Beeheal: standardization of laboratory methods for sample processing, nucleic acids extraction and PCR for microsporidia and viruses analysis

BEEHEAL is a project designed to determine the phenology and interaction of Nosema ceranae and viruses in four Mediterranean countries: Spain, France, Portugal and Israel, including some territories where Varroa destructor is not present (Azores and Ouessant islands). This will allow us to study and compare the interactions between pathogens in a wide range of hosts, beekeeping and climatic conditions. The honey bee samples collected along the year in the different countries will be analysed for pathogens in three laboratories. This requires a standardization of methods to compare the results in order to assign the effect of every variable in a reliable way. To that end, the participating laboratories have been working together to establish the sampling methodology, the conservation of the samples, the nucleic acids extraction and the PCR analysis. We analyzed the sample processing for nucleic acid extraction on TE buffer (with or without Proteinase K), CTAB buffer or commercial kits (Qiagen). The maceration of bees (either individually or in composite samples) in TE buffer and posterior incubation at 96ºC for 20 minutes showed a good sensibility level and good value for N. ceranae DNA extraction. This method also allowed the conservation of RNA at -80ºC for a month in the TE solution for later RNA extraction. A joint protocol for sample processing, DNA and RNA extraction and PCR analysis has been developed but adjusted to the particular conditions and equipment of each laboratory. The standardization of methods to be implemented by each participating laboratory will avoid the biases on conclusions based on the diverse methods applied.This work has been developed under the BEEHEAL project. BEEHEAL is funded through the ARIMNet2 2016 Call by the following funding agencies: INIA (Spain), MOARD (Israel), ANR (France), and FCT (Portugal). ARIMNet2 (ERA-NET) has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 618127.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A SNP assay for assessing diversity in immune genes in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)

With a growing number of parasites and pathogens experiencing large-scale range expansions, monitoring diversity in immune genes of host populations has never been so important because it can inform on the adaptive potential to resist the invaders. Population surveys of immune genes are becoming common in many organisms, yet they are missing in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), a key managed pollinator species that has been severely affected by biological invasions. To fill the gap, here we identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a wide range of honey bee immune genes and developed a medium-density assay targeting a subset of these genes. Using a discovery panel of 123 whole-genomes, representing seven A. mellifera subspecies and three evolutionary lineages, 180 immune genes were scanned for SNPs in exons, introns (< 4 bp from exons), 3’ and 5´UTR, and < 1 kb upstream of the transcription start site. After application of multiple filtering criteria and validation, the final medium-density assay combines 91 quality-proved functional SNPs marking 89 innate immune genes and these can be readily typed using the high-sample-throughput iPLEX MassARRAY system. This medium-density-SNP assay was applied to 156 samples from four countries and the admixture analysis clustered the samples according to their lineage and subspecies, suggesting that honey bee ancestry can be delineated from functional variation. In addition to allowing analysis of immunogenetic variation, this newly-developed SNP assay can be used for inferring genetic structure and admixture in the honey bee.We are deeply indebted to Frank Aguiar, Luís Silva, Edgardo Melo, João Martins, João Melo, Manuel Moura, Manuel Viveiros, and Ricardo Sousa from "Direção Regional da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural dos Açores" (Portugal), and to Laura Garreau, Laurent Maugis, Pascale Sauvage and Jacques Kermagoret, from “Association Conservatoire de l’Abeille Noir Bretonne” (France), for sampling the apiaries in São Miguel, Santa Maria, and Ouessant islands. Genotyping was outsourced to the Epigenetics and Genotyping laboratory, Central Unit for Research in Medicine (UCIM), University of Valencia, Spain. Data analyses were performed using computational resources at the Research Centre in Digitalization and Intelligent Robotics (CeDRI), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança. Ana Rita Lopes is supported by a PhD scholarship (SFRH/BD/143627/2019) from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal. FCT provided financial support by national funds (FCT/MCTES) to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020).This research was funded through the projects BEEHAPPY (POCI-01-0145- FEDER-029871, FCT and COMPETE/QREN/EU) and BEEHEAL. BEEHEAL was funded by the ARIMNet2 2016 Call by the following agencies: INIA (Spain), MOARD (Israel), ANR (France) and FCT (Portugal). ARIMNet2 (ERA-NET) received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 618127.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Standard survey methods for estimating colony losses and explanatory risk factors in Apis mellifera

This chapter addresses survey methodology and questionnaire design for the collection of data pertaining to estimation of honey bee colony loss rates and identification of risk factors for colony loss. Sources of error in surveys are described. Advantages and disadvantages of different random and non-random sampling strategies and different modes of data collection are presented to enable the researcher to make an informed choice. We discuss survey and questionnaire methodology in some detail, for the purpose of raising awareness of issues to be considered during the survey design stage in order to minimise error and bias in the results. Aspects of survey design are illustrated using surveys in Scotland. Part of a standardized questionnaire is given as a further example, developed by the COLOSS working group for Monitoring and Diagnosis. Approaches to data analysis are described, focussing on estimation of loss rates. Dutch monitoring data from 2012 were used for an example of a statistical analysis with the public domain R software. We demonstrate the estimation of the overall proportion of losses and corresponding confidence interval using a quasi-binomial model to account for extra-binomial variation. We also illustrate generalized linear model fitting when incorporating a single risk factor, and derivation of relevant confidence intervals

Results of international standardised beekeeper surveys of colony losses for winter 2012-2013 : analysis of winter loss rates and mixed effects modelling of risk factors for winter loss.

This article presents results of an analysis of winter losses of honey bee colonies from 19 mainly European countries, most of which implemented the standardised 2013 COLOSS questionnaire. Generalised linear mixed effects models (GLMMs) were used to investigate the effects of several factors on the risk of colony loss, including different treatments for Varroa destructor, allowing for random effects of beekeeper and region. Both winter and summer treatments were considered, and the most common combinations of treatment and timing were used to define treatment factor levels. Overall and within country colony loss rates are presented. Significant factors in the model were found to be: percentage of young queens in the colonies before winter, extent of queen problems in summer, treatment of the varroa mite, and access by foraging honey bees to oilseed rape and maize. Spatial variation at the beekeeper level is shown across geographical regions using random effects from the fitted models, both before and after allowing for the effect of the significant terms in the model. This spatial variation is considerable

The Journal of Apicultural Research welcomes the publication of research findings from around the globe

The Journal of Apicultural Research (JAR) is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal dedicated to examining and publishing the latest research on bees from around the world. JAR publishes many different types of articles to reach different international audiences, from career scientists to students and well-informed beekeepers. These comprise original, theoretical, and experimental research papers, as well as authoritative notes, comments, and reviews on scientific aspects of all types of bees (superfamily Apoidea). As of 2021, JAR has an Impact Factor of 2.407 and is ranked 33rd out of 100 in the Entomology category (© InCites Journal Citation Reports®, Clarivate Analytics, 2022). Five regular issues are published per year and special issues are added when timely topics arise, the latest being a special issue on stingless bees (2022) and review papers (2023). In the last decade, COLOSS BEEBOOK chapters are published in JAR. These open-access chapters are a collection of the Standard Methods used in honey bee research, including the study of parasites, pests, and hive products. They are a primary reference resource for bee researchers across the globe and facilitate new projects that might not otherwise be undertaken by laboratories that are new to apidology (236,516 downloads - Taylor & Francis 3,028 citations - Web of Science, 2022). The Journal of Apicultural Research was founded by the International Bee Research Association (IBRA) in 1962. The very first issue included a Note from the first Editors, Dr. Eva Crane & Dr. James Simpson, who introduced JAR as a new opportunity for publication: “The journal will cover all aspects of bees, Apis and non-Apis, and substances used or produced by them, their pollinating activities, and organisms causing diseases or injuries to them.” Since the first issue, this legacy has been maintained in more than 2,800 scientific articles, co-authored by some 1,900 researchers, published so far in JAR, making our journal a key forum for the international exchange of scientific data in apidology. We encourage colleagues from around the globe to continue to participate in sharing their research with the scientific community by publishing in JAR.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Honey vs. Mite—a trade-off strategy by applying summer brood interruption for Varroa destructor control in the Mediterranean region

Ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor with its associated viruses is a common global threat to the health of honey bee colonies. If colonies are not treated, the vast majority die in a 3-year period. Existing acaricides used for treatment are becoming less effective, and new approaches to honey bee protection are required. A reliable method is to create a broodless condition in a colony by preventing the queen from laying eggs, and after 25 days all mites will be exposed to the treatment with organic acids or essential oils. The focus of our study, performed on 178 colonies in six Mediterranean countries, was to compare different periods of queen caging on honey production, colony development, and the effect of treatment. Queen caging had no negative effect on colony strength before the wintering period, while it affected honey production; colonies in which queens were caged two weeks before the main summer nectar flow produced significantly less honey. However, tested colonies ten weeks after the treatment had significantly lower infestation with V. destructor mites. This study shows that caging the queen with subsequent oxalic acid treatment 25 days after caging is an efficient method to control V. destructor infestation, while the starting point of queen caging in relation to the main summer nectar flow affects honey production

Managed honey bee colony losses in Canada, China, Europe, Israel and Turkey, for the winters of 2008-9 and 1009-10

In 2008 the COLOSS network was formed by honey bee experts from Europe and the USA. The primary objectives set by this scientific network were to explain and to prevent large scale losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. In June 2008 COLOSS obtained four years support from the European Union from COST and was designated as COST Action FA0803 – COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes). To enable the comparison of loss data between participating countries, a standardized COLOSS questionnaire was developed. Using this questionnaire information on honey bee losses has been collected over two years. Survey data presented in this study were gathered in 2009 from 12 countries and in 2010 from 24 countries. Mean honey bee losses in Europe varied widely, between 7-22% over the 2008-9 winter and between 7-30% over the 2009-10 winter. An important finding is that for all countries which participated in 2008-9, winter losses in 2009-10 were found to be substantially higher. In 2009-10, winter losses in South East Europe were at such a low level that the factors causing the losses in other parts of Europe were absent, or at a level which did not affect colony survival. The five provinces of China, which were included in 2009-10, showed very low mean (4%) A. mellifera winter losses. In six Canadian provinces, mean winter losses in 2010 varied between 16-25%, losses in Nova Scotia (40%) being exceptionally high. In most countries and in both monitoring years, hobbyist beekeepers (1-50 colonies) experienced higher losses than practitioners with intermediate beekeeping operations (51-500 colonies). This relationship between scale of beekeeping and extent of losses effect was also observed in 2009-10, but was less pronounced. In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, 2008-9 mean winter losses for beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies were significantly higher compared to mean winter losses of beekeepers who did not report ‘disappeared’ colonies. Mean 2008-9 winter losses for those beekeepers in the Netherlands who reported symptoms similar to “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), namely: 1. no dead bees in or surrounding the hive while; 2. capped brood was present, were significantly higher than mean winter losses for those beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies without the presence of capped brood in the empty hives. In the winter of 2009-10 in the majority of participating countries, beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies experienced higher winter losses compared with beekeepers, who experienced winter losses but did not report ‘disappeared’ colonies

Projeto BEEHEAL: promover a saúde da abelha para uma agricultura sustentável

O BEEHEAL, com o título original “Promoting bee health for sustainable agriculture”, é um projeto internacional colaborativo aprovado no âmbito da Ação ERA-Net ARIMNet2 (Coordination of Agricultural Research in the Mediterranean). O projeto é coordenado por Raquel Martín- Hernández, investigadora do “Centro de Investigación Apícola y Agroambiental de Marchamalo” (CAR), Espanha. Para além deste centro de investigação, representado por Raquel Martín-Hernández e Mariano Higes, o consórcio inclui mais três instituições, nomeadamente: o Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO) do Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, representado por M. Alice Pinto e Ana Rita Lopes, o “Centre de Recherche Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Unité: Abeilles et Environnement do “Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique” (INRA), França, representado por Yves Le conte, Anne Dalmon e Maritza Maritza Reyes-Carreno, e o “Volcani Center” da “Agricultural Research Organization” (ARO), Israel, representado por Nor Chevjanovsky e Victoria Soroker. As populações de abelha melífera (Apis mellifera L.) têm vindo a sofrer perdas acentuadas em todo o mundo. Estas perdas estão relacionado com vários factores, que podem atuar sozinhos ou em combinação, incluindo (i) propagação de parasitas e agentes patogénicos exóticos , como por exemplo o ácaro ectoparasita Varroa destructor, o qual serve de vetor de transmissão de vários vírus, e o fungo microsporídeo Nosema ceranae, (ii) exposição das colónias a agro-químicos, (iii) má nutrição, (iv) alterações climáticas, entre outros (vanEngelsdorp & Meixner, 2010; Potts et al., 2010).Ao Paulo Ventura pelo acompanhamento técnico feito ao apário no primeiro ano do projeto. O BEEHEAL é financiado por ARIMNet2 (2016) com os financiadores nacionais Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Teccnologia Agraria y alimentaria (INIA – Espanha), Agence Nationale de la recherche (ARN – France), Ministry off Agriculture & Rural Development, (MOARD – Israel) e Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT – Portugal)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Standard epidemiological methods to understand and improve Apis mellifera health

In this paper, we describe the use of epidemiological methods to understand and reduce honey bee morbidity and mortality. Essential terms are presented and defined and we also give examples for their use. Defining such terms as disease, population, sensitivity, and specificity, provides a framework for epidemiological comparisons. The term population, in particular, is quite complex for an organism like the honey bee because one can view “epidemiological unit” as individual bees, colonies, apiaries, or operations. The population of interest must, therefore, be clearly defined. Equations and explanations of how to calculate measures of disease rates in a population are provided. There are two types of study design; observational and experimental. The advantages and limitations of both are discussed. Approaches to calculate and interpret results are detailed. Methods for calculating epidemiological measures such as detection of rare events, associating exposure and disease (Odds Ratio and Relative Risk), and comparing prevalence and incidence are discussed. Naturally, for beekeepers, the adoption of any management system must have economic advantage. We present a means to determine the cost and benefit of the treatment in order determine its net benefit. Lastly, this paper presents a discussion of the use of Hill’s criteria for inferring causal relationships. This framework for judging cause-effect relationships supports a repeatable and quantitative evaluation process at the population or landscape level. Hill’s criteria disaggregate the different kinds of evidence, allowing the scientist to consider each type of evidence individually and objectively, using a quantitative scoring method for drawing conclusions. It is hoped that the epidemiological approach will be more broadly used to study and negate honey bee disease.The COST Action FA0803http://www.ibra.org.uk/am201

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