51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Bacterial Communities Associated with Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera) Foragers

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The honey bee is a key pollinator species in decline worldwide. As part of a commercial operation, bee colonies are exposed to a variety of agricultural ecosystems throughout the year and a multitude of environmental variables that may affect the microbial balance of individuals and the hive. While many recent studies support the idea of a core microbiota in guts of younger in-hive bees, it is unknown whether this core is present in forager bees or the pollen they carry back to the hive. Additionally, several studies hypothesize that the foregut (crop), a key interface between the pollination environment and hive food stores, contains a set of 13 lactic acid bacteria (LAB) that inoculate collected pollen and act in synergy to preserve pollen stores. Here, we used a combination of 454 based 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the microbial communities of forager guts, crops, and corbicular pollen and crop plate counts to show that (1) despite a very different diet, forager guts contain a core microbiota similar to that found in younger bees, (2) corbicular pollen contains a diverse community dominated by hive-specific, environmental or phyllosphere bacteria that are not prevalent in the gut or crop, and (3) the 13 LAB found in culture-based studies are not specific to the crop but are a small subset of midgut or hindgut specific bacteria identified in many recent 454 amplicon-based studies. The crop is dominated by Lactobacillus kunkeei, and Alpha 2.2 (Acetobacteraceae), highly osmotolerant and acid resistant bacteria found in stored pollen and honey. Crop taxa at low abundance include core hindgut bacteria in transit to their primary niche, and potential pathogens or food spoilage organisms seemingly vectored from the pollination environment. We conclude that the crop microbial environment is influenced by worker task, and may function in both decontamination and inoculation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The gut bacteria of insects: nonpathogenic interactions.

          The diversity of the Insecta is reflected in the large and varied microbial communities inhabiting the gut. Studies, particularly with termites and cockroaches, have focused on the nutritional contributions of gut bacteria in insects living on suboptimal diets. The indigenous gut bacteria, however, also play a role in withstanding the colonization of the gut by non-indigenous species including pathogens. Gut bacterial consortia adapt by the transfer of plasmids and transconjugation between bacterial strains, and some insect species provide ideal conditions for bacterial conjugation, which suggests that the gut is a "hot spot" for gene transfer. Genomic analysis provides new avenues for the study of the gut microbial community and will reveal the molecular foundations of the relationships between the insect and its microbiome. In this review the intestinal bacteria is discussed in the context of developing our understanding of symbiotic relationships, of multitrophic interactions between insects and plant or animal host, and in developing new strategies for controlling insect pests.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health

            Background Recent declines in honey bees for crop pollination threaten fruit, nut, vegetable and seed production in the United States. A broad survey of pesticide residues was conducted on samples from migratory and other beekeepers across 23 states, one Canadian province and several agricultural cropping systems during the 2007–08 growing seasons. Methodology/Principal Findings We have used LC/MS-MS and GC/MS to analyze bees and hive matrices for pesticide residues utilizing a modified QuEChERS method. We have found 121 different pesticides and metabolites within 887 wax, pollen, bee and associated hive samples. Almost 60% of the 259 wax and 350 pollen samples contained at least one systemic pesticide, and over 47% had both in-hive acaricides fluvalinate and coumaphos, and chlorothalonil, a widely-used fungicide. In bee pollen were found chlorothalonil at levels up to 99 ppm and the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin at 1 ppm levels. Almost all comb and foundation wax samples (98%) were contaminated with up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, of fluvalinate and coumaphos, and lower amounts of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil, with an average of 6 pesticide detections per sample and a high of 39. There were fewer pesticides found in adults and brood except for those linked with bee kills by permethrin (20 ppm) and fipronil (3.1 ppm). Conclusions/Significance The 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and adult food of this primary pollinator. This represents over half of the maximum individual pesticide incidences ever reported for apiaries. While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A simple and distinctive microbiota associated with honey bees and bumble bees.

              Specialized relationships with bacteria often allow animals to exploit a new diet by providing a novel set of metabolic capabilities. Bees are a monophyletic group of Hymenoptera that transitioned to a completely herbivorous diet from the carnivorous diet of their wasp ancestors. Recent culture-independent studies suggest that a set of distinctive bacterial species inhabits the gut of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Here we survey the gut microbiotae of diverse bee and wasp species to test whether acquisition of these bacteria was associated with the transition to herbivory in bees generally. We found that most bee species lack phylotypes that are the same or similar to those typical of A. mellifera, rejecting the hypothesis that this dietary transition was symbiont-dependent. The most common bacteria in solitary bee species are a widespread phylotype of Burkholderia and the pervasive insect associate, Wolbachia. In contrast, several social representatives of corbiculate bees do possess distinctive bacterial phylotypes. Samples of A. mellifera harboured the same microbiota as in previous surveys, and closely related bacterial phylotypes were identified in two Asian honey bees (Apis andreniformis and Apis dorsata) and several bumble bee (Bombus) species. Potentially, the sociality of Apis and Bombus species facilitates symbiont transmission and thus is key to the maintenance of a more consistent gut microbiota. Phylogenetic analyses provide a more refined taxonomic placement of the A. mellifera symbionts. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                16 April 2014
                : 9
                : 4
                : e95056
                Affiliations
                [1 ]United States Department of Agriculture, Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America
                [2 ]Center for Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America
                Emory University, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: KEA PM. Performed the experiments: PM. Analyzed the data: KEA VC-H. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: KEA VC-H. Wrote the paper: KEA VC-H.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-46041
                10.1371/journal.pone.0095056
                3989306
                24740297
                5cd9dd3b-d40c-439d-a22b-d08ade42fdd0
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

                History
                : 3 November 2013
                : 19 March 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funding was provided entirely by the USA tax-payer supported operating budget of the ARS-USDA Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, Tucson AZ. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There were no current external funding sources for this study.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Agriculture
                Agricultural Methods
                Sustainable Agriculture
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Community Structure
                Niche Construction
                Behavioral Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Ecological Metrics
                Microbial Ecology
                Terrestrial Ecology
                Evolutionary Biology
                Microbiology
                Plant Microbiology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article