron and other tuning OR mutants, there is no evidence that these complexes exist in wild-type Manduca ORNs. While this doesn't necessarily undermine every aspect of their models, the authors should note the presence of Orco/OR complexes rather than Orco homomeric complexes.

   Our ELISAs found circadian oscillations in cAMP levels not only in antennae of the Madeira cockroach (Schendzielorz et al., 2014, 2012), but also in hawkmoth antennae (Schendzielorz et al., 2015). We will add the 2015 citation to the Modeling chapter in the Methods section to clarify this.

   We agree with the referees that we cannot distinguish between Orco homo- and heteromers in the different compartments of our hawkmoth ORNs. Thus, as the referee suggests, we will add text regarding the presence and localization of OR-Orco heteromers. However, we have indications that Orco homomers could indeed be present in the hawkmoth ORNs. In a heterologous expression system, MsexOrco expression alone was sufficient to increase intracellular Ca²⁺ levels in response to VUAA1 application (Nolte et al., 2013). In differentiating primary cell cultures of hawkmoth antennae, Orco expression started during a developmental time window where ORNs did not yet express pheromone receptors, and Orco affected spontaneous activity (Nolte et al., 2016). Thus, Orco homomers are present in developing hawkmoth ORNs during a time window where ORNs already express spontaneous activity but cannot heteromerize with pheromone receptors. However, we do not know whether and in what ratio homo- and heteromers of Orco and ORs are present in the respective sensillum compartments of adult hawkmoths (Nolte et al., 2013; Stengl, 1994; Stengl and Hildebrand, 1990).

   We will clarify our manuscript accordingly.

   (4) Some aspects of the authors' models, most notably the decision to phase align/optimize their DD and OLC15 recordings, are likely to bias their interpretations.

   It is consensus that insects display daily and circadian rhythms in pheromone-dependent mating, odor-gated feeding, and egg-laying behavior that phase-locks to environmental rhythms, corresponding with daily/circadian rhythms of sensory neuron physiology (e.g., Merlin et al., 2007; Rymer et al., 2007; Schendzielorz et al., 2015, 2012). However, circadian rhythms can be easily masked by stress, like the disturbances during a very challenging long-term recording experiment over several days. In addition, we observed in our animal raising facility that in LD 17:7 light-dark cycles the originally nocturnal hawkmoths M. sexta distribute their activity patterns over the course of the day, finding nocturnal as well as diurnal hawkmoths. Thus, light-dark cycles were not enough to ensure phase-synchronized behavioral rhythms, and it is very likely that the nocturnal hawkmoths rely heavily on pheromone/odor dependent synchronization as also found in other moth species (Ghosh et al., 2024). Here, we used isolated males that were never exposed to the female pheromones so that their circadian activity patterns readily disperse. Therefore, it became necessary in free-running conditions to first determine the respective behavioral rhythm for each animal, and then to phase-align their activity patterns to allow for statistical analysis. Otherwise, circadian differences would average out in a free-running population. As requested by the referees in point (7), we will use additional tests for rhythmicity in each of our recordings and revise the manuscript accordingly.

   Assuming that hawkmoths need pheromone presence as additional Zeitgeber, we are currently working on a new set of experiments where we attempt to improve synchronization by exposure to LD cycles and pheromone before DD and OLC15 recordings. We will add these experiments to the manuscript.

   (5) The tip recordings from long trichoid sensilla are critical aspects of this study. These recordings were carried out on upper sensillar tips located on the distal-most second annulus. Since there are approximately 80 annuli on the Manduca antennae, it is unclear whether the recordings are representative of the antennal response.

   We think the reviewers might have misinterpreted our description of the recording site. In the Methods, we state that we clip off the 20 most distal annuli (leaving a stump of about 60 annuli) and insert the reference electrode into the flagellum up to the second annulus from the cut end, i.e., the recording site is located at 2/3 – 3/4 of the antenna length as seen from the head of the animal. We will make this more clear in the Methods section.

   In addition, our lab did show with antibody stainings against Orco that apparently all ORNs that innervate long and short trichoid sensilla along the whole flagellum express the same staining pattern (Nolte et al., 2016). Furthermore, our patch clamp recordings of primary cell cultures of whole male antennae found largely overlapping ion channel populations across ORNs. This would indicate that all ORNs, whether they express pheromone- or general odorant receptors, could potentially share the same Orco-dependent spontaneous activity rhythms. In our lab, different experimenters from different years that recorded from long trichoid sensilla on different annuli did not detect obvious differences in neither the spontaneous activity nor the pheromone responses (c.f., Dolzer et al., 2003; Gawalek and Stengl, 2018; Schneider et al., 2025). Thus, it is very likely that we are reporting a general encoding mechanism that is not locally restricted along the antennal flagellum.

   (5.1) The authors do not provide any data in support of their cAMP/cGMP-based Orco gating…

   There are publications supporting cyclic nucleotide gating of Orco in Drosophila, but only after previous phosphorylation via protein kinase C (PKC; review: (Wicher and Miazzi, 2021)). Since Orco is very conserved among insect species, it is likely that these PKC and cGMP/cAMP-dependent regulations are present in other insect species. We are currently running thorough tip-recording experiments on the regulation of Orco gating, which are beyond the scope of this manuscript. However, we will add a set of experiments to this manuscript that demonstrates cAMP gating of Orco.

   (5.2)… and the PTTF model proposed is somewhat disappointing.

   For a detailed introduction of our PTFL membrane clock hypothesis please see our opinion paper (Stengl and Schneider, 2024).

   (5.3) The model seems to be influenced by their long-held proposal that insect olfactory signaling has a critical metabotropic component involving cyclic nucleotides, PKC, etc, a view that may be influenced by the use of Orco homomeric complexes generated in HEK cells.

   Indeed, we propose a metabotropic pheromone-transduction cascade, which in moths and cockroaches is based on G-protein-mediated activation of phospholipase C but not on adenylyl cyclase activation. Our hypothesis is not influenced by HEK cell heterologous expression studies of Orco but is supported by our own work comparing in vivo tip recordings of intact hawkmoths with patch clamp experiments on hawkmoth primary cell cultures of olfactory receptor neurons, which are able to respond to their species-specific pheromones in vitro ((Schneider et al., 2025; Stengl, 2010; Stengl and Funk, 2013; Wicher and Miazzi, 2021). In addition, a multitude of publications by other laboratories with in vivo and in vitro studies using physiological, genetic, and immunocytochemical assays all support a metabotropic signal transduction cascade in insect olfaction (reviews: Stengl, 2010; Stengl and Funk, 2013; Wicher and Miazzi, 2021). In contrast, the hypothesis suggesting a solely ionotropic pheromone- and general odor-dependent transduction cascade for all insect species is based on very sparse experimental evidence, based primarily on heterologous expression studies such as HEK cells that lack the insect’s WT molecular surroundings, and thus, cannot predict OR-Orco function in vivo. Furthermore, the ionotropic hypothesis is heavily based upon the argument that an inverse 7TM receptor cannot couple to G-proteins, which lacks careful backup via biochemical and structural studies. In addition, the ionotropic hypothesis lacks support via carefully performed physiological in vivo studies in different insect species that paid attention to analysis of the distinct kinetic components of ORN´s odor/pheromone responses and that employ physiological concentrations and durations of odor/pheromone stimuli (please see our most recent publication by Schneider et al. (2025)).

   (5.4) Nevertheless, structural studies on Orco do not support a cyclic nucleotide binding site, although PKC-based phosphorylation has been implicated in the fine-tuning/adaptation of olfactory signaling.

   While structural studies did not find evidence for conserved known cyclic nucleotide binding sites on Orco, this does not exclude the presence of so far unknown binding sites, or via sites that fold out only after a specific sequence of previous phosphorylations of the many phosphorylation sites on Orco. Indeed, physiological studies in Drosophila presented evidence for cyclic nucleotide dependence of Orco after previous PKC-dependent phosphorylation (Getahun et al., 2013). Our ongoing in vivo experiments in hawkmoths further corroborate a PKC- and cAMP-dependent modulation of Orco. These studies will be published in a follow-up publication.

   (6) Because only 5/11 LD and 7/10 DD animals showed daily rhythms, with averages lacking clear daily modulation, the methods are not sufficiently reliable enough to reveal novel underlying mechanisms of circadian rhythm generation. The reported results are therefore not yet reliable or quantifiable. To quantify their results, the authors should apply tests for circadian rhythmicity using methods such as RAIN, JTK CYCLE, MetaCycle, or Echo. The use of FFT and Wavelet is applauded, but these methods do not have tests of significance for rhythms and can be biased when analyzing data in which there could only be 1-3 circadian cycles. Because the conclusions appear to be based on 11-12 neurons that were recorded for 2-4 days, the reader is concerned that the methods are not yet perfected to provide strong evidence for circadian regulation of spontaneous firing of ORNs. The average data (e.g., Figure 3Bii and 3Cii) highlight the apparent lack of daily rhythms. In summary, the results would be more compelling if more than 50% of the recordings had significant circadian amplitudes and with similar periods and phases.

   The long-term tip-recordings of intact hawkmoths are very challenging and take a very long time to accomplish, thus, we are very happy that we succeeded in obtaining so many of them (N=34). Since 5/11 LD recordings and 7/10 DD recordings revealed daily/circadian rhythmicity and since many other physiological recordings at different ZTs of different members of our laboratory all revealed ZT-dependent pheromone-transduction we can be certain that the physiology of hawkmoth antennae is under strict circadian control. Please see also our response to (4) above commenting the phase-dispersal of activity rhythms observed in our experiments, as well as in the behavior of hawkmoth males in the mating cage.

   Nevertheless, we will follow the advice of the referees to apply additional tests for significance of rhythms in spontaneous activity, and we are thankful for the tests suggested that we were not aware of.

   (7) The statement that circadian patterns of ORN firing are lost with the Orco antagonist (OLC15) is not strongly supported. The manuscript should be revised to quantify how Orco changed circadian amplitude in the 12 recorded neurons. Measures of circadian amplitude can avoid confusing/vague statements like Line 394 “low and high frequency bands appeared to merge during the activity phase around ZT 0 in the animals that showed clear circadian rhythms (N = 5 of 11 in LD)”. The conclusion that Orco blocks circadian firing appears to be contradicted by Figure 6, which indicates that ~6 of these neurons had circadian periods detected by wavelet. The manuscript would be strengthened with details about the specificity and reproducibility of the Orco antagonist. The authors quantify the gradual decrease in firing with the slope of a linear fit to estimate how the “effectiveness [of OLC15] increased over time.” They conclude that the drug “obliterated circadian rhythms and attenuated the spontaneous activity in several, but not all experiments (N = 8 of 12).” The report would be greatly strengthened with corroborating data from additional Orco antagonists and additional doses of OLC15 (the authors use only 50 uM OLC15).

   We will revise our data analysis, according to the valuable suggestions of the referees.

   However, based upon our previous studies with other Orco antagonists and different doses of OLC15 (Nolte et al., 2016) we found that 50 µM OLC15 is the best Orco antagonist dose in M. sexta to target Orco-dependent modulation of spontaneous action potential activity of hawkmoth olfactory receptor neurons. Please see also our response to (1).

   (8) The manuscript includes several statements that are more speculation than conclusion. For example, there is no evidence for tuning or plasticity in this report. Statements like the following should be removed or addressed with experiments that show changes in odor response specificity or sensitivity: "ORN signalosomes are highly plastic endogenous PTFL clocks comprising receptors for circadian and ultradian Zeitgebers that allow to tune into internal physiological and external environmental rhythms as basis for active sensing." (Discussion Line 622). The paper concludes that (line 380) "mean frequency of spontaneous spiking and the frequency of bursting expressed daily modulation, and are both most likely controlled via a circadian clock that targets the leak channel Orco." This is too bold given the available results.

   We will revise the discussion accordingly and clarify which statements are supported via published evidence and which are predictions based upon our novel hypothesis published in our opinion paper (Stengl and Schneider, 2024).

   (9.1) Because Orco conductance is modulated by cyclic nucleotides, it remains highly plausible that circadian regulation occurs upstream at the level of signaling pathways (e.g., calcium, calcium-binding proteins, GPCRs, cyclases, phosphodiesterases).

   We agree with the referees that it is very likely that there are multiple layers of interconnected feedback cycles that control Orco localization and activity. Our novel hypothesis suggests interlocked TTFL and PTFL control of physiological circadian rhythms, not strictly hierarchical TTFL control, which would require a daily turnover of membrane proteins and transcriptional control via the established TTFL clock in insect ORNs. We currently search for TTFL control at all levels of odor/pheromone transduction using ZT-dependent transcriptomics in combination with qPCR and single nuclear transcriptomics, involving also all the molecules suggested by the referees. These studies are ongoing, are very time- and money-consuming, and are beyond the scope of this manuscript.

   (9.2) The possibility that circadian oscillations of cyclic nucleotides are generated by the canonical TTFL mechanism has not been excluded. In fact, extensive work in Drosophila has demonstrated that the TTFL-based molecular clock proteins are required for circadian rhythms in olfaction.

   Our experiments that test circadian TTFL control at different levels of the cAMP transduction cascade in hawkmoth antennae are on the way and are part of another publication. We will revise our discussion accordingly.

   The experiments published for TTFL dependent control of Drosophila olfaction that we are aware of (Krishnan et al., 1999; Tanoue et al., 2004) do not exclude interlinked PTFL and TTFL clocks. Krishnan et al. (1999) demonstrate that the TTFL clock in antennal olfactory receptor neurons correlates with circadian rhythms in odor responses measured in electroantennogram (EAG) recordings, not in single sensillum recordings as in our experiments. EAG recordings comprise not only voltage responses of the olfactory sensory neurons but also voltage changes generated in non-neuronal antennal cells such as trichogen and tormogen cells that built the transepithelial potential gradient via vATPases that generates the high K⁺ concentration in the sensillum lymph (Jain et al., 2024; Klein, 1992; Thurm and Küppers, 1980). In addition, EAG recordings most likely contain responses of afferent neurons originating from somata in the brain that maintain central control of the antennae. Thus, EAG recordings are difficult to interpret.

   (11) A defining feature of circadian oscillators is the feedback mechanism that generates a time delay (e.g., PERIOD/TIMELESS repressing their own transcription). While the authors describe how cyclic nucleotides can regulate Orco conductance, they do not provide a convincing explanation of how Orco activity could, in turn, feed back into the proposed PTFL to sustain oscillations. For these reasons, the authors should consider:

   a) Providing a broader discussion of non-TTFL models of circadian rhythms (e.g., redox cycles, post-translational modifications).

   We will revise the discussion accordingly.

   b) Reassessing Orco expression using a higher-resolution temporal sampling ({greater than or equal to}6 timepoints per 24 h).

   We will add those experiments to the revised version of the manuscript (see our response to (2)).

   c) Clarifying or revising the PTFL model to explicitly address how feedback would be achieved. Alternatively, the data may be more consistent with Orco conductance rhythms being regulated by post-translational mechanisms downstream of the canonical TTFL oscillator, as suggested by the Drosophila olfactory system literature.

   We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

   Minor weaknesses:

   (1) The authors should compare the firing patterns of ORN neurons to the bursts, clusters, and packets of retinal efferent spikes reported in Liu JS and Passaglia CL (2011; JBR). By comparing measures in moths to measures in Limulus, the authors might be able to address the question: Is the daily firing pattern of ORN neurons likely a conserved feature of circadian control of sensory sensitivity?

   We will revise the discussion accordingly.

   (2) The methods need further details. For example, it is unclear if or how single neuron activity was discriminated and whether the results were compromised by the relatively large environmental fluctuations in temperature (21-27oC), humidity (35-60%), or other cues known to modulate spontaneous firing.

   We will clarify the Methods section.

   References

   Chen S, Luetje CW. 2012. Identification of New Agonists and Antagonists of the Insect Odorant Receptor Co-Receptor Subunit. PLOS ONE 7:e36784. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036784

   Dolzer J, Fischer K, Stengl M. 2003. Adaptation in pheromone-sensitive trichoid sensilla of the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 206:1575–1588. doi:10.1242/jeb.00302

   Gawalek P, Stengl M. 2018. The Diacylglycerol Analogs OAG and DOG Differentially Affect Primary Events of Pheromone Transduction in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta in a Zeitgebertime-Dependent Manner Apparently Targeting TRP Channels. Front Cell Neurosci 12:218. doi:10.3389/fncel.2018.00218

   Getahun MN, Olsson SB, Lavista-Llanos S, Hansson BS, Wicher D. 2013. Insect Odorant Response Sensitivity Is Tuned by Metabotropically Autoregulated Olfactory Receptors. PLOS ONE 8:e58889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058889

   Ghosh S, Suray C, Bozzolan F, Palazzo A, Monsempès C, Lecouvreur F, Chatterjee A. 2024. Pheromone-mediated command from the female to male clock induces and synchronizes circadian rhythms of the moth Spodoptera littoralis. Curr Biol 34:1414-1425.e5. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.042

   Jain K, Prelic S, Hansson BS, Wicher D. 2024. Expression of Drosophila melanogaster V-ATPases in Olfactory Sensillum Support Cells. Insects 15:1016. doi:10.3390/insects15121016

   Jones PL, Pask GM, Rinker DC, Zwiebel LJ. 2011. Functional agonism of insect odorant receptor ion channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:8821–8825. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102425108

   Klein U. 1992. The insect V-ATPase, a plasma membrane proton pump energizing secondary active transport: immunological evidence for the occurrence of a V-ATPase in insect ion-transporting epithelia. J Exp Biol 172:345–354. doi:10.1242/jeb.172.1.345

   Krishnan B, Dryer SE, Hardin PE. 1999. Circadian rhythms in olfactory responses of Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 400:375–378. doi:10.1038/22566

   Merlin C, Lucas P, Rochat D, François M-C, Maïbèche-Coisne M, Jacquin-Joly E. 2007. An Antennal Circadian Clock and Circadian Rhythms in Peripheral Pheromone Reception in the Moth Spodoptera littoralis. J Biol Rhythms 22:502–514. doi:10.1177/0748730407307737

   Nolte A, Funk NW, Mukunda L, Gawalek P, Werckenthin A, Hansson BS, Wicher D, Stengl M. 2013. In situ Tip-Recordings Found No Evidence for an Orco-Based Ionotropic Mechanism of Pheromone-Transduction in Manduca sexta. PLOS ONE 8:e62648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062648

   Nolte A, Gawalek P, Koerte S, Wei H, Schumann R, Werckenthin A, Krieger J, Stengl M. 2016. No Evidence for Ionotropic Pheromone Transduction in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta. PLOS ONE 11:e0166060. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166060

   Rymer J, Bauernfeind AL, Brown S, Page TL. 2007. Circadian rhythms in the mating behavior of the cockroach, Leucophaea maderae. J Biol Rhythms 22:43–57. doi:10.1177/0748730406295462

   Schendzielorz J, Schendzielorz T, Arendt A, Stengl M. 2014. Bimodal Oscillations of Cyclic Nucleotide Concentrations in the Circadian System of the Madeira Cockroach Rhyparobia maderae. J Biol Rhythms 29:318–331. doi:10.1177/0748730414546133

   Schendzielorz T, Peters W, Boekhoff I, Stengl M. 2012. Time of Day Changes in Cyclic Nucleotides Are Modified via Octopamine and Pheromone in Antennae of the Madeira Cockroach. J Biol Rhythms 27:388–397. doi:10.1177/0748730412456265

   Schendzielorz T, Schirmer K, Stolte P, Stengl M. 2015. Octopamine Regulates Antennal Sensory Neurons via Daytime-Dependent Changes in cAMP and IP3 Levels in the Hawkmoth Manduca sexta. PLOS ONE 10:e0121230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121230

   Schneider AC, Schröder K, Chang Y, Nolte A, Gawalek P, Stengl M. 2025. Hawkmoth Pheromone Transduction Involves G-Protein–Dependent Phospholipase Cβ Signaling. eNeuro 12:ENEURO.0376-24.2024. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0376-24.2024

   Stengl M. 2010. Pheromone Transduction in Moths. Front Cell Neurosci 4:133. doi:10.3389/fncel.2010.00133

   Stengl M. 1994. Inositol-trisphosphate-dependent calcium currents precede cation currents in insect olfactory receptor neurons in vitro. J Comp Physiol A 174:187–194. doi:10.1007/BF00193785

   Stengl M, Funk NW. 2013. The role of the coreceptor Orco in insect olfactory transduction. J Comp Physiol A 199:897–909. doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0837-3

   Stengl M, Hildebrand JG. 1990. Insect olfactory neurons in vitro: morphological and immunocytochemical characterization of male-specific antennal receptor cells from developing antennae of male Manduca sexta. J Neurosci 10:837–847. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-03-00837.1990

   Stengl M, Schneider AC. 2024. Contribution of membrane-associated oscillators to biological timing at different timescales. Front Physiol 14:1243455. doi:10.3389/fphys.2023.1243455

   Tanoue S, Krishnan P, Krishnan B, Dryer SE, Hardin PE. 2004. Circadian Clocks in Antennal Neurons Are Necessary and Sufficient for Olfaction Rhythms in Drosophila. Curr Biol 14:638–649. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.04.009

   Thurm U, Küppers J. 1980. Epithelial physiology of insect sensilla In: Locke M, Smith DS, editors. Insect Biology in the Future. Academic Press. pp. 735–763. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-454340-9.50039-2

   Wicher D, Miazzi F. 2021. Functional properties of insect olfactory receptors: ionotropic receptors and odorant receptors. Cell Tissue Res 383:7–19. doi:10.1007/s00441-020-03363-x

   Read the original source
6. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2025.06.17.659282 on bioRxiv

   Jun 19, 2025