Virus transmission via honey bee prey and potential impact on cocoon-building in labyrinth spiders (Agelena labyrinthica)

Daniel Schläppi; Nor Chejanovsky; Orlando Yañez; Peter Neumann

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282353

Abstract

Interspecies transmission of RNA viruses is a major concern for human and animal health. However, host-range, transmission routes and especially the possible impact of these viruses on alternative hosts are often poorly understood. Here, we investigated the role of the labyrinth spider, Agelena labyrinthica, as a potential alternative host of viruses commonly known from western honey bees, Apis mellifera. Field-collected spiders were screened for Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), Black queen cell virus, Chronic bee paralysis virus, Deformed wing virus type A and B (DWV-B), Israeli acute paralysis virus, Lake Sinai virus and Sacbrood virus. In a laboratory experiment, labyrinth spiders were fed with ABPV and DWV-B infected honey bees or virus free control food. Our results show that natural infections of A. labyrinthica with these viruses are common in the field, as 62.5% of the samples were positive for at least one virus, supporting their wide host range. For DWV-B, the laboratory data indicate that foodborne transmission occurs and that high virus titres may reduce cocoon building, which would be the first report of clinical symptoms of DWV in Araneae. Since cocoons are tokens of fitness, virus transmission from honey bees might affect spider populations, which would constitute a concern for nature conservation.

Citation: Schläppi D, Chejanovsky N, Yañez O, Neumann P (2023) Virus transmission via honey bee prey and potential impact on cocoon-building in labyrinth spiders (Agelena labyrinthica). PLoS ONE 18(3): e0282353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353

Editor: Olav Rueppell, University of Alberta, CANADA

Received: September 30, 2022; Accepted: February 13, 2023; Published: March 1, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Schläppi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data is available from figshare at doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21252489. (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21252489.v1).

Funding: This research was funded by the Béatrice Ederer-Weber Foundation (P.N.; https://www.ederer-stiftung.ch/startseite), the Vinetum Foundation (P.N.; https://www.vinetum.ch/de/Home), the Stiftung Dreiklang für ökologische Forschung und Bildung (D.S., P.N.) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (D.S., P500PB_206883 / 1; https://www.snf.ch/en). Neither the design of the study, data collection, analyses and interpretation, writing of the manuscript nor the decision to publish the results were influenced by the funders.

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

Introduction

Increasing evidence suggests alarming declines both in abundance and diversity of terrestrial arthropods [1–4]. As arthropods provide crucial ecosystem services, including pollination and natural pest control, the observed trends could have far-reaching consequences [5, 6]. Pathogens causing emerging infectious diseases pose a substantial threat to both human- and animal health [7, 8], and they have been identified as one of the drivers of the observed declines [9].

Many pathogens, particularly RNA viruses, are known to be multi-host species [10]. Properties of RNA viruses such as error prone replication and large population sizes enable elevated rates of adaptive evolution, facilitating the crossing of species barriers [11, 12]. Accordingly, there is increasing consensus for virus transmission between managed western honey bees (Apis mellifera) and wild bees, possibly contributing to recent pollinator declines [13]. Several viruses first described in and commonly associated with A. mellifera, often referred to as honey bee viruses, have been detected across the wider arthropod community [14–17]. Furthermore, foodborne transmission, i.e. consumption of infected prey, has been suggested to enable the infection of predaceous or scavenging arthropods, such as ants and wasps [18–22]. However, there is a dearth of data on the prevalence of these viruses in the class Arachnida. Presence of honey bee associated viruses has been confirmed in the ectoparasitic mites, Varroa destructor and Tropilaelaps mercedesae, both well known honey bee parasites [23, 24]. The mites carry and efficiently vector viruses, but if they are actual biological hosts remained unclear until recently. While evidence suggests non-propagative vectoring of Deformed wing virus (DWV) type A, DWV-B appears to replicate in V. destructor [25, 26].

Apart from mites, we are aware of only two studies reporting the presence of Black queen cell virus, Deformed wing virus (DWV), Kashmir bee virus (KBV), Moku virus (MKV) and Sacbrood virus (SBV) in a very limited number of Arachnid samples [14, 27]. Two spider samples were positive for the minus-sense strand of DWV as well, suggesting potential replication in these hosts [14]. However, it is unclear if these might be false positives due to viral particles consumed in conjunction with infected prey [20]. Consequently, the role of spiders as potential alternative hosts remains poorly understood. As generalist predators, spiders play crucial roles in food webs and have been recognized as important biological control agents [28]. Furthermore, despite numerous studies detecting honey bee associated viruses in a large number of alternative hosts (e.g. more than 70 species for DWV) [29], only few studies have actually addressed possible impacts of these viruses on their novel hosts, i.e. clinical symptoms. Pathogenicity has been studied mostly in Bombus spp. (for an overview see [30]). Outside of bees, there are only a few studies reporting clinical symptoms in wasps (Vespa crabro) and ants (Lasius niger), respectively [22, 31].

Here, we investigate the role of spiders as potential alternative hosts of viruses initially described from A. mellifera, using the labyrinth spider, Agelena labyrinthica, commonly found in Europe [32]. Labyrinth spiders frequently consume honey bee prey and are therefore in principle exposed to foodborne virus transmission (Fig 1). We screened field-collected samples of these spiders for viruses commonly detected in honey bees, i.e. Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV), DWV-A, DWV-B, Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) and SBV). In addition, we empirically tested whether foodborne transmission enables ABPV and DWV-B to infect A. labyrinthica using a laboratory assay. Both DWV-B and ABPV are positive-sense RNA viruses and harmful honey bee pathogens with a known wide host range [29, 30, 33]. The opisthosoma contains the majority of the digestive system, including the extensive diverticula of the midgut where most of digestion takes place [34]. Thus, to reduce chances of false positive results due to virus particles in the intestine, the prosoma and the opisthosoma were tested separately for each spider of the laboratory assay and only the prosoma was analysed from samples of the field screening.

Download:

Fig 1. Labyrinth spider (Agelena labyrinthica) sitting in her web in the field with a captured honey bee prey (Apis mellifera).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.g001

Materials and methods

Sampling of spiders & experimental set-up

Agelena labyrinthica (N = 40) were sampled around Bern, Switzerland (July 2016: N = 30, 46°56’15.2"N 7°22’41.9"E; July 2017: N = 10, 46°55’52.7"N 7°25’58.8"E) and taxonomically identified using morphometrics [32]. Six spiders from 2016 and all samples from 2017 were immediately frozen and stored at -80 °C until further processing. The remaining 24 spiders were transferred into cages (Θ = 97 mm, height = 128.5 mm). The cages were filled with 5 mm of water retaining granules and 10 mm of biological potting soil. Further, each of the cages contained a stick and a dried leaf (Ilex aquifolium) as starting point for the funnel webs. The cages were maintained at room temperature (19–23 °C) and protected from direct sunlight. The nets and the soil were sprayed regularly with water. Until the start of the feeding experiment, the spiders were fed weekly with fruit flies (Drosophila hidey). The spiders were randomly assigned to two treatments, differing in their feeding regime at two experimental feeding events (12.08.2016, 22.08.2016; see S1 Fig for a timeline). In each feeding session, controls (N = 5, all ♀) were fed with one cricket each (Acheta domesticus), and spiders in the treatment group (N = 19, ♀ = 16, ♂ = 3) received one freshly emerged honey bee (A. mellifera) artificially infected with both ABPV and DWV-B. The ideal food for the controls would have been non infected honey bees. However, low level latent virus infections are highly likely in honey bees [35], and therefore crickets were used as a secure option. Spiders lay their eggs in protective silk cases, often referred to as cocoons or egg sacs [32]. Thus, cocoon building was recorded for all female spiders as a proxy for reproductive output, aka token of fitness.

Two spiders (both ♂) were found dead in their nest (17.08.2016, 22.08.2016) and frozen at -80°C until further processing. Four days after the last feeding event (26.08.2016), all remaining spiders were frozen at -80°C. No ethical approval or permit was required to sample and work with the invertebrate species used in this study and all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of local authorities.

Preparation of virus-infected honey bees

To ensure high virus loads, ABPV and DWV-B were propagated in honey bee pupae (A. mellifera) using standard methods [36]. Red to dark-eyed pupae were collected from sealed worker brood frames of two local A. mellifera colonies (08.08.2016). Then, the pupae were microinjected laterally between the second and third segment of the abdomen with two μL of a solution containing both ABPV and DWV-B. Injected pupae were incubated at 34.5°C, ≥50% relative humidity and darkness until emergence [37]. The emerging adults were fed to the spiders from the treatment group while controls received crickets (12.08.2016; Fig 2). Two weeks later, the same steps were repeated with pupae sampled at the 18.08.2016 and feeding at the 22.08.2016.

Download:

Fig 2. QR code to access a video showing a labyrinth spider (Agelena labyrinthica) capturing an adult honey bee (Apis mellifera) in the feeding experiment (URL: https://youtu.be/kO5B2Z7OiNw).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.g002

Virus analyses

The prosoma of all spiders from the field screening (N = 16) and the prosoma as well as the opisthosoma of all spiders from the feeding experiment (N = 24) were analysed for viruses. Spiders and crickets (N = 16) from the feeding experiment were tested for ABPV and DWV-B. The remaining samples were screened additionally for BQCV, CBPV, DWV-A, IAPV, LSV and SBV. For the RNA extraction, samples were crushed in 2 ml Eppendorf^® tubes containing a 3 mm metal bead and filled with 100 μl TN buffer (100 mM Tris, 100 mM NaCl, pH 7.6) using a Retsch^® MM 300 mixer mill for 1 min at the frequency 25 1/s [38]. Fifty microliters of the homogenate were used for the RNA extraction following the manufacturer’s recommendation of a NucleoSpin^® RNA II kit (Macherey-Nagel, Oensingen, Switzerland). Thirty microliters were used to elute the RNA, which was then stored at −80 °C until further processing [38]. At the first extraction step 200μg/ml Ambion^™ RNA Control 250 (RNA250) was added as exogenous internal reference standard to monitor the efficiency of the RNA purification and cDNA synthesis [39].

An M-MLV RT Kit (Promega, Dübendorf, Switzerland) was used for the reverse transcription to obtain cDNA following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Random hexamer oligonucleotide (0.75 μL; 100 μM), template RNA and H₂O (final reaction volume 17.75 μL) were incubated in a Thermocycler (Biometra, Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany). Then, 5×Buffer (5 μL), nucleoside triphosphate (dNTP; 1.125 μL; 10mM) and reverse transcriptase (M-MLV; 1 μL) were incubated for 60 min at 37 °C. After synthesis, the resulting cDNA was diluted 1/5 and stored at −25 °C.

To estimate viral titres, real-time reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) using a KAPA SYBR^® FAST Universal qPCR kit (KAPA Biosystems, Wilmington, North Carolina, United States). On each plate samples were run in duplicate for both the exogenous internal reference and the viruses of interest using 3 μL of diluted cDNA, 6 μL KAPA SYBR^® green reaction mix, 2.52 μL H₂O and 0.24 μL from each of a specific primer pair (Table 1) in a final reaction volume of 12 μL [36]. Additionally, each plate contained a ten-fold serial dilution of purified PCR products acting as standard curves for the virus of interest and the exogenous internal reference and two no-template negatives [40]. The reaction was processed with an ECO^™ Real-Time PCR machine (Illumina, San Diego, California, United States). The qPCR cycling profile was set as follows: 40 cycles of denaturation (3 s, 95°C) plus annealing, extension and data collection (30 s, 57°C), preceded by a period of incubation (3 min, 95 °C). The specificity of the PCR products was verified using a melting curve analysis (reading the fluorescence at 0.5 °C intervals between 55 and 95 °C) following the amplification.

Download:

Table 1. Primers used for the relative virus quantification of viruses in spiders, Agelena labyrinthica.

Primers used for sequencing of PCR products are marked with asterisk (*).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.t001

Based on the experimental dilution factors and the q-PCR output, including the data of the standard curves, the estimated numbers of viral copies per sample, i.e. virus titres, were derived. Samples were considered negative if no peak or a shifted peak was observed in the melting curve analysis, or if the Cq value exceeded the one of the respective H₂O negative controls. For both ABPV and DWV-B, a titre detection threshold, defined as the maximum of value of hypothetical titres calculated from Cq values of negative samples [41], was subtracted from calculated titres and negative samples were assigned zero viral copies. Then, titres were log-transformed to account for their exponential nature. Throughout the manuscript logarithmic values of titres (Log10 genomic copies/sample) are reported. To avoid logarithm of zero, 1 was added to each titre prior to transformation. Further, for both body parts, infections with either virus were categorized into low- and high-level infections (HLI), based on titres being above or below 10⁷ genomic viral copies, as titres above this threshold correlate with clinical symptoms and consequently overt infections in honey bees [42]. Samples with high concentration of the target viruses were selected for further confirmation of their identity. Purified PCR products from each viral target were sequenced twice (one time from each 5Samples wextreme). The overlapped sequences were uploaded to GenBank: ABPV—OQ272302; DWV-B—OQ272303).

Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed using R version 3.5.1 [46]. Data and model residuals were checked for normal distribution with the Shapiro-Wilk test and homogeneity of variances between groups using the Levene’s test to select appropriate statistical analyses. To compare virus titres between the treatments, Mann–Whitney U tests were applied. A one-tailed N-1 Pearson’s Chi-Square test was applied to test whether positive samples and HLI’s were commoner among virus treated spiders [47]. Per definition only female spiders were included to test for differences in the proportion of spiders building a cocoon using a N-1 Pearson’s Chi-Square. For the comparison of ABPV titres, DWV titres and overall virus titres (sum of DWV and ABPV) between females that have built a cocoon and others that did not, linear mixed effect modelling was used with titre as response variable, presence or absence of a cocoon as explanatory variable and treatment as random factor to account for different food sources provided in the two groups (crickets or infected honey bees). A Paired Samples Wilcoxon test was applied to compare virus titres between pro- and opisthosoma. To test for the correlation of titres between the two body parts a Kendall rank correlation test was used.

Results

Of the surveyed viruses (ABPV, BQCV, CBPV, DWV-A, DWV-B, IAPV, LSV, SBV) only ABPV, DWV-A, DWV-B and SBV were detected in field collected samples of A. labyrinthica (Table 2). In 62.5% of the tested spiders at least one virus was detected. DWV-B was the most common with more than half of the samples being positive (56.25%), followed by ABPV (25%), DWV-A (25%) and SBV (18.75%). In 40% of the spiders, presence of more than one virus was found.

Download:

Table 2. Detection of viruses known from honey bees (Apis mellifera) in field-collected labyrinth spiders (Agelena Labyrinthica; N = 16).

Samples tested positive are marked with [+] and negative ones with [–]. The number of samples indicates how many individually analysed spider samples matched each virus profile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.t002

A majority of spiders (83.33%) from the feeding experiment, including controls, were positive for ABPV and DWV-B (Table 3) while the crickets tested negative for both viruses. Sequencing of the PCR products confirmed the identity of both ABPV and DWV-B (GenBank accession: ABPV, MT141130.1, 100% identity, 100% query cover, DWV-B, MN538209.1, 99.05% identity, 100% query cover). Virus titres in these spiders (prosoma and opisthosoma combined) ranged from 4.23 to 10.4 log genomic viral copies per sample for ABPV and from 3.34 to 9.61 for DWV-B. For both viruses, titres of the virus treatment were higher than in the controls, but the differences were not significant (ABPV: W = 26, p = 0.14; DWV-B: W = 21, p = 0.064; Fig 3A & 3B). Samples of the virus treatment were not significantly more often positive for DWV-B than controls (X²₍₁₎ = 2.37, p = 0.062). No difference was found for ABPV, as all samples were positive. Nonetheless, HLI’s with at least one of the two viruses were detected more often in spiders of the virus treatment (chi-square test: X²₍₂₎ = 2.85, p = 0.046). Apart from one control sample with high levels of ABPV in the prosoma, HLI’s were only detected in virus treatments.

Download:

Fig 3.

Titres of (A,C) Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) and (B,D) Deformed wing virus type B (DWV-B) in labyrinth spiders (Agelena labyrinthica) from the experimental feeding trial: (A & B) Virus titres for the two treatment groups that differed with regard to the feeding regime (controls = no virus, treatment = virus); (C & D) female spiders that either did or did not build a cocoon. Boxplots are displayed with the inter-quartile-ranges (box), medians (black line in box) and outliers (dots). Dashed lines represent virus detection thresholds. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between the groups are indicated by small bold letters (a, b).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.g003

Download:

Table 3. Titres of ABPV and DWV-B reported as medians [1st 3rd quartiles] in labyrinth spiders (Agelena Labyrinthica; N = 24) after an experimental feeding assay with infected honey bee pupae (Apis mellifera).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.t003

Further, several females built a cocoon over the duration of the experiment (42 days). In the controls, the proportion of cocoon building spiders (5 out of 5) was significantly higher compared to the virus treatment (4 out of 16; X²₍₁₎ = 8.33, p = 0.004). Furthermore, cocoon-building spiders had significantly lower overall virus titres (sum of DWV and ABPV; X²₍₁₎ = 8.01, p = 0.005) and DWV titres (X²₍₁₎ = 6.2, p = 0.013; Fig 3D) in comparison to spiders without cocoons irrespective of treatment group. The same trend was observed for ABPV titres, but the difference was not significant (X²₍₁₎ = 2.49, p = 0.11, Fig 3C).

For neither virus a significant difference in virus titres was found between pro- and opisthosoma (ABPV: z = -0.18, p = 0.86; DWV-B: z = -0.69, p = 0.49). All prosomas with a HLI of DWV-B were associated with opisthosomas, which were highly infected as well. Two additional opisthosomas with HLI were detected, with their corresponding prosomas having low infection levels. For ABPV, HLI’s matched only in two cases between the pro- and the opisthosoma. Each three prosomas and opisthosomas had HLI’s while their counterpart did not. Nonetheless, there was an overall correlation of the titres between the two body parts (ABPV: R = 0.38, z = 2.59, p = 0.01; DWV-B: R = 0.52, z = 2.59, p < 0.001).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating transmission of honey bee-associated viruses to spiders. Our data indicate that virus transmission from honey bees to A. labyrinthica can be common in the field and that foodborne transmission, at least for DWV-B, is an underlying mechanism. Furthermore, the experimental results suggest that high DWV-B titres may impair cocoon building, therewith likely reducing spider fitness. This is the first report of clinical symptoms of honey bee associated viruses in the order Araneae and constitutes a concern for nature conservation.

Screening of field-collected labyrinth spiders revealed the presence of ABPV, DWV-A, DWV-B and SBV. Thereby, we expand the knowledge on these viruses, which still is very limited for the order Araneae [14, 17, 29]. Unsurprisingly, DWV-B was detected the most, matching the prevalence of this virus in honey bees [29, 48]. These findings are in line with the wide host-range of DWV [29], and one more species, the first from the order Araneae, can be added to the range of susceptible hosts. However, it is unclear these are true host shifts, i.e. viruses invading and establishing in a new host species [49], or whether the viruses are simply generalist arthropod viruses. Even though most of these viruses were described first in honey bees, it remains uncertain if bees were the original host.

Viruses, including high-level infections analogous to overt infections in honey bees, suggesting viral replication, were detected both in the prosoma and the opisthosoma of spiders. As is always the case for predatory arthropods, virus particles taken up with recently consumed food items can lead to false positives and bias the results [19]. Although gut contents may have been cleared out prior to testing, as spiders defaecate quite regularly [50], we cannot exclude this experimental artifact. This also holds true for the prosoma because a fraction of the midgut expands as caeca into the cephalothorax [34]. Usually, replication of the virus is confirmed by the presence of negative-sense strand RNA, a token of virus replication. Because the recently consumed honey bee prey is full of active replicating virus, we argue that for our experimental design the detection of negative-sense strand RNA would not constitute conclusive evidence. However, if virus loads would simply reflect particles recently taken up with infected prey, we would expect to find most of the virus in the ophistosoma, as it holds a majority of the digestive system [34], whereas our data show that there are no differences in virus titres between the pro- and ophistosoma. Consequently, the presence of virus particles in the gut is not sufficient to explain the observed patterns, thus indicating potential viral replication.

In the experimental assay, the proportion of samples tested positive for ABPV or DWV B was not significantly different between treatments and controls. Given the results of the field screening, it is not surprising to confirm virus presence in control samples that were not experimentally exposed. It is likely that these viruses are commonly present as latent infections, potentially from earlier contacts with a contaminated source. However, HLI’s were significantly more common in spiders of the treatment group indicating that foodborne transmission, i.e. the consumption of infected prey, is indeed an underlying mechanism enabling transmission of viruses from honey bees to spiders. Since all controls were positive for ABPV, the laboratory feeding data for the transmission of this virus remain inconclusive. Together with previous studies suggesting that foodborne transmission is a common exposure route for arthropod predators or scavengers [18–22, 51], these findings highlight the importance of this pathway for interspecies virus transmission. The laboratory feeding clearly reflects a worst-case scenario with high virus loads. Nonetheless, positive samples from the field suggest that virus transmission to spiders frequently occurs under natural conditions. Given the abundance of managed western honey bees, the prevalence of these viruses in this host species and the frequency at which honey bee prey can be detected in webs of labyrinth spiders, they are the most likely source. However, in light of the wide host range of these viruses, it is well possible that the spiders obtain them from other non-honey bee sources, i.e. any other arthropod prey or via any other exposure route. As we are lacking data on viral prevalence in the surrounding apiaries or the local arthropod community, we can of course not draw any conclusion on the actual transmission dynamics. Whether there are other ways for spiders to become infected with these viruses, e.g. consumption of contaminated pollen, is poorly understood [21, 52]. Furthermore, if there are pathways for the viruses to be transmitted back to honey bees remains unknown.

Interestingly, elevated viral loads coincide with a reduction in cocoon building, suggesting that this constitutes a clinical symptom of virus infection in spiders with likely effects on fitness. Spiders that did not build a cocoon had elevated titres of ABPV and significantly higher titres of DWV-B compared to spiders that did not; irrespective of treatment, i.e. food source. Immune defence and reproduction are both physiologically and energetically demanding processes frequently found to trade off [53]. Our findings might reflect a similar scenario in which the activation of the immune system in response to an infection is reducing reproductive output, i.e. preventing cocoon building. Clinical symptoms are seen as a clear sign of overt infections with ongoing viral replication [54], which could explain our observations and would indicate that spiders are indeed true hosts. However, the sample size in this study is rather limited and further evidence is required to confirm active replication in these potential hosts, e.g. using fluorescence- in situ -hybridization [26]. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that A. labyrinthica, and possibly other spiders are potential hosts of viruses commonly associated with honey bees.

Conclusions

Our survey and experimental findings show that A. labyrinthica spiders regularly host honey bee associated viruses in the field, probably due to foodborne infection with potential effects on spider populations. Despite vast amounts of literature on virus transmission among the arthropod community only a few studies address potential impacts of successful infections. Spiders and other generalist predators play an important role in terrestrial ecosystems. Hence, fitness-reducing virus host shifts have the potential to disrupt ecosystem functioning and are of great concern.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Experimental timeline.

Chronological order of key events starting with the collection of spiders in the field until the experiment got terminated with the freezing of all spider samples at -80°C.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282353.s001

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Kaspar Roth and Elodie Christina for technical support and Laura Bosco for fruitful discussions and courageous help with the field-sampling.

References

1. Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(10):e0185809, pmid:29045418
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK, Blüthgen N, Müller J, Ambarlı D, et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature. 2019;574(7780):671–4,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol Conserv. 2020;242:108426,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Sánchez‐Bayo F, Wyckhuys KA. Further evidence for a global decline of the entomofauna. Austral Entomol. 2020,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Scudder GG. The importance of insects. In: Foottit RG, Adler PH, editors. Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society. 1. 2 ed. New Jersey, United States: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 9–43.
6. Losey JE, Vaughan M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience. 2006;56(4):311–23,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—threats to biodiversity and human health. Science. 2000;287(5452):443–9,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Morens DM, Folkers GK, Fauci AS. The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2004;430(6996):242, pmid:15241422
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KA. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol Conserv. 2019;232:8–27,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Woolhouse ME, Taylor LH, Haydon DT. Population biology of multihost pathogens. Science. 2001;292(5519):1109–12,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Woolhouse ME, Haydon DT, Antia R. Emerging pathogens: the epidemiology and evolution of species jumps. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20(5):238–44, pmid:16701375
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Holmes EC. The evolutionary genetics of emerging viruses. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S. 2009;40:353–72,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(6):345–5,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Levitt AL, Singh R, Cox-Foster DL, Rajotte E, Hoover K, Ostiguy N, et al. Cross-species transmission of honey bee viruses in associated arthropods. Virus Res. 2013;176(1):232–40,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Fürst M, McMahon DP, Osborne J, Paxton R, Brown M. Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature. 2014;506(7488):364, pmid:24553241
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Grozinger CM, Flenniken ML. Bee viruses: ecology, pathogenicity, and impacts. Annu Rev Entomol. 2019,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Nanetti A, Bortolotti L, Cilia G. Pathogens spillover from honey bees to other arthropods. Pathog. 2021;10(8):1044., pmid:34451508
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Yañez O, Zheng H-Q, Hu F-L, Neumann P, Dietemann V. A scientific note on Israeli acute paralysis virus infection of eastern honeybee Apis cerana and vespine predator Vespa velutina. Apidologie. 2012;43(5):587–9,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Loope KJ, Baty JW, Lester PJ, Wilson Rankin EE. Pathogen shifts in a honeybee predator following the arrival of the Varroa mite. P R Soc B. 2019;286(1894):20182499, pmid:30963859
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Schläppi D, Lattrell P, Yañez O, Chejanovsky N, Neumann P. Foodborne transmission of deformed wing virus to ants (Myrmica rubra). Insects. 2019;10(11):394, pmid:31703426
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Yanez O, Piot N, Dalmon A, de Miranda J, Chantawannakul P, Panziera D, et al. Bee viruses: routes of infection in hymenoptera. Front Microbiol. 2020;11(943):1–22, pmid:32547504
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Schläppi D, Chejanovsky N, Yañez O, Neumann P. Foodborne transmission and clinical symptoms of honey bee viruses in ants Lasius spp. Viruses. 2020;12(3):321, pmid:32192027
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Forsgren E, De Miranda JR, Isaksson M, Wei S, Fries I. Deformed wing virus associated with Tropilaelaps mercedesae infesting European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;47(2):87–97.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Martin SJ, Highfield AC, Brettell L, Villalobos EM, Budge GE, Powell M, et al. Global honey bee viral landscape altered by a parasitic mite. Science. 2012;336(6086):1304–6,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Posada-Florez F, Childers AK, Heerman MC, Egekwu NI, Cook SC, Chen Y, et al. Deformed wing virus type a, a major honey bee pathogen, is vectored by the mite Varroa destructor in a non-propagative manner. BioRxiv. 2019:660985,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Gisder S, Genersch E. Direct Evidence for infection of Varroa destructor mites with the bee-pathogenic deformed wing virus variant b—but not variant a—via fluorescence-in situ-hybridization analysis. J Virol. 2020, pmid:33298545
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Dobelmann J, Felden A, Lester PJ. Genetic strain diversity of multi-host RNA viruses that infect a wide range of pollinators and associates is shaped by geographic origins. Viruses. 2020;12(3):358, pmid:32213950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Riechert SE, Lockley T. Spiders as biological control agents. Annu Rev Entomol. 1984;29(1):299–320,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Martin SJ, Brettell LE. Deformed wing virus in honeybees and other insects. Annu Rev Virol. 2019;6,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Tehel A, Brown MJ, Paxton RJ. Impact of managed honey bee viruses on wild bees. Curr Opin Virol. 2016;19:16–22,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Forzan M, Sagona S, Mazzei M, Felicioli A. Detection of deformed wing virus in Vespa crabro. B Insectol. 2017;70(2):261–5.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Roberts MJ. Collins field guide—Spiders of Britain and northern Europe. London, United Kingdom: HarperCollins Publishers; 1996.
33. De Miranda JR, Cordoni G, Budge G. The acute bee paralysis virus–kashmir bee virus–israeli acute paralysis virus complex. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010;103:30–47,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Collatz KG. Structure and function of the digestive tract. In: Nentwig W, editor. Ecophysiology of spiders. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 1987. p. 229–238, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-71552-5_16
35. Tentcheva D, Gauthier L, Zappulla N, Dainat B, Cousserans F, Colin ME, et al. Prevalence and seasonal variations of six bee viruses in Apis mellifera L. and Varroa destructor mite populations in France. Appl Environ Microb. 2004;70(12):7185–91,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. De Miranda JR, Bailey L, Ball BV, Blanchard P, Budge GE, Chejanovsky N, et al. Standard methods for virus research in Apis mellifera. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(4):1–56,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Williams GR, Alaux C, Costa C, Csaki T, Doublet V, Eisenhardt D, et al. Standard methods for maintaining adult Apis mellifera in cages under in vitro laboratory conditions. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(1):1–36,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Evans JD, Schwarz RS, Chen YP, Budge G, Cornman RS, De la Rua P, et al. Standard methods for molecular research in Apis mellifera. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(4):1–54,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Lowenthal MS, Quittman E, Phinney KW. Absolute quantification of RNA or DNA using acid hydrolysis and mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2019;91(22):14569–76, pmid:31638773
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):611–22,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Schläppi D, Kettler N, Glauser G, Straub L, Yañez O, Neumann P. Varying impact of neonicotinoid insecticide and acute bee paralysis virus across castes and colonies of black garden ants, Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–14.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Zioni N, Soroker V, Chejanovsky N. Replication of varroa destructor virus 1 (VDV-1) and a varroa destructor virus 1–deformed wing virus recombinant (VDV-1–DWV) in the head of the honey bee. Virology. 2011;417(1):106–12,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Locke B, Forsgren E, Fries I, De Miranda JR. Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control. Appl Environ Microb. 2012;78(1):227–35, pmid:22020517
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. McMahon DP, Fürst MA, Caspar J, Theodorou P, Brown MJ, Paxton RJ. A sting in the spit: widespread cross‐infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84(3):615–24, pmid:25646973
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Runckel C, Flenniken ML, Engel JC, Ruby JG, Ganem D, Andino R, et al. Temporal analysis of the honey bee microbiome reveals four novel viruses and seasonal prevalence of known viruses, Nosema, and Crithidia. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20656, pmid:21687739
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R version 3.6.3 (2020-02-09), Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
47. Campbell I. Chi‐squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two‐by‐two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med. 2007;26(19):3661–75,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Beaurepaire A, Piot N, Doublet V, Antunez K, Campbell E, Chantawannakul P, et al. Diversity and global distribution of viruses of the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insects. 2020;11(4):239, pmid:32290327
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Longdon B, Brockhurst MA, Russell CA, Welch JJ, Jiggins FM. The evolution and genetics of virus host shifts. PLOS Pathog. 2014;10(11):e1004395l, pmid:25375777
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Curtis JT, Carrel JE. Defaecation behaviour of Argiope aurantia (Araneae: Araneidae). Bull Br Arachnol Soc. 2000;11(8):339–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Porter SD, Valles SM, Pereira RM. Scavenging crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) transmit solenopsis invicta virus 3 to red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) colonies. Fla Entomol. 2016;99(4):811–3,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Eggs B, Sanders D. Herbivory in spiders: the importance of pollen for orb-weavers. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(11):e82637, pmid:24312430
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Schwenke RA, Lazzaro BP, Wolfner MF. Reproduction–immunity trade-offs in insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2016;61:239–56, pmid:26667271
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Yue C, Schröder M, Gisder S, Genersch E. Vertical-transmission routes for deformed wing virus of honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Gen Virol. 2007;88(8):2329–36.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(10):e0185809, pmid:29045418
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK, Blüthgen N, Müller J, Ambarlı D, et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature. 2019;574(7780):671–4,
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol Conserv. 2020;242:108426,
View Article
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Sánchez‐Bayo F, Wyckhuys KA. Further evidence for a global decline of the entomofauna. Austral Entomol. 2020,
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Scudder GG. The importance of insects. In: Foottit RG, Adler PH, editors. Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society. 1. 2 ed. New Jersey, United States: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 9–43.

[ref6] 6. Losey JE, Vaughan M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience. 2006;56(4):311–23,
View Article
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—threats to biodiversity and human health. Science. 2000;287(5452):443–9,
View Article
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Morens DM, Folkers GK, Fauci AS. The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2004;430(6996):242, pmid:15241422
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KA. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol Conserv. 2019;232:8–27,
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Woolhouse ME, Taylor LH, Haydon DT. Population biology of multihost pathogens. Science. 2001;292(5519):1109–12,
View Article
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Woolhouse ME, Haydon DT, Antia R. Emerging pathogens: the epidemiology and evolution of species jumps. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20(5):238–44, pmid:16701375
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Holmes EC. The evolutionary genetics of emerging viruses. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S. 2009;40:353–72,
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(6):345–5,
View Article
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Levitt AL, Singh R, Cox-Foster DL, Rajotte E, Hoover K, Ostiguy N, et al. Cross-species transmission of honey bee viruses in associated arthropods. Virus Res. 2013;176(1):232–40,
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Fürst M, McMahon DP, Osborne J, Paxton R, Brown M. Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature. 2014;506(7488):364, pmid:24553241
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Grozinger CM, Flenniken ML. Bee viruses: ecology, pathogenicity, and impacts. Annu Rev Entomol. 2019,
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Nanetti A, Bortolotti L, Cilia G. Pathogens spillover from honey bees to other arthropods. Pathog. 2021;10(8):1044., pmid:34451508
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] PubMed/NCBI

[54] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Yañez O, Zheng H-Q, Hu F-L, Neumann P, Dietemann V. A scientific note on Israeli acute paralysis virus infection of eastern honeybee Apis cerana and vespine predator Vespa velutina. Apidologie. 2012;43(5):587–9,
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Loope KJ, Baty JW, Lester PJ, Wilson Rankin EE. Pathogen shifts in a honeybee predator following the arrival of the Varroa mite. P R Soc B. 2019;286(1894):20182499, pmid:30963859
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Schläppi D, Lattrell P, Yañez O, Chejanovsky N, Neumann P. Foodborne transmission of deformed wing virus to ants (Myrmica rubra). Insects. 2019;10(11):394, pmid:31703426
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Yanez O, Piot N, Dalmon A, de Miranda J, Chantawannakul P, Panziera D, et al. Bee viruses: routes of infection in hymenoptera. Front Microbiol. 2020;11(943):1–22, pmid:32547504
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Schläppi D, Chejanovsky N, Yañez O, Neumann P. Foodborne transmission and clinical symptoms of honey bee viruses in ants Lasius spp. Viruses. 2020;12(3):321, pmid:32192027
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Forsgren E, De Miranda JR, Isaksson M, Wei S, Fries I. Deformed wing virus associated with Tropilaelaps mercedesae infesting European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;47(2):87–97.
View Article
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Martin SJ, Highfield AC, Brettell L, Villalobos EM, Budge GE, Powell M, et al. Global honey bee viral landscape altered by a parasitic mite. Science. 2012;336(6086):1304–6,
View Article
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Posada-Florez F, Childers AK, Heerman MC, Egekwu NI, Cook SC, Chen Y, et al. Deformed wing virus type a, a major honey bee pathogen, is vectored by the mite Varroa destructor in a non-propagative manner. BioRxiv. 2019:660985,
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Gisder S, Genersch E. Direct Evidence for infection of Varroa destructor mites with the bee-pathogenic deformed wing virus variant b—but not variant a—via fluorescence-in situ-hybridization analysis. J Virol. 2020, pmid:33298545
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Dobelmann J, Felden A, Lester PJ. Genetic strain diversity of multi-host RNA viruses that infect a wide range of pollinators and associates is shaped by geographic origins. Viruses. 2020;12(3):358, pmid:32213950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Riechert SE, Lockley T. Spiders as biological control agents. Annu Rev Entomol. 1984;29(1):299–320,
View Article
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Martin SJ, Brettell LE. Deformed wing virus in honeybees and other insects. Annu Rev Virol. 2019;6,
View Article
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Tehel A, Brown MJ, Paxton RJ. Impact of managed honey bee viruses on wild bees. Curr Opin Virol. 2016;19:16–22,
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Forzan M, Sagona S, Mazzei M, Felicioli A. Detection of deformed wing virus in Vespa crabro. B Insectol. 2017;70(2):261–5.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Roberts MJ. Collins field guide—Spiders of Britain and northern Europe. London, United Kingdom: HarperCollins Publishers; 1996.

[ref33] 33. De Miranda JR, Cordoni G, Budge G. The acute bee paralysis virus–kashmir bee virus–israeli acute paralysis virus complex. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010;103:30–47,
View Article
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Collatz KG. Structure and function of the digestive tract. In: Nentwig W, editor. Ecophysiology of spiders. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 1987. p. 229–238, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-71552-5_16

[ref35] 35. Tentcheva D, Gauthier L, Zappulla N, Dainat B, Cousserans F, Colin ME, et al. Prevalence and seasonal variations of six bee viruses in Apis mellifera L. and Varroa destructor mite populations in France. Appl Environ Microb. 2004;70(12):7185–91,
View Article
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. De Miranda JR, Bailey L, Ball BV, Blanchard P, Budge GE, Chejanovsky N, et al. Standard methods for virus research in Apis mellifera. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(4):1–56,
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Williams GR, Alaux C, Costa C, Csaki T, Doublet V, Eisenhardt D, et al. Standard methods for maintaining adult Apis mellifera in cages under in vitro laboratory conditions. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(1):1–36,
View Article
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Evans JD, Schwarz RS, Chen YP, Budge G, Cornman RS, De la Rua P, et al. Standard methods for molecular research in Apis mellifera. J Apicul Res. 2013;52(4):1–54,
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Lowenthal MS, Quittman E, Phinney KW. Absolute quantification of RNA or DNA using acid hydrolysis and mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2019;91(22):14569–76, pmid:31638773
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):611–22,
View Article
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Schläppi D, Kettler N, Glauser G, Straub L, Yañez O, Neumann P. Varying impact of neonicotinoid insecticide and acute bee paralysis virus across castes and colonies of black garden ants, Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–14.
View Article
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Zioni N, Soroker V, Chejanovsky N. Replication of varroa destructor virus 1 (VDV-1) and a varroa destructor virus 1–deformed wing virus recombinant (VDV-1–DWV) in the head of the honey bee. Virology. 2011;417(1):106–12,
View Article
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Locke B, Forsgren E, Fries I, De Miranda JR. Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control. Appl Environ Microb. 2012;78(1):227–35, pmid:22020517
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. McMahon DP, Fürst MA, Caspar J, Theodorou P, Brown MJ, Paxton RJ. A sting in the spit: widespread cross‐infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84(3):615–24, pmid:25646973
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Runckel C, Flenniken ML, Engel JC, Ruby JG, Ganem D, Andino R, et al. Temporal analysis of the honey bee microbiome reveals four novel viruses and seasonal prevalence of known viruses, Nosema, and Crithidia. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20656, pmid:21687739
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R version 3.6.3 (2020-02-09), Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

[ref47] 47. Campbell I. Chi‐squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two‐by‐two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med. 2007;26(19):3661–75,
View Article
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Beaurepaire A, Piot N, Doublet V, Antunez K, Campbell E, Chantawannakul P, et al. Diversity and global distribution of viruses of the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insects. 2020;11(4):239, pmid:32290327
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Longdon B, Brockhurst MA, Russell CA, Welch JJ, Jiggins FM. The evolution and genetics of virus host shifts. PLOS Pathog. 2014;10(11):e1004395l, pmid:25375777
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] PubMed/NCBI

[156] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Curtis JT, Carrel JE. Defaecation behaviour of Argiope aurantia (Araneae: Araneidae). Bull Br Arachnol Soc. 2000;11(8):339–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Porter SD, Valles SM, Pereira RM. Scavenging crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) transmit solenopsis invicta virus 3 to red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) colonies. Fla Entomol. 2016;99(4):811–3,
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Eggs B, Sanders D. Herbivory in spiders: the importance of pollen for orb-weavers. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(11):e82637, pmid:24312430
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Schwenke RA, Lazzaro BP, Wolfner MF. Reproduction–immunity trade-offs in insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2016;61:239–56, pmid:26667271
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Yue C, Schröder M, Gisder S, Genersch E. Vertical-transmission routes for deformed wing virus of honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Gen Virol. 2007;88(8):2329–36.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Sampling of spiders & experimental set-up

Preparation of virus-infected honey bees

Virus analyses

Statistical analyses

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Experimental timeline.

Acknowledgments

References