Behavioral responses underpinning resistance and susceptibility of honeybees to Tropilaelaps mercedesae

Behavioral responses of Apis cerana, Apis dorsata, and Apis mellifera to the ectoparasitic mite, Tropilaelaps mercedesae, were compared using two laboratory bioassays: cohorts of 50 caged worker bees and individual-caged worker bees, all of unknown ages. For the group bioassays, ten T. mercedesae were placed on the bodies of bees in each cohort. After 6 h, nearly 2/3 of the mites placed on A. cerana had fallen from the bees onto sticky traps that were placed under the cages, compared to only about 1/3 for A. dorsata and A. mellifera. The majority of fallen mites fell within 24 h from A. cerana (93.3 ± 2.3%), 36 h from A. dorsata (92.2 ± 1.9%), and 48 h from A. mellifera (91.3 ± 1.4%). Higher proportions of injured mites were observed among the mites that fell from A. cerana (38.3 ± 12.9%) and A. dorsata (33.9 ± 17.4%) than among those that fell from A. mellifera (19.5 ± 7.2%). The rapid fall of mites from the bodies of A. cerana may be due to a combination of auto-grooming and rapid body shaking of the bees. In individual bee assays, where individual bees were challenged with one female T. mercedesae, A. cerana and A. dorsata exhibited faster behavioral responses to the presence of mites than did A. mellifera (39.4 ± 13.2, 44.9 ± 19.2, and 188.4 ± 63.9 s, respectively). Phoretic T. mercedesae were mostly observed attaching to the propodeum/petiole region of all three bee species, although some mites also occupied the wing base area of A. dorsata and A. mellifera.Keywords: Apis mellifera, Apis cerana, grooming behavior, Tropilaelaps mercedesae, Apis dorsataKeywords: Apis mellifera, Apis cerana, grooming behavior, Tropilaelaps mercedesae, Apis dorsat

Prevalence and reproduction of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested Apis mellifera colonies

The prevalence of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested A. mellifera colonies in Thailand was monitored. We also assessed the fecundity of T. mercedesae and V. destructor in naturally infested brood and in brood cells deliberately infested with both mite genera. Results showed that the natural co-infestation of an individual brood cell by both mite genera was rare (<0.1 %). Overall, T. mercedesae was the more dominant brood parasite of A. mellifera than V. destructor. In naturally infested brood, the proportion of nonreproductive Tropilaelaps (29.8 ± 3.9 %) was lower than that of Varroa (49.6 ± 5.9 %). Both mites produced similar numbers of progeny (T. mercedesae = 1.48 ± 0.05; V. destructor = 1.69 ± 0.14). The two mite genera also reproduced normally when they were deliberately introduced into the same brood cells. In two separate assessments, the average worker brood infestations of T. mercedesae (19.9 %) were significantly higher than that of V. destructor (0.7 %). Our results on the higher prevalence and reproductive ability of T. mercedesae in concurrently infested colonies reaffirm Tropilaelaps’ competitive advantage over V. destructor and their reported negative impact to A. mellifera colonies.Keywords: concurrent infestation, Tropilaelapsmercedesae, Varroa destructor, Apis mellifera, seasonal abundanc

Bee viruses: routes of infection in Hymenoptera

Numerous studies have recently reported on the discovery of bee viruses in different arthropod species and their possible transmission routes, vastly increasing our understanding of these viruses and their distribution. Here, we review the current literature on the recent advances in understanding the transmission of viruses, both on the presence of bee viruses in Apis and non-Apis bee species and on the discovery of previously unknown bee viruses. The natural transmission of bee viruses will be discussed among different bee species and other insects. Finally, the research potential of in vivo (host organisms) and in vitro (cell lines) serial passages of bee viruses is discussed, from the perspective of the host-virus landscape changes and potential transmission routes for emerging bee virus infections

Varroa destructor: A Complex Parasite, Crippling Honey Bees Worldwide

The parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, has shaken the beekeeping and pollination industries since its spread from its native host, the Asian honey bee (Apis cerana), to the naive European honey bee (Apis mellifera) used commercially for pollination and honey production around the globe. Varroa is the greatest threat to honey bee health. Worrying observations include increasing acaricide resistance in the varroa population and sinking economic treatment thresholds, suggesting that the mites or their vectored viruses are becoming more virulent. Highly infested weak colonies facilitate mite dispersal and disease transmission to stronger and healthier colonies. Here, we review recent developments in the biology, pathology, and management of varroa, and integrate older knowledge that is less well known

Diversity and Global Distribution of Viruses of the Western Honey Bee, Apis mellifera

Funding: This research was permitted and funded by the COLOSS network (https://coloss.org/).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

COLOSS survey : global impact of COVID-19 on bee research

The socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 on society have yet to be truly revealed; there is no doubt that the pandemic has severely affected the daily lives of most of humanity. It is to be expected that the research activities of scientists could be impacted to varying degrees, but no data exist on how COVID-19 has affected research specifically. Here, we show that the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has already diversely and negatively affected bee research at a global level. An online survey disseminated through the global COLOSS honey bee research association showed that every participant (n¼230 from 56 countries) reported an impact on one or more of their activities. Activities that require travelling or the physical presence of people (meetings and conferences, teaching and extension) were affected the most, but also laboratory and field activities, daily operations, supervision and other activities were affected to varying degrees. Since the basic activities are very similar for many research fields, it appears as if our findings for bee research can be extrapolated to other fields. In the light of our data, we recommend that stakeholders such as governments and funding bodies who support research should facilitate the wide implementation of web-based information technology required for efficient online communication for research and education, as well as adequately loosened restriction measures with respect to field and laboratory work. Finally, increased flexibility in administration and extension of research grants and fellowships seem to be needed. It is apparent that adequate responses by all stakeholders are required to limit the impact of COVID-19 and future pandemics on bee science and other research fields.The Ricola Foundation Nature and Culture and Vetopharma.http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjar20am2020Zoology and Entomolog

Intellectual property management and awareness at the university level in the biotechnology era: a Thai perspective

Developing countries Thai universities Intellectual property protection Intellectual property management Biotechnology patents Intellectual property awareness Traditional medicines Intellectual property department

Comparative Study of Antimicrobial Properties of Bee Venom Extracts and Melittins of Honey Bees

Bee venom (BV), or apitoxin, is a complex substance produced by a gland in the abdominal cavity of bees. The main component of BV is melittin, which is a largely studied substance due to its biological properties. To date, the most well-known bee venom and melittin are derived from domesticated honey bees, while venom and melittin derived from wild honey bees have been under-investigated. Hence, this study primarily reports the antimicrobial activities of bee venom and synthetic melittin derived from four different honey bee species (Apis mellifera, A. cerana, A. dorsata, and A. florea) in Thailand. All the bee venom extracts and melittins showed more robust antibacterial activities against Gram-positive (Bacillus subtilis, Micrococcus luteus, Staphylococcus aureus, S. aureus MRSA, and S. epidermidis) than Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneuminiae, and Salmonella typhimurium) or a fungus (Candida albicans), while the synthetic melittins also have antimicrobial activity at higher concentrations than the bee venom extract. Furthermore, the A. cerana venom extract showed the highest activity against the tested bacteria, followed by A. mellifera, A. florea, and A. dorsata. Therefore, A. cerana venom may be further developed for use in medical applications as a potential alternative agent against Gram-positive bacteria and antibiotic-resistant bacteria