Limits...
Bio-benchmarking of electronic nose sensors.

Berna AZ, Anderson AR, Trowell SC - PLoS ONE (2009)

Bottom Line: The comparison also highlights some important questions about the molecular nature of fly ORs.The comparative approach generates practical learnings that may be taken up by solid-state physicists or engineers in designing new solid-state electronic nose sensors.It also potentially deepens our understanding of the performance of the biological system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CSIRO Entomology and CSIRO Food Futures Flagship, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: Electronic noses, E-Noses, are instruments designed to reproduce the performance of animal noses or antennae but generally they cannot match the discriminating power of the biological original and have, therefore, been of limited utility. The manner in which odorant space is sampled is a critical factor in the performance of all noses but so far it has been described in detail only for the fly antenna.

Methodology: Here we describe how a set of metal oxide (MOx) E-Nose sensors, which is the most commonly used type, samples odorant space and compare it with what is known about fly odorant receptors (ORs).

Principal findings: Compared with a fly's odorant receptors, MOx sensors from an electronic nose are on average more narrowly tuned but much more highly correlated with each other. A set of insect ORs can therefore sample broader regions of odorant space independently and redundantly than an equivalent number of MOx sensors. The comparison also highlights some important questions about the molecular nature of fly ORs.

Conclusions: The comparative approach generates practical learnings that may be taken up by solid-state physicists or engineers in designing new solid-state electronic nose sensors. It also potentially deepens our understanding of the performance of the biological system.

Show MeSH
A comparison of the independence of MOx sensors and dORs in the same odorant space.Loading plot showing the first three principal components from a PCA analysis of the responses of dORs (crosses) and MOx sensors (squares) to 110 odorants. All odorants were tested at or scaled to a 1/100 dilution. The Pearson pairwise correlation coefficients between MOx or dOR pairs are show in Table S2.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2712691&req=5

pone-0006406-g002: A comparison of the independence of MOx sensors and dORs in the same odorant space.Loading plot showing the first three principal components from a PCA analysis of the responses of dORs (crosses) and MOx sensors (squares) to 110 odorants. All odorants were tested at or scaled to a 1/100 dilution. The Pearson pairwise correlation coefficients between MOx or dOR pairs are show in Table S2.

Mentions: The concept that the discriminating power of an electronic nose depends on the independence amongst its sensors, i.e. inversely on their redundancy or cross-correlation, is well known [12], [13], [14]. Hallem et al. [7] used principal components analysis of the data obtained with their test set to define and visualise the odorant space sampled by a subset of dORs. We ran principal components analysis (PCA) on the responses of both dORs and MOx sensors to the set of 110 test compounds first used by Hallem et al. [7]. This allowed us to compare the positioning of both types of sensors within the same odorant space and to compare between the average levels of correlation among sensors of the same type. As previously reported [7], the dORs are distributed relatively widely throughout the odorant space (Figure 2). In contrast, the 12 MOx sensors cluster together in two narrowly constrained regions of odorant space, indicating that the responses of the MOx sensors are highly correlated.


Bio-benchmarking of electronic nose sensors.

Berna AZ, Anderson AR, Trowell SC - PLoS ONE (2009)

A comparison of the independence of MOx sensors and dORs in the same odorant space.Loading plot showing the first three principal components from a PCA analysis of the responses of dORs (crosses) and MOx sensors (squares) to 110 odorants. All odorants were tested at or scaled to a 1/100 dilution. The Pearson pairwise correlation coefficients between MOx or dOR pairs are show in Table S2.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2712691&req=5

pone-0006406-g002: A comparison of the independence of MOx sensors and dORs in the same odorant space.Loading plot showing the first three principal components from a PCA analysis of the responses of dORs (crosses) and MOx sensors (squares) to 110 odorants. All odorants were tested at or scaled to a 1/100 dilution. The Pearson pairwise correlation coefficients between MOx or dOR pairs are show in Table S2.
Mentions: The concept that the discriminating power of an electronic nose depends on the independence amongst its sensors, i.e. inversely on their redundancy or cross-correlation, is well known [12], [13], [14]. Hallem et al. [7] used principal components analysis of the data obtained with their test set to define and visualise the odorant space sampled by a subset of dORs. We ran principal components analysis (PCA) on the responses of both dORs and MOx sensors to the set of 110 test compounds first used by Hallem et al. [7]. This allowed us to compare the positioning of both types of sensors within the same odorant space and to compare between the average levels of correlation among sensors of the same type. As previously reported [7], the dORs are distributed relatively widely throughout the odorant space (Figure 2). In contrast, the 12 MOx sensors cluster together in two narrowly constrained regions of odorant space, indicating that the responses of the MOx sensors are highly correlated.

Bottom Line: The comparison also highlights some important questions about the molecular nature of fly ORs.The comparative approach generates practical learnings that may be taken up by solid-state physicists or engineers in designing new solid-state electronic nose sensors.It also potentially deepens our understanding of the performance of the biological system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CSIRO Entomology and CSIRO Food Futures Flagship, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: Electronic noses, E-Noses, are instruments designed to reproduce the performance of animal noses or antennae but generally they cannot match the discriminating power of the biological original and have, therefore, been of limited utility. The manner in which odorant space is sampled is a critical factor in the performance of all noses but so far it has been described in detail only for the fly antenna.

Methodology: Here we describe how a set of metal oxide (MOx) E-Nose sensors, which is the most commonly used type, samples odorant space and compare it with what is known about fly odorant receptors (ORs).

Principal findings: Compared with a fly's odorant receptors, MOx sensors from an electronic nose are on average more narrowly tuned but much more highly correlated with each other. A set of insect ORs can therefore sample broader regions of odorant space independently and redundantly than an equivalent number of MOx sensors. The comparison also highlights some important questions about the molecular nature of fly ORs.

Conclusions: The comparative approach generates practical learnings that may be taken up by solid-state physicists or engineers in designing new solid-state electronic nose sensors. It also potentially deepens our understanding of the performance of the biological system.

Show MeSH