Indirect exposure to insect growth disruptors affects honey bee (Apis mellifera) reproductive behaviors and ovarian protein expression

Julia D. Fine; Leonard J. Foster; Alison McAfee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292176

Abstract

Pesticide exposure and queen loss are considered to be major causes of honey bee colony mortality, yet little is known regarding the effects of regularly encountered agrochemicals on honey bee reproduction. Here, we present the results of a two-generational study using specialized cages to expose queens to commonly used insect growth disrupting pesticides (IGDs) via their retinue of worker bees. Under IGD exposure, we tracked queen performance and worker responses to queens, then the performance of the exposed queens’ offspring was assessed to identify patterns that may contribute to the long-term health and stability of a social insect colony. The positive control, novaluron, resulted in deformed larvae hatching from eggs laid by exposed queens, and methoxyfenozide, diflubenzuron, and novaluron caused a slight decrease in daily egg laying rates, but this was not reflected in the total egg production over the course of the experiment. Curiously, eggs laid by queens exposed to pyriproxyfen exhibited increased hatching rates, and those larvae developed into worker progeny with increased responsiveness to their queens. Additionally, pyriproxyfen and novaluron exposure affected the queen ovarian protein expression, with the overwhelming majority of differentially expressed proteins coming from the pyriproxyfen exposure. We discuss these results and the potential implications for honey bee reproduction and colony health.

Citation: Fine JD, Foster LJ, McAfee A (2023) Indirect exposure to insect growth disruptors affects honey bee (Apis mellifera) reproductive behaviors and ovarian protein expression. PLoS ONE 18(10): e0292176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176

Editor: Ramzi Mansour, University of Carthage, TUNISIA

Received: May 25, 2022; Accepted: September 14, 2023; Published: October 2, 2023

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.

Data Availability: Proteomics data can be found at https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp, accession: MSV000089189 All other data has been provided in supplementary files.

Funding: “Leonard J. Foster was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant and the proteomics work was supported by Genome Canada and Genome BC (264PRO). Alison McAfee was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council postdoctoral fellowship and a L’Oreal-UNESCO postdoctoral fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

Introduction

As agricultural pollinators, honey bees are critical to ensuring that global demands for food production are satisfied [1–4]. However, as a consequence of their use as pollinators, honey bees are often exposed to agrochemicals used to control pests in their foraging environment [5–7]. Exposure to pesticides, including those used in agricultural crops, has been identified as a major contributor to honey bee colony loss [8–10]. Much is known regarding the lethality of high doses of agrochemicals (especially neonicotinoids) on adult worker bees [11–14], but relatively less is understood regarding their sublethal effects [15], perhaps because there are many more endpoints to be considered or because sublethal assessments are not always required to register a pesticide [16]. Even less well understood are the effects of agrochemicals on honey bee queens and colony reproduction [17–19].

Within a colony, reproduction is heavily dependent upon the activity and health of a single, mated queen who is solely responsible for laying fertilized eggs, which hatch and develop into worker bees that make up the bulk of the colony [20]. However, both the queen and the larvae she produces rely upon the coordinated efforts of worker bees for provisioning and care, making the activities inside the nest the result of complex and codependent relationships between the queen, workers and larvae [21, 22]. These relationships are governed by numerous inputs including chemical [23–26], nutritional [27–29], and seasonal signals [30, 31]. However, these signals and the ways in which bees to respond to them can change depending on biological factors such as the health [32], reproductive potential [33, 34], nutritional status [35], and age of honey bees [36]. Given the demonstrated effects of some agrochemicals on aspects of honey bee reproduction [37–41], it is important to consider how pesticides can affect reproductive behaviors such as queen retinue performance and oviposition, as well as how maternal exposure scenarios may affect the health, physiology, and behavior of her offspring.

Agrochemicals are known to have a range of sublethal effects on arthropods, including altered behavior [42–45], changes in feeding patterns [46–49], attractancy and repellency [6, 50, 51], and decreased fecundity [47, 52, 53]. Over the past decade, negative effects of pesticides encountered in worker diet, wax, or generally in the honey bee foraging environment have been identified, impacting metrics like colony expansion and queen supersedure [37–39], decreased sperm viability and reproductive success [40], decreased oviposition [41, 49], queen pheromone production and worker attraction [54, 55], and larval provisioning [56]. Broadly, these studies suggest that in addition to causing toxic effects in adult bees, pesticides affect other members of the colony such as the queen and young larvae, which were previously thought to be somewhat insulated against the most harmful effects of pesticide poisoning by the worker bees that provision and care for them [57]. Because the continued functioning of a honey bee colony depends on the coordinated behaviors of thousands of individuals [21], changes in these behavioral patterns can potentially be devastating to the long-term health of the colony [22, 58].

In this work, we examined the reproductive toxicity to honey bees of three different insect growth disruptor pesticides (IGDs) including the chitin synthesis inhibitor diflubenzuron and the insect hormone mimics pyriproxyfen and methoxyfenozide, all administered at 1 ppm through the workers’ diet, thus exposing queens indirectly in a manner similar to what might occur in the field. Previous work has shown IGDs administered at ten times this concentration can negatively affect egg hatching rates [59], and this lower dose was selected to assess the potential for effects in surviving embryos. This dose is higher than what has been reported for these compounds in samples taken from inside colonies such as wax or stored food [60–62], but field collected pollen can contain residues of IGDs in this range [63]. These IGDs were selected due to their frequent use in almond orchards to control a variety of immature pests during or near the time of bloom [64], when over one million honey bee colonies are used for pollination [65]. Additionally, the chitin synthesis inhibitor novaluron was administered as a positive control at 20 ppm, a concentration known to disrupt brood production in nucleus colonies [63].

Using specialized queen monitoring cages (QMCs), which are similar to microcolonies containing a mated queen and a small compliment of young workers [49, 66], we tracked and monitored oviposition and queen and worker interactions, then used quantitative proteomics to detect changes in the queens’ ovaries. Additionally, we used unexposed colonies to rear larvae from eggs laid by exposed queens, then examined the transovarial effects of the IGDs by monitoring the behavior of the resultant adults when interacting with a novel, unexposed queen. Although oviposition rates of queens are generally lower for queens in QMCs compared to full-sized colonies [67], previous work has shown that QMCs can be used to mimic real-world responses to stressors [49, 66, 68] and to study complex biological phenomena [69]. The results presented here explore not only the effects of IGDs on queens and workers but on the next generation of workers as well, generating insight into the potential long-term effects of IGD exposure on honey bees.

Methods

This study was conducted in two parts: Round 1 and 2. In Round 1, we examined effects of IGD exposure through worker diet on queen performance and worker retinue behavior, and in Round 2, we examined vertical effects of indirect queen exposure on her progeny. In Round 1, queens in QMCs were exposed to IGDs indirectly via worker attendants feeding on IGD-laced diets. Eggs laid by these queens were then fostered and reared to adulthood in untreated colonies. In Round 2, these fostered workers were introduced to new QMCs with unrelated queens.

Round 1: Putative queen exposure via workers

Honey bees.

Honey bee colonies of primarily Italian lineage were kept at the Harry H. Laidlaw Jr. Honey Bee Research Facility at the University of California Davis. On April 22, 2021, five queens were caged on frames of empty wax comb in their respective colonies and released two days later, after laying eggs onto the comb. On May 12, the same frames, now containing capped worker brood, were removed from the colonies and placed in an incubator set at 34.5°C until they eclosed. On May 14, newly eclosed bees were brushed from the frames into the same container, allowed to mix for approximately 30 minutes, and placed in QMCs. See Fig 1 for a comprehensive graphical depiction of our experimental design and timeline.

Download:

Fig 1. Graphical representation of experimental timeline.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g001

QMC assembly.

QMC assembly, maintenance and monitoring methods were adapted from Fine et al. [49]. On May 14 (day 0), 6 g of newly eclosed bees (approximately 60 bees [70, 71]) and a single mated honey bee queen acquired within 48 h from a queen producer (Northern California) were introduced to each QMC. Mated queens were anesthetized with CO₂ for approximately 30 seconds, weighed, and paint marked with an oil-based paint pen (Sharpie, Newell Brands, Atlanta, GA) before being added to the cages. Each QMC was given two feeders containing 50% (wt/wt) aqueous sucrose solution, one feeder containing water, and one feeder containing MegaBee© pollen supplement prepared by mixing 50% sucrose solution with the powdered supplement at a 1:1 ratio by weight (MegaBee LLC, San Diego, CA). Each cage contained one new egg laying plate (designed to mimic the dimensions of natural wax comb but composed of polystyrene with 264 wells [66]) when the experiment began, allowing queens to lay up to 264 eggs during a monitoring period. After day 6, if queens laid more than 100 eggs during a daily monitoring period, they were given an additional plate to facilitate increases in oviposition. Each treatment group consisted of 10 QMCs maintained in incubators for 14 days. One queen death occurred during the monitoring period in the control treatment group. The cage was removed from the experiment and the data were thus censored.

Incubators.

QMCs and were primarily maintained in a Heratherm^TM (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) incubator maintained at 34 ± 0.5°C. To minimize disruptions due to a novel stimulus while imaging, the cages were kept under constant red light with a 9 W red bulb (Amazon Basics, Seattle, WA) suspended from a narrow inlet at the back of the incubator near the top (incubator 1). Relative humidity (RH) was maintained at 75 ± 10% [49] using a saturated sodium chloride aqueous solution placed in the bottom of the incubator. For retinue monitoring, six QMCs from each treatment were moved to a second Heratherm incubator maintained at identical conditions and arranged across four shelves (incubator 2). Each shelf was illuminated by a 9 W bulb as described above. To reduce glare, black construction paper was strategically hung along the inner glass door of the incubator. For more details on retinue monitoring see the section “Camera Monitoring–Retinue Behavior” below.

Treatments.

Treatments were chronically administered via sucrose solution and pollen supplement diet. Treatment groups consisted of 10 cages exposed to either diflubenzuron (DIF-1, Sigma-Aldritch, St. Louis, MO, 98% purity), methoxyfenozide (MET-1, Sigma-Aldritch, St. Louis, MO, 98% purity), or pyriproxyfen (PYR-1, Sigma-Aldritch, St. Louis, MO, 98% purity) each at 1 ppm (wt/wt), or novaluron (POS-CTRL, Sigma-Aldritch, St. Louis, MO, 98% purity) at 20 ppm novaluron (administered as a positive control). For diflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide, and pyriproxyfen-laced diets, 0.01 g of technical grade chemical was first dissolved in 10 mL of 1:1 acetone and methanol solution (hereon referred to as ‘solvent’) due to the limited solubility of methoxyfenozide in pure acetone. For the POS-CTRL-treated sucrose solution, 0.2 g of technical grade chemical were dissolved in 10 mL of solvent. Next, 100 μl of each stock solution was added to 100 g of sucrose solution to produce sucrose diets with final concentrations of 1 ppm (wt/wt) DIF, MET, and PYR and 20 ppm POS-CTRL. For pollen supplement diets, 10 μl of stock solution were added to 5 g of sucrose solution, mixed thoroughly, added to 5 g of powdered supplement and again mixed thoroughly. An equivalent volume of solvent was added to sucrose solution and pollen supplement for the control treatment group (CTRL). Acetone (up to 1%) is the preferred solvent for standardized oral toxicity tests on honey bees [72], and while there is little information available regarding the effects of methanol on honey bees, it appears to be nontoxic to honey bee larvae [73], which have a reduced capacity for the activity of certain detoxification enzymes relative to adults [74], at a concentration of 1%. Here, we use a concentration of 0.1% in diet and did not use an additional control without solvent. All feeders were refilled daily as needed and replaced every two days for the duration of the experiment.

Egg production, mortality and pollen supplement consumption.

Egg production, worker mortality and pollen supplement consumption were quantified according to methods described in Fine et al. [49]. Briefly, QMCs were removed from the incubator in the morning and eggs present in each egg laying plate were counted and removed daily. Unless the eggs were sampled to assess viability or rear to adult eclosion, egg removal was performed destructively. At this time, the number of dead bees in each QMC were counted and removed through feeder holes. Pollen supplement consumption was measured every other day by weighing feeder tubes before placing them into QMCs and recording the difference after they were removed two days later. QMCs were never outside of the incubator for more than 15 minutes while performing all quantitative assessments or sampling.

Camera monitoring–retinue behavior.

On day 4 of the experiment, six QMCs per treatment group were transferred to incubator 2 following daily egg production checks and arranged as shown in Fig 2A for retinue monitoring. The treatments were dispersed evenly across the shelves and arranged so that the clear panel over the egg laying chambers was visible to one of up to three Arlo model VMS440P cameras (Arlo Technologies, San Jose, CA) placed in the center of each shelf. See Fig 2 and S1 Table for more details on the arrangement of cages inside the monitoring incubator.

Download:

Fig 2. The general arrangement of QMCs in incubator 2 for monitoring retinue behavior.

A. The spacing of the maximum number of QMCs (spaces 1–9) and cameras (center) across a single shelf. B. An image taken during retinue monitoring under red light depicting marked queens and unmarked workers. “Interacting” workers are marked with white arrows.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g002

Following a 30 min adjustment period, cameras were accessed remotely and images of the workers and queens inside QMCs were taken, with each camera capturing a maximum of three QMCs in each photo (Fig 2B). Images were taken every 30 s for five min before moving on to the next set of QMCs until all QMCs had been imaged for five minutes. This cycle was repeated three times for a total of 30 images per QMC, and QMCs were then moved back to incubator 1 until the next monitoring period. This procedure was repeated on days 5 and 6.

The retinue responses of worker bees to queens in each image was scored by counting the number of workers licking, grooming, antennating, or otherwise interacting with or facing the queen within an approximate distance of one cell. These observations were recorded by observers blinded to treatment.

Embryo viability and queen and worker sampling.

On day 7, 10 workers were sampled from each QMC for future work. On days 8 and 9, plates of eggs were sampled from four to eight QMCs per treatment (4 queens DIF-1, 4 MET-1, 5 PYR-1, 8 POS-CTRL, and 6 CTRL-1) depending on the number of eggs available, and hatching rates were assessed according to methods in Fine 2020 [59]. Briefly, egg laying plates were covered with a PCR plate seal and a universal plate lid after removing them from QMCs and replacing them with new, empty plates. The plates containing eggs were placed in a chamber maintained at 95% RH with a saturated potassium sulfate solution inside incubator 1. Approximately 72 h later, the egg laying plates were removed to assess hatching rates. Each egg laying plate was kept outside of the incubator for no longer than 25 min for these assessments before covering the plates and returning them to incubator 1. The following day, hatching rates were assessed again. In total, between 330–682 eggs were assessed per treatment (n = 476 eggs DIF-1, 581 MET-1, 467 PYR-1, 682 POS-CTRL, 330 CTRL-1, S1 Data).

On day 11, three to four plates of eggs per treatment (4 plates DIF-1, 4 MET-1, 4 PYR-1, 3 POS-CTRL, and 4 CTRL-1) were sampled from QMCs to assess deformities of the cuticle in newly hatched larvae (see Fig 3 for a description of noted deformities). Egg laying plates were maintained as described above, and after approximately 72 h, newly hatched larvae on each plate were randomly selected for closer examination under a microscope. Depending on the number of hatched larvae available, 3–29 larvae per plate or 37–62 larvae per treatment were imaged (S1 Data). Images were taken of the larvae at 16x magnification using an Olympus SZX10 microscope and an EP50 camera (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and the presence of deformed cuticle or normal anatomy (Fig 3) was recorded by an observer blind to treatment groups. On day 14, queens were removed from QMCs, weighed, and flash frozen for proteomic analysis.

Download:

Fig 3. Images of larvae hatched from eggs laid by queens exposed to IGDs in Round 1.

Left: Larva with apparently normal anatomy. Segmentation and anatomical features like spiracles and head capsule are discernable and larva is curled in a “c” shape. Right: Deformed larva. Smooth cuticle without the appearance of segmentation. Anatomical features like spiracles and head capsule are difficult to discern. Larvae has failed to curl into a “c” shape after hatching.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g003

Proteomics sample preparation.

All queens that were alive at the conclusion of Round 1 (except for 1 PYR-1 queen lost during sampling) were shipped on dry ice to the University of British Columbia, where ovaries were dissected from previously frozen queens (n = 10 queens DIF-1, 10 MET-1, 9 PYR-1, 10 POS-CTRL, and 9 CTRL-1) under a dissecting scope and weighed. Ovaries were then placed in tissue extraction tubes (2.0 mL DuraTube) containing 800 μl of guanidinium chloride extraction buffer (6 M guanidinium chloride, 100 mM Tris, pH 8.0) and four ceramic homogenization beads. Proteins were extracted, precipitated and solubilized as previously described [75], with some modifications. Briefly, after homogenization, the sample was clarified by centrifugation (16,000 g, 10 min) and 100 μl of the supernatant under the upper fatty layer was removed and mixed with 100 μl of ultrapure water ahead of acetone precipitation (800 μl of ice-cold, 100% acetone; -20°C, overnight). The precipitated protein was pelleted (5,000 g, 15 min) and washed three times with 500 μl of 80% acetone (ice-cold), ensuring the pellet was disrupted again with each wash. The rest of the extraction and digestion protocol was performed as previously described [75]. The protein was solubilized in urea buffer (6 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 100 mM Tris, pH 8.0), quantified using a Bradford assay, 25 μg of each sample was reduced using dithiothreitol, alkylated using iodoacetamide, and digested with lys-C and trypsin overnight. Peptides were desalted using the stop-and-go-extraction (STAGE) tip method [76] and quantified using a nanodrop (A280 nm).

Desalted peptides (300 ng suspended in buffer A: 0.1% formic acid, 2% acetonitrile in ultrapure water) were injected on a liquid chromatography system (Easy-nLC 1200; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) coupled to an Impact II Q-TOF mass spectrometer (Bruker Corporation, Billerica, MA). Samples were injected in randomized order. The LC system used a CaptiveSpray ionization source (Bruker Daltonics) and an Aurora Series Gen2 (CSI) analytical column, (25cm x 75μm 1.6μm FSC C18, with Gen2 nanoZero and CSI fitting; Ion Opticks, Parkville, Victoria, Australia). The analytical column was heated to 50°C using a tape heater (SRMU020124, Omega.com, and in-house build microprocessor temperature controller). The separation gradient ran from 5–13% buffer B over 45 min, then to 35% buffer B from 45 to 90 min, then to 90% buffer B over 2 min, and held at this solvent for 13 min. The LC flow rate was 0.4 μL/min. Before each run, the analytical column was conditioned with 4 μL of buffer A.

The Impact II was run with oTOF Control v. 5.2 (Bruker). The LC and MS systems were controlled with HyStar 5.0 SR1 (5.0.37.0, Bruker). The Impact II was set to acquire in a data-dependent auto-MS/MS mode with inactive focus fragmenting the 20 most abundant ions (one at the time at 18 Hz rate) after each full-range scan from m/z 200 Th to m/z 2000 Th (at 5 Hz rate). The isolation window for MS/MS was 2 to 3 Th depending on parent ion mass to charge ratio and the collision energy ranged from 23 to 65 eV depending on ion mass and charge. Parent ions were then excluded from MS/MS for the next 0.3 min and reconsidered if their intensity increased more than five-fold. Singly charged ions were excluded and strict active exclusion was applied. The error of mass measurement was typically within 5 ppm and not allowed to exceed 10 ppm. The CaptiveSpray source was operated at 1900 V capillary voltage, 0.25 Bar pressure with methanol in the nanoBooster, 3 L/min drying gas, and 150°C drying temperature. More detailed instrument parameters can be found within the “microTOFQImpactAcquisition.method” file located within the .m folder of each sample’s publicly available data folder (hosted by MassIVE (https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp), accession: MSV000089189).

Data processing.

Mass spectrometry data were searched as previously described [77] using MaxQuant (v 1.6.1.0) [78] with default parameters, except that “match between runs” and “label-free quantification” were enabled. The data were searched against the honey bee reference proteome available on NCBI (based on the genome build HAv3.1) with all honey bee virus and Nosema proteins included in the fasta file (A. mellifera: 23,460; N. apis: 3,095; N. ceranae: 10,048; DWV: 138; SBV: 232; ABPV: 6; BQCV: 35; VDV: 3; KBV: 33; IAPV: 91), which is available with the raw data hosted on MassIVE (MSV000089189). All sequences were downloaded on Nov 18^th, 2019. The proteinGroups.txt file was imported to Perseus (v 1.6.1.1) [79], where proteins only identified by site, potential contaminants, and reverse hits were removed, followed by proteins identified in fewer than three replicates of each group. This filtered the total protein groups from 2,816 down to 1,451 quantified protein groups, which is the set upon which we performed our statistical analysis.

Round 2: Monitoring workers following putative maternal exposure

Larval fostering.

On May 21, egg laying plates were removed from the six Round 1 QMCs that had the highest number of eggs in DIF-1, MET-1, PYR-1, and CTRL-1 treatment groups and replaced with new, empty plates. POS-CTRL was excluded as the larvae were almost all non-viable. The plates containing eggs were labeled and pressed into frames of wax comb with two on each side so that the eggs faced outward and each frame contained one plate from each treatment group. Each of the six frames were placed in separate foster colonies.

On June 3, 13 days after the eggs were laid into the egg laying plates, the frames were removed from the foster colonies and the plates, now containing capped brood, were placed in live insect containers (BioQuip, Rancho Dominguez, CA) measuring 17.78 x 11.43 x 12.70 cm. Each container housed two plates from the same treatment group with the capped cells facing inwards and maintained in incubator 1 until adult bees eclosed from the plates. See S2 Table for details including the QMC source, number of eggs on each plate, and the number of bees eclosing in each container.

QMC assembly.

Bees eclosed in their containers from June 8 to 11, or 18–21 after eggs were laid, and the resulting adult workers were placed in QMCs according to maternal treatment with 1/10^th of a Tempqueen lure (INTKO Supply, Chilliwack, BC) on a safety pin suspended with fishing line from the top of the cage. These lures, which are impregnated with a synthetic blend of nine-component queen pheromone [80] equivalent to that of ten queens, were administered to newly eclosed bees in lieu of a mated queen because early exposure to queen pheromone has been shown to affect the behavioral development of young worker bees [23]. Upon eclosion, up to 10 bees per container per day were weighed, then added to QMCs. Eclosing bees were checked twice per day, once in the morning and once in the evening. Between 55 and 61 bees were added to each QMC, except one cage containing workers from eggs laid by queens exposed to diflubenzuron, which only contained 41 bees. Omitting this cage did not appreciably change the results of analyses of egg production and retinue response and it was therefore not censored from any datasets. On June 10 and 11, 20–21 days after the eggs were laid, a new, mated queen from the same supplier was marked, weighed, and added to QMCs containing enough workers following the protocol described above. The evaluation and performance of all subsequent bioassays was staggered within cages (unless stated otherwise) according to when the queen was added to the QMC (day 0). In total, five QMCs were composed with workers maternally exposed to diflubenzuron or control treatment (CTRL-2 and DIF-2), and six and seven QMCs were made with workers maternally exposed to pyriproxyfen and methoxyfenozide respectively (PYR-2 and MET-2). QMCs were given feeders containing untreated sucrose solution, pollen supplement, and water and were maintained as previously described in incubator 1.

Assessments and sampling.

Assessments including egg production, pollen supplement consumption and retinue behavior were performed as described for Round 1. Retinue behavior was assessed four, five, and six days after queens were added to cages (day 0) for all cages (n = 5 cages CTRL-2, n = 5 DIF-2, n = 6 PYR-2, n = 7 MET-2). See S1 Table for details on the placement of cages in incubator 2. Hatching was assessed by sampling plates of eggs from QMCs on June 17, or days 6 or 7 (5 QMCs CTRL-2, 5 DIF-2, 5 MET-2, 6 PYR-2). Hatching was then assessed as described above, (n = 902 eggs CTRL-2, n = 877 DIF-2, n = 1029 PYR-2, n = 1099 MET-2, see S2 Data). On June 18 (days 7 or 8), 10 adult workers were sampled from cages.

Statistical analysis

Poisson log-linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an auto-regressive (AR-1) correlation matrix structure were implemented to assess treatment related changes in egg production and worker retinue response over time. In an AR-1 correlation matrix structure, the correlations between data points within a subject are assumed to decay as they become further apart, and it is therefore the most appropriate for clustered longitudinal data [81]. Of the available distributions [82], Poisson log-linear distribution was selected based on the data’s characteristics [81]. For Round 2, the first two days of egg laying were excluded from the analysis to prevent model singularity. Time (day) was treated as a continuous variable, treatment was categorical, and Wald chi-square post hoc tests were used to determine significance. Pesticides are known to cause changes in behavior over time [45, 83], and therefore, interaction terms were included in GEE models. Post hoc Dunnett’s tests were used to determine significance between each treatment group and the Ctrl group.

A binomial generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM) was used to assess the effects of maternal treatment on the number of successful adult eclosions with insect container treated as a random effect. Similarly, binomial GLMMs were used to assess hatching rates of eggs collected in Round 1 with QMC (queen) and the day that they were laid treated as random effects. In Round 2, eggs were sampled once per queen, so, to avoid singularity, only plate (queen) was used as a random effect. Post hoc Dunnett’s tests were again used to evaluate significance between treatment groups and the Ctrl group for both GLMM analyses. To avoid violating assumptions of normality, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunn’s tests were used to assess differences in the weight change of queens during QMC experiments, the weight of eclosing adult bees by treatment, pollen consumption, the total sum of eggs laid by queens, the number of larvae eclosed from eggs with deformed cuticle, and the timing of adult eclosion by treatment group. Kaplan Meier survivorship analysis was used to evaluate treatment dependent differences in the survival of adult and queen bees. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.0.4 (Boston, MA, USA). Differences in ovary masses were evaluated using a one-way ANOVA after confirming equal variance (Levene test, p = 0.51) and normality (Shapiro test, p > 0.19 for all groups).

Statistical analyses of the mass spectrometry data were performed within Perseus using student’s T tests to compare protein expression between each treatment group and the control. This is a typical approach in proteomics, where it is not feasible to test every protein for normality and equal variance, dictating different tests to be used. Instead, all proteins are subjected to the same test and global false discovery rates (FDRs) are controlled (in this case, using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction to 5% FDR).

Results

Round 1: Putative queen exposure via workers

Bioassay results.

The worker diets containing diflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide, and the positive control novaluron had a significant negative effect on daily egg laying relative to the control diet (GEE, n = 10 cages, DIF-1: β = -0.407, Dunnett’s test p = 0.002; MET-1: β = -0.934, p≤0.001; POS-CTRL: β = -0.341, p = 0.014) (Fig 4A). None of the treatments had a significant effect on the total number of eggs laid (Kruskal-Wallis, n = 9–10 cages, chi squared = 6.21, p = 0.184) (Fig 4B). Treated worker diets had no effect on retinue response in Round 1 (GEE, n = 6 cages, all groups Dunnett’s tests p˃0.05 (Fig 4C). See S3 Table for a summary of the results of the GEE analyses. Pyriproxyfen had a significant positive effect on hatching rate relative to Ctrl (GLMM, n = 330–682 eggs, PYR-1: Z = 2.56, Dunnett’s test p = 0.0371, and novaluron treatment resulted in significantly more first instar larvae eclosing with deformed cuticles relative to all treatment groups (Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared = 170, p≤0.001, Dunn’s test CTRL-1: POS-CTRL, MET-1: POS-CTRL, DIF: 1- POS-CTRL, PYR-1: POS-CTRL: p≤0.001) (Fig 4D and 4E).

Download:

Fig 4. Queen and worker exposure bioassay results.

Error bars represent standard deviations. Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range. NS = not significant. Unless otherwise stated, each dot represents a biological replicate. a) Eggs laid by queens in each exposure group were counted daily. Lines and large dots represent average eggs laid across replicates (queens). Small dots depict eggs laid by individual queens. b) Total eggs laid over the course of the experiment (14 d). c) number of bees participating in queen retinues. d) Egg hatching rates. e) Frequency of deformed cuticle phenotype in newly hatched larvae. *** p < 0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g004

No differences were detected between treatment groups in the consumption of pollen supplement (Kruskal-Wallis, n = 9–10 cages, chi-squared = 2.00, p = 0.700, and only a single CTRL queen died during the experiment (S1A-S1C Fig). Treatment had no effect on worker survival (Kaplan Meier, chi-squared = 3.1, p = 0.5), and over the two week monitoring period, mortality rates remained below 3.2% on average across all groups. Total numbers of eggs and larvae evaluated for rate of hatching and deformities are in S1D and S1E Fig. No difference was detected between treatment groups in queen weight change (n = 9–10 queens, chi-squared = 3.00, p = 0.600) (S1F Fig). See S1 Data for more details.

Proteomics results.

We used label-free quantitative proteomics to investigate patterns of protein expression in the ovaries of exposed and unexposed queens (n = 9 control queens, 9 pyriproxyfen, 10 novaluron, 10 methoxyfenozide, and 10 diflubenzuron). We identified 2,816 protein groups in total, 1,451 of which were considered quantified after filtering (see Methods). Since vitellogenin uptake (such as what occurs in the ovaries) and major royal jelly protein (MRJP) expression are among the processes that could be regulated by growth hormones [84–86], we first tested the hypothesis that IGR exposure could cause changes in vitellogenin or major royal jelly protein abundance in the ovaries. MRJP-1, MRJP-3, vitellogenin, and vitellogenin precursor proteins were among those quantified, but their abundances were not different with respect to the control queens (S2 Fig).

Next, we investigated global patterns of differential protein abundance between exposure groups and found that 55 proteins were significantly different from the control (5% FDR, Benjamini-Hochberg correction; Fig 5). These differences were driven entirely by the pyriproxyfen treatment (54 significantly different proteins) and the novaluron treatment (three significantly different proteins, two of which were also different in the pyriproxyfen group); therefore, these are the only groups displayed. For complete protein quantification data for all groups, see S3 Data. No proteins in the diflubenzuron or methoxyfenozide groups were significantly altered. Proteins of particular interest are shown in Fig 6.

Download:

Fig 5. Heat-map of proteins differentially expressed in ovaries of control and pyriproxyfen-exposed queens and between control and novaluron-exposed queens.

Protein accessions (NCBI) are shown in the dendrogram. No other proteins were differentially expressed relative to controls (student’s t-tests relative to controls, 5% false discovery rate, Benjamini-Hochberg correction). Hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidian distance (300 clusters, max 10 iterations). *protein was differentially expressed only in novaluron exposures. **protein was differentially expressed in both novaluron and pyriproxyfen exposures. No asterisk: protein was differentially expressed in pyriproxyfen exposures only.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g005

Download:

Fig 6. Differentially expressed proteins of interest.

Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range. a) OBP21 (NP_001035296.1), Hu-li tai shao protein (XP_016772165.1), and HSF binding protein 1 (NP_001129659.1) expression. b) HSP cognate 5 (NP_001153520.1), HSP 60A (XP_392899.2), and HSP cognate 3 (NP_001153524.1) were downregulated in queens from pyriproxyfen treatments. c) Putative stress-response proteins, GST (glutathione-S-transferase; XP_026295756.1), stress-response protein NST-1 (XP_625029.2), and a GST domain-containing protein (XP_393141.2; officially named “failed axon connections isoform X1”) were upregulated. d) The three proteins differentially expressed in ovaries of novaluron-exposed queens are α,α-trehalose phosphate synthase (XP_026297283.1), uncharacterized protein DDB_G0283697 (XP_026297296.1), and enoyl reductase (XP_395130.4). * p < 0.005, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.0001, **** p < 0.00001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g006

Round 2: Monitoring workers following putative maternal exposure

Receiving care from maternally-exposed workers did not have an effect on the laying rates of new queens (GEE, all groups Dunnett’s tests p˃0.05, S4 Table) or their total eggs produced (Fig 7A and 7B, Kruskal-Wallis, n = 5–7 cages, chi squared = 1.34, p = 0.720). Maternal exposure to pyriproxyfen significantly increased worker retinue responsiveness to the new queens relative to control (GEE, n = 5–7 cages, β = 0.719, Dunnett’s test p = 0.045) (Fig 7C). See S4 Table for a summary of the GEE analyses. Receiving care from maternally-exposed workers did not affect the egg hatching rate of eggs laid by new queens (GLMM, n = 877–1099 hatching events, all groups Dunnett’s tests p˃0.05) (Fig 7D) or rate of adult eclosions relative to controls (GLMM, n = 508–1035 adult eclosion events, all groups Dunnett’s tests p˃0.05) (Fig 7E).

Download:

Fig 7. Second generation bioassay results.

Error bars represent the standard deviation. Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range. NS = not significant. a & b) eggs laid were recorded daily. c) Number of bees participating in queen retinues. d) Egg hatching rates. e) Adult eclosion rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g007

Treatment also had no effect on worker pollen consumption (Kruskal-Wallis, n = 5–7 cages, chi-squared = 2.00, p = 0.700), queen weight change (n = 5–7, chi-squared = 3.00, p = 0.600), or weight at adult eclosion (n = 69–111 bees, chi-squared = 4.95, p = 0.176) (Figs S3 and 8A and 8B). However, treatment had a significant effect on the timing of adult eclosion. Maternal exposure to diflubenzuron and methoxyfenozide resulted in significantly longer average time to adult eclosion relative to maternal exposure to pyriproxyfen or the control group (Kuskal-Wallis, n = 304–432 bees, chi-squared = 35.705, p≤0.001, Dunn’s test CTRL-DIF: Z = -2.415, p = 0.0236; CTRL-MET: Z = -3.272, p = 0.00214; DIF-MET: Z = -0.634, p = 0.526; CTRL-PYR: Z = 4.356, p≤0.001; MET-PYR: Z = 5.434, p≤0.001) (Fig 8C and 8D). Maternal pesticide treatment had no effect on worker survival (Kaplan Meier, n = 281–417 bees, chi-squared = 1.6, p = 0.700). Over the two week monitoring period, mortality rates remained below 1.7% on average across all groups, and no queen death was observed. See S2 Data for more details.

Download:

Fig 8. Queen weight change, adult eclosion masses, and timing of adult eclosion for Round 2 cage-trials.

Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range. NS = not significant. a) Adult queen weight change during the experiment. Each dot represents one queen. b) Adult worker eclosion masses. Each dot represents one worker (technical replicate). Biological replicates (cages) are shown above each box. c) Average adult eclosion day. Error bars indicate standard deviation and letters indicate statistically significant differences. d) Total individuals eclosing on each day.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.g008

Discussion

In this work, we demonstrated that indirectly exposing queens to a juvenile hormone (JH) analog (pyriproxyfen) through the workers’ diet increased egg hatching rates, and offspring of queens cared for by exposed workers showed an increased responsiveness to novel queens. In contrast, the same doses of the ecdysteroid agonist, methoxyfenozide, and the chitin synthesis inhibitor diflubenzuron, which negatively affected daily oviposition rates, did not affect the behavior of offspring. Based on these results and previously reported findings [59], we hypothesized that there may be transovarial effects of IGD pesticides, and sought to investigate this by conducting shot-gun proteomics on ovary tissue. Interestingly, we found that pyriproxyfen exposure had the most dramatic effect on ovary protein expression, and some of the differentially expressed proteins have well-defined stress response functions, including several heat-shock proteins. By contrast, the positive control, novaluron (administered at a dose 20 times higher than the other treatments), which negatively affected queen oviposition and larval deformity rates, caused only a small change in protein expression with just three differentially expressed proteins (two overlapping with the pyriproxyfen group). Without mechanistic studies, we cannot definitively say which, if any, of the differentially expressed proteins may have led to increased hatching rates in the pyriproxyfen group, but an intriguing hypothesis to test will be the relationship between maternal heat-shock protein expression and egg hatching rates.

While this work did not determine whether the observed effects were due to direct exposure of queens to the pesticide treatments through worker trophallactic feedings or due to effects of the treatments on the worker caretakers, the former route is supported by the absence of any observed behavioral effects on workers directly exposed to the treatments, particularly for pyriproxyfen. In workers, rising JH titers accelerate the behavioral transition away from in-hive task like queen care [87, 88]. If pyriproxyfen had affected workers, the anticipated effect would have been decreased queen care behaviors and decreased queen oviposition, but this was not observed. Whether queens were exposed directly or indirectly, the effects we observed are important because pyriproxyfen and other insect growth regulating pesticides are generally not thought to affect honey bee queen offspring following an exposure event. However, here we see that adult exposure can affect honey bee reproduction by affecting queen ovarian tissue, embryo survival, and the behavior of worker offspring.

In insects, maternal environment is known to affect various biological characteristics in offspring including survival, developmental timing, onset of diapause, egg production, size, and pupal and adult weight [89–93]. Likewise, honey bees have evolved different responses to stress and natural conditions that affect aspects of reproduction. In temperate climates [94], and perhaps to some extent in warmer regions as well [95], the queen will cease laying or greatly reduce her output of eggs during winter months when temperatures are generally cooler and there is a dearth of resources available to foragers. Similarly, prior to swarming, queens will lose weight presumedly due to decreased worker provisioning [96]. Recently, colony nutrient deprivation has been shown to affect the size and survivorship of honey bee queen-laid embryos [97]. Curiously, queens in pollen restricted colonies laid larger eggs that survive to adult eclosion in foster colonies at higher rates than eggs from unrestricted colonies. This suggests that, like other insect taxa, maternal stress can affect honey bee worker development, in this case by increasing maternal investment in her offspring. This type of compensatory response may be particularly advantageous for social insects whose long-term survival is heavily dependent on the continued production of new worker bees [67]. Indeed, this type of response has also been observed in starved worker larvae who demonstrate increased responsiveness to queens as adults [28]. Worker care is critical to a queen’s success; without workers to care for her, the queen will cease to produce eggs [20, 67], and relatedly, workers may be less interested in caring for a poorly performing queen [34, 98]. This equation must be precisely balanced, or colony populations dwindle, which may eventually lead to colony loss [58, 99]. The work described here, which demonstrated increased responsiveness to queens in the worker offspring of queens exposed to pyriproxyfen, may describe another compensatory response to stress on the part of queen honey bees.

In colony studies, high doses of JH analogs have been shown to be reproductive toxins, resulting in brood and embryo mortality following colony-level feedings [53, 100–102]. Our proteomics analysis of queen ovaries shows that Glutathione S-transferase S1, a putative detoxification enzyme [103], was upregulated following pyriproxyfen exposure, suggesting that some pesticide related stress was occurring in ovarian tissues. Another protein, named Stress response protein NST1, was also upregulated in ovaries from queens exposed to pyriproxyfen; however, exactly why this is called a “stress response protein” is unclear. The protein has GO terms linked to nervous system development (GO:0007399), gamete generation (GO:0007276), movement of cells during oogenesis (GO:0007298), and germ cell migration (GO:0008354), likely driven by microtubule polymerization (GO:00311100). Moreover, the broader pattern of protein expression is not entirely consistent with the hypothesis that pyriproxyfen triggers a canonical stress response.

Among the other differentially expressed proteins were Hu-li tai shao protein, which, like Stress response protein NST1, was upregulated in pyriproxyfen-treated queens, and has been previously linked to oogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster [104]. OBP21, which was downregulated in pyriproxyfen exposed queens, is a putative soluble odorant receptor [105]; however, OBPs have been repeatedly identified in non-olfactory tissues, and are abundant in honey bee spermathecal fluid and drone ejaculates [106, 107]. We postulate that they could have dual roles in hormone trafficking or signaling. Heat-shock factor binding protein (HSFBP)1, which was upregulated, acts as a negative regulator of the heat-shock response in other animals [108], and indeed, patterns of heat-shock protein (HSP) expression here were correspondingly downregulated.

HSPs are stress response proteins linked to extreme temperatures [75, 107, 109–113], pesticide exposure [114, 115], and viral infections [116] in honey bees, however, the expression patterns observed in pyriproxyfen exposed queen tissue are inconsistent with a typical stress response. While previous work cited above has shown that HSPs are upregulated in response to diverse stressors, here, the three HSPs identified were downregulated. This suggests that the observed behavioral shift in queen offspring and the increased hatching rates following maternal pyriproxyfen exposure may not be solely attributable to stress.

In solitary insects, JH induces vitellogenesis related to egg production [117], but in worker honey bees, its role has shifted. Rising JH levels in the hemolymph of worker bees is associated with behavioral maturation and triggers a shift from nursing and other in-hive activities to foraging [87, 118, 119]. Here, worker exposure to a JH analog did not result in reduced queen care behaviors, suggesting it had minimal impacts on worker behavioral maturation at the dose tested. It did, however, affect reproduction in a seemingly positive manner, and pyriproxyfen was the only maternal treatment that did not result in delayed adult eclosion relative to control.

During development, JH regulates ovarian development [120, 121], and supplementing queen larval diet with JH has been shown to increase the reproductive quality of queens [122]. While increasing JH titers are not known to play a role in oogenesis in adult workers, and in fact, may have a slight inhibitory effect [123], in adult queens, its function has not been well explored. Previous work has shown that hemolymph titers of JH are higher in pre-vitellogenic queens or queens prevented from laying, suggesting that JH may inhibit oogenesis in honey bee queens [124]. However, the referenced work did not introduce exogenous JH to queens but measured the naturally occurring levels in queens that either could not lay or were not likely to lay given their reproductive status. In this work, we indirectly exposed queens to JH through worker diet but did not measure JH titers in the hemolymph. Mated queens in QMCs were given sufficient space to lay, and we observed no differences in the oviposition rates of pyriproxyfen exposed queens.

Beyond the curious effects of pyriproxyfen, the results described here are largely consistent with previous work, with a few novel observations. As shown in previous studies with QMCs [49, 59, 66], egg production rates generally increased over the two week monitoring periods, but apparent declines midway through the experiments may be attributed to disruptive sampling procedures, suggesting that such activities should be limited. Like oviposition rates, retinue responses of workers generally increased over time. These observations may be attributable to the bees adapting to the cage environment, and their consistency with previous experiments demonstrating realistic responses of bees to stimuli in QMCs [49, 66] suggests that the novel conditions introduced here such as the red light in the incubators was not overly disruptive to the bees. The spectrum of the light produced by the red lights used in this work was not described and may have contained shorter wavelength light (below 650 nm) which would be visible to bees [125].

Previous work has shown that ten-fold higher doses of diflubenzuron and methoxyfenozide cause decreased hatching rates without affecting the total number of eggs produced by exposed queens [59]. Here, hatching rates were not affected at a lower dose, and methoxyfenozide, diflubenzuron, and novaluron caused decreased daily oviposition rates. This is not inconsistent with previous findings, given that the referenced study considered the total sum of eggs laid during the treatment period and not daily oviposition rates (here, we tested both the summed total and daily oviposition rates, and the latter was more sensitive at detecting differences). However, twice the dose of novaluron compared to what was used in the previous study did not change hatching rates whereas in the previous study, fewer eggs from novaluron exposed queens had hatched three days after they were laid. However, we did observe that the majority of larvae hatching from novaluron exposed eggs were severely deformed and not likely to be viable. It is notable that in this work, egg hatching was observed for an extra day. While the three day temporal window was selected based on the reported variation in time to first instar eclosion for worker honey bees [126], it is possible that following maternal exposure to reproductively toxic pesticides, damaged eggs may initiate hatching later than healthy, less affected eggs. Therefore, when conducting embryo-fetal development studies on honey bees, we recommend examining hatching rates over four days to improve sensitivity of these assays.

Despite the obvious physiological effects of novaluron on embryos, only three proteins were significantly different in novaluron-treated queen ovarian tissue (Fig 7D). The role these three proteins may play in oogenesis or embryogenesis is unclear, and it will be particularly important to elucidate the roles of the two proteins differentially expressed in both novaluron and pyriproxyfen treatments. Enoyl-ACP reductase (XP_395130.4) was upregulated only in the novaluron group, and this protein is thought to be involved in fatty acid metabolism and synthesis of cuticular hydrocarbons [127]. Of the proteins differentially expressed in both novaluron and pyriproxyfen groups, one is currently uncharacterized (XP_026297296.1), and the other is annotated as α,α-trehalose phosphate synthase (XP_026297283.1). Trehalose phosphate synthase is a key enzyme in the trehalose biosynthetic pathway [128, 129]. Trehalose is an important hemolymph sugar and has been linked to tolerance of desiccation stress [130] and temperature stress [131, 132] in insects. Interestingly, insects unable to hydrolyze trehalose have abnormal phenotypes, such as weight loss, lethal metamorphosis, disrupted chitin synthesis, and poor stress recovery, among others, and trehalose hydrolase expression is thought to be under hormonal control [129]. Trehalose is considered to be an anti-stress metabolite, providing a source of energy while stabilizing proteins and membranes after exposure to extreme temperatures.

Further examination of the proteins affected by novaluron or pyriproxyfen exposure will elucidate their roles in oogenesis and embryogenesis, but the limited effects on the maternal ovarian proteome caused by novaluron exposure suggest that the effects on the hatching first instar larvae may have been due to contact via workers or maternal offloading of novaluron to developing eggs, though the former may be unlikely as the eggs were removed within a day of being laid. Previous work had shown that IGDs can persist in insect eggs following maternal exposure, resulting in embryo mortality [133]. During honey bee embryogenesis, chitin synthesis does not begin until after eggs are laid [134], therefore if novaluron were offloaded into the oocytes, major effects might not become apparent until after the eggs were laid and chitin synthesis had begun.

The methods used in this work allow for precision monitoring of queens and their reproductive output, which may eventually lead to insights regarding the physiology of queens and the long-term impacts of stress and disrupted hormone homeostasis on colonies. Here, we identified vertical effects of pyriproxyfen, a JH analog used in honey bee-pollinated crops during and adjacent to the blooming period. The doses of pyriproxyfen, diflubenzuron, and methoxyfenozide used are similar to residues of novaluron in freshly collected pollen [63], which bees have been shown to prefer [135], therefore we theorize that this dose may represent a worst-case scenario for honey bee colonies. Regardless, the finding that maternal agrochemical exposure can behaviorally alter the next cohort of worker bees is significant. Already, it is well known that perturbations to a colony’s population balance can affect the longevity of the colony unit [58, 83, 99], but little is known about how stressors on queens can influence colony dynamics. This work suggests that while queens may not be wholly protected against the effects of external stress, they may have evolved strategies to compensate for such effects. Future work exploring the effects on worker offspring physiology and the longitudinal consequences for pyriproxyfen exposed colonies may help elucidate the consequences of maternal pyriproxyfen exposure in honey bees.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. First generation pollen consumption, queen weight change, and worker death.

Error bars represent standard deviation. Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range. Each dot represents a different replicate. No significant differences were found in any comparisons. a) Total pollen consumption over the course of the experiment. b) Queen weight change 14 d after initial worker-mediated exposure. c) Number of workers dying over the course of the experiment. d) Total number of eggs evaluated to determine hatching rates. e) Total number of larvae imaged for evaluation of cuticle deformities. f) Ovary masses of exposed queens.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Expression of major royal jelly proteins and vitellogenin proteins in ovaries of queens.

LFQ = label-free quantitation. NS = not significant (Benjamini-Hochberg correction, 5% FDR). Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Second generation pollen consumption.

No significant differences were found. Boxes represent the interquartile range, bars indicate the median, and whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s003

(TIF)

S1 Table. The identity of each QMC placed in incubator 2.

Retinue monitoring spaces on shelves 1–4 for the first generation (Round 1) queen and worker exposure and the second worker generation (Round 2) after maternal exposure. Space numbers correspond to numbered spaces depicted in Fig 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s004

(DOC)

S2 Table. The QMC source identity of plates placed in foster colonies, the identity of the insect container the plates were placed in once the eggs had been reared to pupation, the number of eggs present on each plate, and the number of adults eclosing in each container.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s005

(DOC)

S3 Table. Summary of the results of the GEE analyses for daily egg laying and worker retinue responses–Round 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s006

(DOC)

S4 Table. Summary of the results of the GEE analyses for daily egg laying and worker retinue responses–Round 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s007

(DOC)

S1 Data. Round 1 data including pollen consumption, queen weight change, retinue observations, egg production, worker mortality, egg eclosion rates, and rates of larval deformities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s008

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Round 2 data including pollen consumption, queen weight change, retinue observations, egg production, worker mortality, egg eclosion rates, and adult emergence timing and mass.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s009

(XLSX)

S3 Data. Mass spectrometry sample metadata and ovary protein quantification data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292176.s010

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Amy Floyd and Eliza Litsey for their general assistance with this project. Thanks to Bernardo Niño for his technical assistance with the cameras used for monitoring honey bee behaviors, and thank you to Professor Gene E. Robinson for providing useful feedback on this manuscript. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

References

1. Southwick EE, Southwick L. Estimating the economic value of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. J Econ Entomol. 1992;85: 621–633.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Calderone NW. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e37235. pmid:22629374
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM. Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Curr. Biol. 2008;18: 1572–1575. pmid:18926704
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Hackett KJ. Bee benefits to agriculture. Agric Res. 2004;52: 2–3.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Hedlund J, Longo SB, York R. Agriculture, pesticide use, and economic development: A global examination (1990–2014). Rural Sociol. 2020;85: 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12303
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Metcalf RL, Luckmann WH. Introduction to Insect Pest Management. John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e29268. pmid:22235278
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347. pmid:25721506
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Spivak M, Mader E, Vaughan M, Euliss NH. The plight of the bees. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 34–38. pmid:20839858
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Steinhauer N, Kulhanek K, Antúnez K, Human H, Chantawannakul P, Chauzat M-P, et al. Drivers of colony losses. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;26: 142–148. pmid:29764654
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Zhu YC, Yao J, Adamczyk J, Luttrell R. Feeding toxicity and impact of imidacloprid formulation and mixtures with six representative pesticides at residue concentrations on honey bee physiology (Apis mellifera). PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0178421. pmid:28591204
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Samson-Robert O, Labrie G, Chagnon M, Fournier V. Planting of neonicotinoid-coated corn raises honey bee mortality and sets back colony development. PeerJ. 2017;5: e3670. pmid:28828265
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Henry M, Béguin M, Requier F, Rollin O, Odoux J-F, Aupinel P, et al. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science. 2012;336: 348–350. pmid:22461498
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Wilson WT, Sonnet PE, Stoner A. Pesticides and honey bee mortality. Agriculture Handbook US Dept of Agriculture. 1980 [cited 23 Feb 2022]. Available: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pesticides+and+honey+bee+mortality.&author=Wilson+W.T.&publication_year=1980
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Müller C. Impacts of sublethal insecticide exposure on insects—Facts and knowledge gaps. Basic Appl Ecol. 2018;30: 1–10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. US EPA O. How we assess risks to pollinators. In: US EPA [Internet]. 16 Sep 2013 [cited 11 Feb 2020]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/how-we-assess-risks-pollinators
17. Rangel J, Fisher A. Factors affecting the reproductive health of honey bee (Apis mellifera) drones—a review. Apidologie. 2019;50: 759–778.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Fine JD, Corby-Harris V. Beyond brood: the potential impacts of insect growth disruptors on the long-term health and performance of honey bee colonies. Apidologie. 2021;52: 580–595.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Barascou L, Brunet J-L, Belzunces L, Decourtye A, Henry M, Fourrier J, et al. Pesticide risk assessment in honeybees: Toward the use of behavioral and reproductive performances as assessment endpoints. Chemosphere. 2021;276: 130134. pmid:33690036
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Allen MD. The honeybee queen and her attendants. Anim Behav. 1960;8: 201–208.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO, Wilson HC in E and URPEEO. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. W. W. Norton & Company; 2009.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Berenbaum MR, Liao L-H. Honey bees and environmental stress: toxicologic pathology of a superorganism. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47: 1076–1081. pmid:31581932
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Grozinger CM, Robinson GE. Endocrine modulation of a pheromone-responsive gene in the honey bee brain. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2007;193: 461–470. pmid:17192826
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Kaminski L-A, Slessor KN, Winston ML, Hay NW, Borden JH. Honeybee response to queen mandibular pheromone in laboratory bioassays. J Chem Ecol. 1990;16: 841–850. pmid:24263599
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Maisonnasse A, Lenoir J-C, Beslay D, Crauser D, Conte YL. E-β-Ocimene, a volatile brood pheromone involved in social regulation in the honey bee colony (Apis mellifera). PLOS ONE. 2010;5: e13531. pmid:21042405
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Démares FJ, Yusuf AA, Nicolson SW, Pirk CWW. Effect of brood pheromone on survival and nutrient intake of African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) under controlled conditions. J Chem Ecol. 2017;43: 443–450. pmid:28455796
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Carroll MJ, Meikle WG, McFrederick QS, Rothman JA, Brown N, Weiss M, et al. Pre-almond supplemental forage improves colony survival and alters queen pheromone signaling in overwintering honey bee colonies. Apidologie. 2018;49: 827–837.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Walton A, Dolezal AG, Bakken MA, Toth AL. Hungry for the queen: Honeybee nutritional environment affects worker pheromone response in a life stage-dependent manner. FunctEcol. 2018;32: 2699–2706.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. He XJ, Zhang XC, Jiang WJ, Barron AB, Zhang JH, Zeng ZJ. Starving honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae signal pheromonally to worker bees. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 22359. pmid:26924295
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Pankiw T, Winston ML, Slessor KN. Variation in worker response to honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen mandibular pheromone (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Insect Behav. 1994;7: 1–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. DeGrandi-Hoffman G, Gage SL, Corby-Harris V, Carroll M, Chambers M, Graham H, et al. Connecting the nutrient composition of seasonal pollens with changing nutritional needs of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. J Insect Physiol. 2018;109: 114–124. pmid:29990468
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Zanni V, Değirmenci L, Annoscia D, Scheiner R, Nazzi F. The reduced brood nursing by mite-infested honey bees depends on their accelerated behavioral maturation. J Insect Physiol. 2018;109: 47–54. pmid:29932950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Galbraith DA, Wang Y, Amdam GV, Page RE, Grozinger CM. Reproductive physiology mediates honey bee (Apis mellifera) worker responses to social cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2015;69: 1511–1518.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Rangel J, Böröczky K, Schal C, Tarpy DR. Honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen reproductive potential affects queen mandibular gland pheromone composition and worker retinue response. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0156027. pmid:27281328
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Toth AL, Robinson GE. Worker nutrition and division of labour in honeybees. Anim Behav. 2005;69: 427–435.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Seeley TD. Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1982;11: 287–293.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Pettis JS, Wilson WT, Shimanuki H, Teel PD. Fluvalinate treatment of queen and worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L) and effects on subsequent mortality, queen acceptance and supersedure. Apidologie. 1991;22: 1–7. :pmid:19910101
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Rangel J, Tarpy DR. In-hive miticides and their effect on queen supersedure and colony growth in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). JEAT. 2016;6: 1–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Sandrock C, Tanadini M, Tanadini LG, Fauser-Misslin A, Potts SG, Neumann P. Impact of chronic neonicotinoid exposure on honeybee colony performance and queen supersedure. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e103592. pmid:25084279
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Kairo G, Provost B, Tchamitchian S, Ben Abdelkader F, Bonnet M, Cousin M, et al. Drone exposure to the systemic insecticide Fipronil indirectly impairs queen reproductive potential. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 31904. pmid:27549030
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Wu-Smart J, Spivak M. Sub-lethal effects of dietary neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on honey bee queen fecundity and colony development. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 1–11. pmid:27562025
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Ciarlo TJ, Mullin CA, Frazier JL, Schmehl DR. Learning impairment in honey bees caused by agricultural spray adjuvants. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e40848. pmid:22815841
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Fourrier J, Deschamps M, Droin L, Alaux C, Fortini D, Beslay D, et al. Larval exposure to the juvenile hormone analog pyriproxyfen disrupts acceptance of and social behavior performance in adult honeybees. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0132985. pmid:26171610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Morfin N, Goodwin PH, Correa-Benitez A, Guzman-Novoa E. Sublethal exposure to clothianidin during the larval stage causes long-term impairment of hygienic and foraging behaviours of honey bees. Apidologie. 2019;50: 595–605.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Colin T, Meikle WG, Wu X, Barron AB. Traces of a neonicotinoid induce precocious foraging and reduce foraging performance in honey bees. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53: 8252–8261. pmid:31257879
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Haynes KF. Sublethal Effects of neurotoxic insecticides on insect behavior. Annu Rev Entomol. 1988;33: 149–168. pmid:3277528
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Duncan J. Post-treatment effects of sublethal doses of dieldrin on the mosquito Aedes aegypti L. Ann Appl Biol. 1963;52: 1–6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. James DG, Price TS. Fecundity in twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) is increased by direct and systemic exposure to imidacloprid. J Econ Entomol. 2002;95: 729–732. pmid:12216813
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Fine JD, Torres KM, Martin J, Robinson GE. Assessing agrochemical risk to mated honey bee queens. J Vis Exp). 2021; e62316. pmid:33749672
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Liao L-H, Wu W-Y, Berenbaum MR. Behavioral responses of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to natural and synthetic xenobiotics in food. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 1–8. pmid:29162843
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Kessler SC, Tiedeken EJ, Simcock KL, Derveau S, Mitchell J, Softley S, et al. Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides. Nature. 2015;521: 74–76. pmid:25901684
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Hodjat SH. Effects of sublethal doses of insecticides and of diet and crowding on Dysdercus fasciatus Sign. (Hem., Pyrrhocoridae)*. Bull Entomol Res. 1971;60: 367–378.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Milchreit K, Ruhnke H, Wegener J, Bienefeld K. Effects of an insect growth regulator and a solvent on honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) brood development and queen viability. Ecotoxicology. 2016;25: 530–537. pmid:26821233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Walsh EM, Sweet S, Knap A, Ing N, Rangel J. Queen honey bee (Apis mellifera) pheromone and reproductive behavior are affected by pesticide exposure during development. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2020;74: 33.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Litsey EM, Chung S, Fine JD. The Behavioral Toxicity of Insect Growth Disruptors on Apis mellifera Queen Care. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9: 627.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Milone JP, Chakrabarti P, Sagili RR, Tarpy DR. Colony-level pesticide exposure affects honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) royal jelly production and nutritional composition. Chemosphere. 2021;263: 128183. pmid:33297150
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Schmickl T, Karsai I. Resilience of honeybee colonies via common stomach: A model of self-regulation of foraging. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0188004. pmid:29161278
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Perry CJ, Søvik E, Myerscough MR, Barron AB. Rapid behavioral maturation accelerates failure of stressed honey bee colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 3427–3432. pmid:25675508
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Fine JD. Evaluation and comparison of the effects of three insect growth regulators on honey bee queen oviposition and egg eclosion. Ecotox Environ Saf. 2020;205: 111142. pmid:32829209
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Rennich K, Kunkel G, Abban S, Fahey R, Eversole H, Evans J, et al. 2013–2014 National honey bee pests and diseases survey report. 2014. Available: https://ushoneybeehealthsurvey.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/2013-2014-NHBS-Report.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Rennich K, Kunkel G, Abban S, Forsgren E, Levi V, Lopez D, et al. 2012‐2013 National honey bee pests and diseases survey report. 2013. Available: https://ushoneybeehealthsurvey.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/2012-13-End-of-year-final-report.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Traynor KS, Tosi S, Rennich K, Steinhauer N, Forsgren E, Rose R, et al. Pesticides in honey bee colonies: Establishing a baseline for real world exposure over seven years in the USA. Environ Pollut. 2021;279: 116566. pmid:33839524
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Fine JD, Mullin CA, Frazier MT, Reynolds RD. Field residues and effects of the insect growth regulator novaluron and its major co-formulant n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone on honey bee reproduction and development. J Econ Entomol. 2017;110: 1993–2001. pmid:28961741
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Wade A, Lin C-H, Kurkul C, Regan ER, Johnson RM. Combined toxicity of insecticides and fungicides applied to california almond orchards to honey bee larvae and adults. Insects. 2019;10: 20. pmid:30626043
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. DeGrandi-Hoffman G, Graham H, Ahumada F, Smart M, Ziolkowski N. The economics of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) management and overwintering strategies for colonies used to pollinate almonds. J Econ Entomol. 2019 [cited 7 Oct 2019]. pmid:31504631
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Fine JD, Shpigler HY, Ray AM, Beach NJ, Sankey AL, Cash-Ahmed A, et al. Quantifying the effects of pollen nutrition on honey bee queen egg laying with a new laboratory system. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0203444. pmid:30183759
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
67. Winston ML. The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press; 1991.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
68. St. Clair AL, Suresh S, Dolezal AG. Access to prairie pollen affects honey bee queen fecundity in the field and lab. Front Sustain Food Systs. 2022;6. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.908667
69. Fine JD, Litsey EM. Drone laying honey bee workers in queen monitoring cages. J Insect Sci. 2022;22: 13. pmid:35703425
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
70. Brodschneider R, Riessberger-Gallé U, Crailsheim K. Flight performance of artificially reared honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie. 2009;40: 441–449.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
71. Harrison JM. Caste-specific changes in honeybee flight capacity. Physiol Zool. 1986;59: 175–187.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
72. OECD. Test No. 245: Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), chronic oral toxicity test (10-Day Feeding), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284081-en
73. Zhu W, Schmehl DR, Mullin CA, Frazier JL. Four common pesticides, their mixtures and a formulation solvent in the hive environment have high oral toxicity to honey bee larvae. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e77547. pmid:24416121
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
74. Fine JD, Mullin CA. Metabolism of n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in honey bee adults and larvae: Exploring age related differences in Toxic Effects. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51: 11412–11422. pmid:28858486
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
75. McAfee A, Chapman A, Higo H, Underwood R, Milone J, Foster LJ, et al. Vulnerability of honey bee queens to heat-induced loss of fertility. Nat Sustain. 2020;3: 367–376.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
76. Rappsilber J, Mann M, Ishihama Y. Protocol for micro-purification, enrichment, pre-fractionation and storage of peptides for proteomics using StageTips. Nat Protoc. 2007;2: 1896–1906. pmid:17703201
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
77. McAfee A, Metz BN, Milone JP, Foster LJ, Tarpy DR. Drone honey bees are disproportionately sensitive to abiotic stressors despite expressing high levels of stress response proteins. Commun Biol. 2022;5: 1–13. pmid:35177754
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
78. Cox J, Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26: 1367–1372. pmid:19029910
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
79. Tyanova S, Temu T, Sinitcyn P, Carlson A, Hein MY, Geiger T, et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 731–740. pmid:27348712
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
80. Keeling CI, Slessor KN, Higo HA, Winston ML. New components of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen retinue pheromone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100: 4486–4491. pmid:12676987
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
81. Ballinger GA. Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7: 127–150.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
82. Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J, Ekstrøm CT. geepack: Generalized Estimating Equation Package. 2022. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geepack
- View Article
- Google Scholar
83. Thompson HM, Wilkins S, Battersby AH, Waite RJ, Wilkinson D. Modelling long-term effects of IGRs on honey bee colonies. Pest Manag Sci. 2007;63: 1081–1084. pmid:17879960
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
84. Raabe M. Insect reproduction: Regulation of successive steps. Adv Insect Physiol. 1987;19: 29–154.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
85. Pandey A, Bloch G. Juvenile hormone and ecdysteroids as major regulators of brain and behavior in bees. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2015;12: 26–37.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
86. Winkler P, Sieg F, Buttstedt A. Transcriptional control of honey bee (Apis mellifera) major royal jelly proteins by 20-hydroxyecdysone. Insects. 2018;9. pmid:30235865
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
87. Robinson GE. Regulation of honey bee age polyethism by juvenile hormone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1987;20: 329–338.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
88. Pham-Delègue MH, Trouiller J, Caillaud CM, Roger B, Masson C. Effect of queen pheromone on worker bees of different ages: Behavioural and electrophysiological responses. Apidologie. 1993;24: 267–281. :pmid:19930307
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
89. Fischer K, Brakefield PM, Zwaan BJ. Plasticity in butterfly egg size: Why larger offspring at lower temperatures? Ecology. 2003;84: 3138–3147.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
90. Vijendravarma RK, Narasimha S, Kawecki TJ. Effects of parental larval diet on egg size and offspring traits in Drosophila. Biol Lett. 2010;6: 238–241. pmid:19875510
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
91. Mousseau TA, Dingle H. Maternal effects in insect life histories. Ann Rev Entomol. 1991;36: 511–534.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
92. Rossiter MC. Environmentally-based maternal effects: a hidden force in insect population dynamics? Oecologia. 1991;87: 288–294. pmid:28313847
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
93. Fox CW. The influence of maternal age and mating frequency on egg size and offspring performance in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Oecologia. 1993;96: 139–146. pmid:28313765
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
94. Döke MA, Frazier M, Grozinger CM. Overwintering honey bees: Biology and management. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2015;10: 185–193. pmid:29588007
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
95. Ricigliano VA, Mott BM, Floyd AS, Copeland DC, Carroll MJ, Anderson KE. Honey bees overwintering in a southern climate: Longitudinal effects of nutrition and queen age on colony-level molecular physiology and performance. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 10475. pmid:29992997
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
96. Morse RA, Dyce EJ, Young RG. Weight changes by the queen honey bee during swarming. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1966;59: 772–774.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
97. Amiri E, Le K, Melendez CV, Strand MK, Tarpy DR, Rueppell O. Egg-size plasticity in Apis mellifera: Honey bee queens alter egg size in response to both genetic and environmental factors. J Evol Biol. 2020;33: 534–543. pmid:31961025
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
98. Kocher SD, Richard F-J, Tarpy DR, Grozinger CM. Queen reproductive state modulates pheromone production and queen-worker interactions in honeybees. Behav Ecol. 2009;20: 1007–1014. pmid:22476212
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
99. Khoury DS, Myerscough MR, Barron AB. A quantitative model of honey bee colony population dynamics. PLOS One. 2011;6. pmid:21533156
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
100. Tasei J-N. Effects of insect growth regulators on honey bees and non-Apis bees. A review. Apidologie. 2001;32: 527–545. 10.1051/apido:2001102
- View Article
- Google Scholar
101. Thompson HM, Wilkins S, Battersby AH, Waite RJ, Wilkinson D. The effects of four insect growth-regulating (IGR) insecticides on honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colony development, queen rearing and drone sperm production. Ecotoxicology. 2005;14: 757–769. pmid:16160749
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
102. Chen Y-W, Wu P-S, Yang E-C, Nai Y-S, Huang ZY. The impact of pyriproxyfen on the development of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colony in field. J Asia-Pac Entomol. 2016;19: 589–594.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
103. Li X, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007;52: 231–253. pmid:16925478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
104. Pokrywka NJ, Zhang H, Raley-Susman K. Distinct roles for hu li tai shao and swallow in cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis. Dev Dyn. 2014;243: 906–916. pmid:24677508
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
105. Forêt S, Maleszka R. Function and evolution of a gene family encoding odorant binding-like proteins in a social insect, the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Genome Res. 2006;16: 1404–1413. pmid:17065610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
106. Chan QWT, Chan MY, Logan M, Fang Y, Higo H, Foster LJ. Honey bee protein atlas at organ-level resolution. Genome Res. 2013;23: 1951–1960. pmid:23878156
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
107. McAfee A, Chapman A, Pettis JS, Foster LJ, Tarpy DR. Trade-offs between sperm viability and immune protein expression in honey bee queens (Apis mellifera). Commun Biol. 2021;4: 1–11. pmid:33420325
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
108. Morimoto RI, Kline MP, Bimston DN, Cotto JJ. The heat-shock response: regulation and function of heat-shock proteins and molecular chaperones. Essays Biochem. 1997;32: 17–29. pmid:9493008
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
109. Alqarni AS, Ali H, Iqbal J, Owayss AA, Smith BH. Expression of heat shock proteins in adult honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) workers under hot-arid subtropical ecosystems. Saudi J BiolSci. 2019;26: 1372–1376. pmid:31762598
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
110. McKinstry M, Chung C, Truong H, Johnston BA, Snow JW. The heat shock response and humoral immune response are mutually antagonistic in honey bees. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 8850. pmid:28821863
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
111. Shih SR, Bach DM, Rondeau NC, Sam J, Lovinger NL, Lopatkin AJ, et al. Honey bee sHSP are responsive to diverse proteostatic stresses and potentially promising biomarkers of honey bee stress. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 22087. pmid:34764357
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
112. Shih SR, Huntsman EM, Flores ME, Snow JW. Reproductive potential does not cause loss of heat shock response performance in honey bees. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 19610. pmid:33184302
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
113. Chacon-Almeida VML, Simões ZLP, Bitondi MMG. Induction of heat shock proteins in the larval fat body of Apis mellifera L. bees. Apidologie. 2000;31: 487–501.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
114. Gonzalez VH, Hranitz JM, McGonigle MB, Manweiler RE, Smith DR, Barthell JF. Acute exposure to sublethal doses of neonicotinoid insecticides increases heat tolerance in honey bees. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0240950. pmid:35213539
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
115. Škerl MIS, Gregorc A. Heat shock proteins and cell death in situ localisation in hypopharyngeal glands of honeybee (Apis mellifera carnica) workers after imidacloprid or coumaphos treatment. Apidologie. 2010;41: 73–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
116. McMenamin AJ, Daughenbaugh KF, Flenniken ML. The heat shock response in the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is antiviral. Viruses. 2020;12: 245. pmid:32098425
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
117. Riddiford LM. How does juvenile hormone control insect metamorphosis and reproduction? Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2012;179: 477–484. pmid:22728566
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
118. Hartfelder K. Insect juvenile hormone: from “status quo” to high society. Braz J Med Biol. 2000;33: 157–177. pmid:10657056
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
119. Rutz W, Gerig L, Wille H, Lüscher M. The function of juvenile hormone in adult worker honeybees, Apis mellifera. J Insect Physiol. 1976;22: 1485–1491.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
120. Wirtz P, Beetsma J. Induction of caste differentiation in the honeybee (Apis mellifera) by juvenile hormone. Entomol Exp Appl. 1972;15: 517–520.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
121. Capella ICS, Hartfelder K. Juvenile hormone effect on DNA synthesis and apoptosis in caste-specific differentiation of the larval honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ovary. J Insect Physiol. 1998;44: 385–391. pmid:12770156
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
122. De SOUZA DA, HUANG MH, TARPY DR. Experimental improvement of honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen quality through nutritional and hormonal supplementation. Apidologie. 2019;50: 14–27. 10.1007/s13592-018-0614-y
123. Robinson GE, Strambi C, Strambi A, Huang Z-Y. Reproduction in worker honey bees is associated with low juvenile hormone titers and rates of biosynthesis. Gen CompEndocrinol. 1992;87: 471–480. pmid:1426950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
124. Wegener J, Huang ZY, Lorenz MW, Lorenz JI, Bienefeld K. New insights into the roles of juvenile hormone and ecdysteroids in honey bee reproduction. J Insect Physiol. 2013;59: 655–661. pmid:23631954
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
125. von Frisch K. Demonstration von Versuchen zum Nachweis des Farbensehens bei angeblich total farbenblinden Tieren. Verhandl Deutsch Zool Ges. 1914;24: 50–58.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
126. Collins AM. Variation in time of egg hatch by the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2004;97: 140–146. [0140:VITOEH]2.0.CO;2
- View Article
- Google Scholar
127. Bello JE, McElfresh JS, Millar JG. Isolation and determination of absolute configurations of insect-produced methyl-branched hydrocarbons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112: 1077–1082. pmid:25583471
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
128. Tang B, Wang S, Wang S-G, Wang H-J, Zhang J-Y, Cui S-Y. Invertebrate Trehalose-6-Phosphate Synthase Gene: Genetic architecture, biochemistry, physiological function, and potential applications. Front Physiol. 2018;9. Available: pmid:29445344
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
129. Shukla E, Thorat LJ, Nath BB, Gaikwad SM. Insect trehalase: Physiological significance and potential applications. Glycobiology. 2015;25: 357–367. pmid:25429048
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
130. Thorat LJ, Gaikwad SM, Nath BB. Trehalose as an indicator of desiccation stress in Drosophila melanogaster larvae: A potential marker of anhydrobiosis. BBRC. 2012;419: 638–642. pmid:22387478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
131. Storey KB, Storey JM. Insect cold hardiness: metabolic, gene, and protein adaptation. Can J Zool. 2012;90: 456–475.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
132. Wen X, Wang S, Duman JG, Arifin JF, Juwita V, Goddard WA, et al. Antifreeze proteins govern the precipitation of trehalose in a freezing-avoiding insect at low temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 6683–6688. pmid:27226297
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
133. Medina P, Smagghe G, Budia F, Estal P del, Tirry L, Viñuela E. Significance of penetration, excretion, and transovarial uptake to toxicity of three insect growth regulators in predatory lacewing adults. Arch Insect Biochem. 2002;51: 91–101. pmid:12232876
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
134. Milne CP, Phillips JP, Krell PJ. A photomicrographic study of worker honeybee embryogenesis. J Apic Res. 1988;27: 69–83.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
135. Carroll MJ, Brown N, Goodall C, Downs AM, Sheenan TH, Anderson KE. Honey bees preferentially consume freshly-stored pollen. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0175933. pmid:28430801
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Southwick EE, Southwick L. Estimating the economic value of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. J Econ Entomol. 1992;85: 621–633.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Calderone NW. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e37235. pmid:22629374
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] PubMed/NCBI

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM. Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Curr. Biol. 2008;18: 1572–1575. pmid:18926704
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] PubMed/NCBI

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Hackett KJ. Bee benefits to agriculture. Agric Res. 2004;52: 2–3.
View Article
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Hedlund J, Longo SB, York R. Agriculture, pesticide use, and economic development: A global examination (1990–2014). Rural Sociol. 2020;85: 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12303
View Article
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Metcalf RL, Luckmann WH. Introduction to Insect Pest Management. John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
View Article
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e29268. pmid:22235278
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347. pmid:25721506
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Spivak M, Mader E, Vaughan M, Euliss NH. The plight of the bees. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 34–38. pmid:20839858
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Steinhauer N, Kulhanek K, Antúnez K, Human H, Chantawannakul P, Chauzat M-P, et al. Drivers of colony losses. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;26: 142–148. pmid:29764654
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Zhu YC, Yao J, Adamczyk J, Luttrell R. Feeding toxicity and impact of imidacloprid formulation and mixtures with six representative pesticides at residue concentrations on honey bee physiology (Apis mellifera). PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0178421. pmid:28591204
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Samson-Robert O, Labrie G, Chagnon M, Fournier V. Planting of neonicotinoid-coated corn raises honey bee mortality and sets back colony development. PeerJ. 2017;5: e3670. pmid:28828265
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Henry M, Béguin M, Requier F, Rollin O, Odoux J-F, Aupinel P, et al. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science. 2012;336: 348–350. pmid:22461498
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Wilson WT, Sonnet PE, Stoner A. Pesticides and honey bee mortality. Agriculture Handbook US Dept of Agriculture. 1980 [cited 23 Feb 2022]. Available: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pesticides+and+honey+bee+mortality.&author=Wilson+W.T.&publication_year=1980
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Müller C. Impacts of sublethal insecticide exposure on insects—Facts and knowledge gaps. Basic Appl Ecol. 2018;30: 1–10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. US EPA O. How we assess risks to pollinators. In: US EPA [Internet]. 16 Sep 2013 [cited 11 Feb 2020]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/how-we-assess-risks-pollinators

[ref17] 17. Rangel J, Fisher A. Factors affecting the reproductive health of honey bee (Apis mellifera) drones—a review. Apidologie. 2019;50: 759–778.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Fine JD, Corby-Harris V. Beyond brood: the potential impacts of insect growth disruptors on the long-term health and performance of honey bee colonies. Apidologie. 2021;52: 580–595.
View Article
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Barascou L, Brunet J-L, Belzunces L, Decourtye A, Henry M, Fourrier J, et al. Pesticide risk assessment in honeybees: Toward the use of behavioral and reproductive performances as assessment endpoints. Chemosphere. 2021;276: 130134. pmid:33690036
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Allen MD. The honeybee queen and her attendants. Anim Behav. 1960;8: 201–208.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO, Wilson HC in E and URPEEO. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. W. W. Norton & Company; 2009.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Berenbaum MR, Liao L-H. Honey bees and environmental stress: toxicologic pathology of a superorganism. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47: 1076–1081. pmid:31581932
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Grozinger CM, Robinson GE. Endocrine modulation of a pheromone-responsive gene in the honey bee brain. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2007;193: 461–470. pmid:17192826
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Kaminski L-A, Slessor KN, Winston ML, Hay NW, Borden JH. Honeybee response to queen mandibular pheromone in laboratory bioassays. J Chem Ecol. 1990;16: 841–850. pmid:24263599
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Maisonnasse A, Lenoir J-C, Beslay D, Crauser D, Conte YL. E-β-Ocimene, a volatile brood pheromone involved in social regulation in the honey bee colony (Apis mellifera). PLOS ONE. 2010;5: e13531. pmid:21042405
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Démares FJ, Yusuf AA, Nicolson SW, Pirk CWW. Effect of brood pheromone on survival and nutrient intake of African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) under controlled conditions. J Chem Ecol. 2017;43: 443–450. pmid:28455796
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Carroll MJ, Meikle WG, McFrederick QS, Rothman JA, Brown N, Weiss M, et al. Pre-almond supplemental forage improves colony survival and alters queen pheromone signaling in overwintering honey bee colonies. Apidologie. 2018;49: 827–837.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Walton A, Dolezal AG, Bakken MA, Toth AL. Hungry for the queen: Honeybee nutritional environment affects worker pheromone response in a life stage-dependent manner. FunctEcol. 2018;32: 2699–2706.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. He XJ, Zhang XC, Jiang WJ, Barron AB, Zhang JH, Zeng ZJ. Starving honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae signal pheromonally to worker bees. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 22359. pmid:26924295
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Pankiw T, Winston ML, Slessor KN. Variation in worker response to honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen mandibular pheromone (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Insect Behav. 1994;7: 1–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. DeGrandi-Hoffman G, Gage SL, Corby-Harris V, Carroll M, Chambers M, Graham H, et al. Connecting the nutrient composition of seasonal pollens with changing nutritional needs of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. J Insect Physiol. 2018;109: 114–124. pmid:29990468
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Zanni V, Değirmenci L, Annoscia D, Scheiner R, Nazzi F. The reduced brood nursing by mite-infested honey bees depends on their accelerated behavioral maturation. J Insect Physiol. 2018;109: 47–54. pmid:29932950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Galbraith DA, Wang Y, Amdam GV, Page RE, Grozinger CM. Reproductive physiology mediates honey bee (Apis mellifera) worker responses to social cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2015;69: 1511–1518.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Rangel J, Böröczky K, Schal C, Tarpy DR. Honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen reproductive potential affects queen mandibular gland pheromone composition and worker retinue response. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0156027. pmid:27281328
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Toth AL, Robinson GE. Worker nutrition and division of labour in honeybees. Anim Behav. 2005;69: 427–435.
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Seeley TD. Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1982;11: 287–293.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Pettis JS, Wilson WT, Shimanuki H, Teel PD. Fluvalinate treatment of queen and worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L) and effects on subsequent mortality, queen acceptance and supersedure. Apidologie. 1991;22: 1–7. :pmid:19910101
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Rangel J, Tarpy DR. In-hive miticides and their effect on queen supersedure and colony growth in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). JEAT. 2016;6: 1–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Sandrock C, Tanadini M, Tanadini LG, Fauser-Misslin A, Potts SG, Neumann P. Impact of chronic neonicotinoid exposure on honeybee colony performance and queen supersedure. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e103592. pmid:25084279
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Kairo G, Provost B, Tchamitchian S, Ben Abdelkader F, Bonnet M, Cousin M, et al. Drone exposure to the systemic insecticide Fipronil indirectly impairs queen reproductive potential. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 31904. pmid:27549030
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Wu-Smart J, Spivak M. Sub-lethal effects of dietary neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on honey bee queen fecundity and colony development. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 1–11. pmid:27562025
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Ciarlo TJ, Mullin CA, Frazier JL, Schmehl DR. Learning impairment in honey bees caused by agricultural spray adjuvants. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e40848. pmid:22815841
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] PubMed/NCBI

[148] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Fourrier J, Deschamps M, Droin L, Alaux C, Fortini D, Beslay D, et al. Larval exposure to the juvenile hormone analog pyriproxyfen disrupts acceptance of and social behavior performance in adult honeybees. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0132985. pmid:26171610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Morfin N, Goodwin PH, Correa-Benitez A, Guzman-Novoa E. Sublethal exposure to clothianidin during the larval stage causes long-term impairment of hygienic and foraging behaviours of honey bees. Apidologie. 2019;50: 595–605.
View Article
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Colin T, Meikle WG, Wu X, Barron AB. Traces of a neonicotinoid induce precocious foraging and reduce foraging performance in honey bees. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53: 8252–8261. pmid:31257879
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Haynes KF. Sublethal Effects of neurotoxic insecticides on insect behavior. Annu Rev Entomol. 1988;33: 149–168. pmid:3277528
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Duncan J. Post-treatment effects of sublethal doses of dieldrin on the mosquito Aedes aegypti L. Ann Appl Biol. 1963;52: 1–6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. James DG, Price TS. Fecundity in twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) is increased by direct and systemic exposure to imidacloprid. J Econ Entomol. 2002;95: 729–732. pmid:12216813
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Fine JD, Torres KM, Martin J, Robinson GE. Assessing agrochemical risk to mated honey bee queens. J Vis Exp). 2021; e62316. pmid:33749672
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Liao L-H, Wu W-Y, Berenbaum MR. Behavioral responses of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to natural and synthetic xenobiotics in food. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 1–8. pmid:29162843
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] PubMed/NCBI

[178] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Kessler SC, Tiedeken EJ, Simcock KL, Derveau S, Mitchell J, Softley S, et al. Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides. Nature. 2015;521: 74–76. pmid:25901684
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[180] View Article

[181] PubMed/NCBI

[182] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Hodjat SH. Effects of sublethal doses of insecticides and of diet and crowding on Dysdercus fasciatus Sign. (Hem., Pyrrhocoridae)*. Bull Entomol Res. 1971;60: 367–378.
View Article
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Milchreit K, Ruhnke H, Wegener J, Bienefeld K. Effects of an insect growth regulator and a solvent on honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) brood development and queen viability. Ecotoxicology. 2016;25: 530–537. pmid:26821233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Walsh EM, Sweet S, Knap A, Ing N, Rangel J. Queen honey bee (Apis mellifera) pheromone and reproductive behavior are affected by pesticide exposure during development. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2020;74: 33.
View Article
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Litsey EM, Chung S, Fine JD. The Behavioral Toxicity of Insect Growth Disruptors on Apis mellifera Queen Care. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9: 627.
View Article
Google Scholar

[194] View Article

[195] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Milone JP, Chakrabarti P, Sagili RR, Tarpy DR. Colony-level pesticide exposure affects honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) royal jelly production and nutritional composition. Chemosphere. 2021;263: 128183. pmid:33297150
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] PubMed/NCBI

[199] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Schmickl T, Karsai I. Resilience of honeybee colonies via common stomach: A model of self-regulation of foraging. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0188004. pmid:29161278
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Perry CJ, Søvik E, Myerscough MR, Barron AB. Rapid behavioral maturation accelerates failure of stressed honey bee colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 3427–3432. pmid:25675508
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[205] View Article

[206] PubMed/NCBI

[207] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Fine JD. Evaluation and comparison of the effects of three insect growth regulators on honey bee queen oviposition and egg eclosion. Ecotox Environ Saf. 2020;205: 111142. pmid:32829209
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[209] View Article

[210] PubMed/NCBI

[211] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Rennich K, Kunkel G, Abban S, Fahey R, Eversole H, Evans J, et al. 2013–2014 National honey bee pests and diseases survey report. 2014. Available: https://ushoneybeehealthsurvey.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/2013-2014-NHBS-Report.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[213] View Article

[214] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Rennich K, Kunkel G, Abban S, Forsgren E, Levi V, Lopez D, et al. 2012‐2013 National honey bee pests and diseases survey report. 2013. Available: https://ushoneybeehealthsurvey.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/04/2012-13-End-of-year-final-report.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[216] View Article

[217] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Traynor KS, Tosi S, Rennich K, Steinhauer N, Forsgren E, Rose R, et al. Pesticides in honey bee colonies: Establishing a baseline for real world exposure over seven years in the USA. Environ Pollut. 2021;279: 116566. pmid:33839524
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[219] View Article

[220] PubMed/NCBI

[221] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Fine JD, Mullin CA, Frazier MT, Reynolds RD. Field residues and effects of the insect growth regulator novaluron and its major co-formulant n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone on honey bee reproduction and development. J Econ Entomol. 2017;110: 1993–2001. pmid:28961741
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[223] View Article

[224] PubMed/NCBI

[225] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Wade A, Lin C-H, Kurkul C, Regan ER, Johnson RM. Combined toxicity of insecticides and fungicides applied to california almond orchards to honey bee larvae and adults. Insects. 2019;10: 20. pmid:30626043
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[227] View Article

[228] PubMed/NCBI

[229] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. DeGrandi-Hoffman G, Graham H, Ahumada F, Smart M, Ziolkowski N. The economics of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) management and overwintering strategies for colonies used to pollinate almonds. J Econ Entomol. 2019 [cited 7 Oct 2019]. pmid:31504631
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[231] View Article

[232] PubMed/NCBI

[233] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Fine JD, Shpigler HY, Ray AM, Beach NJ, Sankey AL, Cash-Ahmed A, et al. Quantifying the effects of pollen nutrition on honey bee queen egg laying with a new laboratory system. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0203444. pmid:30183759
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[235] View Article

[236] PubMed/NCBI

[237] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Winston ML. The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press; 1991.
View Article
Google Scholar

[239] View Article

[240] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. St. Clair AL, Suresh S, Dolezal AG. Access to prairie pollen affects honey bee queen fecundity in the field and lab. Front Sustain Food Systs. 2022;6. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.908667

[ref69] 69. Fine JD, Litsey EM. Drone laying honey bee workers in queen monitoring cages. J Insect Sci. 2022;22: 13. pmid:35703425
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[243] View Article

[244] PubMed/NCBI

[245] Google Scholar

[ref70] 70. Brodschneider R, Riessberger-Gallé U, Crailsheim K. Flight performance of artificially reared honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie. 2009;40: 441–449.
View Article
Google Scholar

[247] View Article

[248] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Harrison JM. Caste-specific changes in honeybee flight capacity. Physiol Zool. 1986;59: 175–187.
View Article
Google Scholar

[250] View Article

[251] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. OECD. Test No. 245: Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), chronic oral toxicity test (10-Day Feeding), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284081-en

[ref73] 73. Zhu W, Schmehl DR, Mullin CA, Frazier JL. Four common pesticides, their mixtures and a formulation solvent in the hive environment have high oral toxicity to honey bee larvae. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e77547. pmid:24416121
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[254] View Article

[255] PubMed/NCBI

[256] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Fine JD, Mullin CA. Metabolism of n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in honey bee adults and larvae: Exploring age related differences in Toxic Effects. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51: 11412–11422. pmid:28858486
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[258] View Article

[259] PubMed/NCBI

[260] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. McAfee A, Chapman A, Higo H, Underwood R, Milone J, Foster LJ, et al. Vulnerability of honey bee queens to heat-induced loss of fertility. Nat Sustain. 2020;3: 367–376.
View Article
Google Scholar

[262] View Article

[263] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Rappsilber J, Mann M, Ishihama Y. Protocol for micro-purification, enrichment, pre-fractionation and storage of peptides for proteomics using StageTips. Nat Protoc. 2007;2: 1896–1906. pmid:17703201
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[265] View Article

[266] PubMed/NCBI

[267] Google Scholar

[ref77] 77. McAfee A, Metz BN, Milone JP, Foster LJ, Tarpy DR. Drone honey bees are disproportionately sensitive to abiotic stressors despite expressing high levels of stress response proteins. Commun Biol. 2022;5: 1–13. pmid:35177754
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[269] View Article

[270] PubMed/NCBI

[271] Google Scholar

[ref78] 78. Cox J, Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26: 1367–1372. pmid:19029910
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[273] View Article

[274] PubMed/NCBI

[275] Google Scholar

[ref79] 79. Tyanova S, Temu T, Sinitcyn P, Carlson A, Hein MY, Geiger T, et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 731–740. pmid:27348712
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[277] View Article

[278] PubMed/NCBI

[279] Google Scholar

[ref80] 80. Keeling CI, Slessor KN, Higo HA, Winston ML. New components of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen retinue pheromone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100: 4486–4491. pmid:12676987
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[281] View Article

[282] PubMed/NCBI

[283] Google Scholar

[ref81] 81. Ballinger GA. Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7: 127–150.
View Article
Google Scholar

[285] View Article

[286] Google Scholar

[ref82] 82. Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J, Ekstrøm CT. geepack: Generalized Estimating Equation Package. 2022. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geepack
View Article
Google Scholar

[288] View Article

[289] Google Scholar

[ref83] 83. Thompson HM, Wilkins S, Battersby AH, Waite RJ, Wilkinson D. Modelling long-term effects of IGRs on honey bee colonies. Pest Manag Sci. 2007;63: 1081–1084. pmid:17879960
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[291] View Article

[292] PubMed/NCBI

[293] Google Scholar

[ref84] 84. Raabe M. Insect reproduction: Regulation of successive steps. Adv Insect Physiol. 1987;19: 29–154.
View Article
Google Scholar

[295] View Article

[296] Google Scholar

[ref85] 85. Pandey A, Bloch G. Juvenile hormone and ecdysteroids as major regulators of brain and behavior in bees. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2015;12: 26–37.
View Article
Google Scholar

[298] View Article

[299] Google Scholar

[ref86] 86. Winkler P, Sieg F, Buttstedt A. Transcriptional control of honey bee (Apis mellifera) major royal jelly proteins by 20-hydroxyecdysone. Insects. 2018;9. pmid:30235865
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[301] View Article

[302] PubMed/NCBI

[303] Google Scholar

[ref87] 87. Robinson GE. Regulation of honey bee age polyethism by juvenile hormone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1987;20: 329–338.
View Article
Google Scholar

[305] View Article

[306] Google Scholar

[ref88] 88. Pham-Delègue MH, Trouiller J, Caillaud CM, Roger B, Masson C. Effect of queen pheromone on worker bees of different ages: Behavioural and electrophysiological responses. Apidologie. 1993;24: 267–281. :pmid:19930307
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[308] View Article

[309] PubMed/NCBI

[310] Google Scholar

[ref89] 89. Fischer K, Brakefield PM, Zwaan BJ. Plasticity in butterfly egg size: Why larger offspring at lower temperatures? Ecology. 2003;84: 3138–3147.
View Article
Google Scholar

[312] View Article

[313] Google Scholar

[ref90] 90. Vijendravarma RK, Narasimha S, Kawecki TJ. Effects of parental larval diet on egg size and offspring traits in Drosophila. Biol Lett. 2010;6: 238–241. pmid:19875510
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[315] View Article

[316] PubMed/NCBI

[317] Google Scholar

[ref91] 91. Mousseau TA, Dingle H. Maternal effects in insect life histories. Ann Rev Entomol. 1991;36: 511–534.
View Article
Google Scholar

[319] View Article

[320] Google Scholar

[ref92] 92. Rossiter MC. Environmentally-based maternal effects: a hidden force in insect population dynamics? Oecologia. 1991;87: 288–294. pmid:28313847
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[322] View Article

[323] PubMed/NCBI

[324] Google Scholar

[ref93] 93. Fox CW. The influence of maternal age and mating frequency on egg size and offspring performance in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Oecologia. 1993;96: 139–146. pmid:28313765
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[326] View Article

[327] PubMed/NCBI

[328] Google Scholar

[ref94] 94. Döke MA, Frazier M, Grozinger CM. Overwintering honey bees: Biology and management. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2015;10: 185–193. pmid:29588007
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[330] View Article

[331] PubMed/NCBI

[332] Google Scholar

[ref95] 95. Ricigliano VA, Mott BM, Floyd AS, Copeland DC, Carroll MJ, Anderson KE. Honey bees overwintering in a southern climate: Longitudinal effects of nutrition and queen age on colony-level molecular physiology and performance. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 10475. pmid:29992997
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[334] View Article

[335] PubMed/NCBI

[336] Google Scholar

[ref96] 96. Morse RA, Dyce EJ, Young RG. Weight changes by the queen honey bee during swarming. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1966;59: 772–774.
View Article
Google Scholar

[338] View Article

[339] Google Scholar

[ref97] 97. Amiri E, Le K, Melendez CV, Strand MK, Tarpy DR, Rueppell O. Egg-size plasticity in Apis mellifera: Honey bee queens alter egg size in response to both genetic and environmental factors. J Evol Biol. 2020;33: 534–543. pmid:31961025
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[341] View Article

[342] PubMed/NCBI

[343] Google Scholar

[ref98] 98. Kocher SD, Richard F-J, Tarpy DR, Grozinger CM. Queen reproductive state modulates pheromone production and queen-worker interactions in honeybees. Behav Ecol. 2009;20: 1007–1014. pmid:22476212
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[345] View Article

[346] PubMed/NCBI

[347] Google Scholar

[ref99] 99. Khoury DS, Myerscough MR, Barron AB. A quantitative model of honey bee colony population dynamics. PLOS One. 2011;6. pmid:21533156
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[349] View Article

[350] PubMed/NCBI

[351] Google Scholar

[ref100] 100. Tasei J-N. Effects of insect growth regulators on honey bees and non-Apis bees. A review. Apidologie. 2001;32: 527–545. 10.1051/apido:2001102
View Article
Google Scholar

[353] View Article

[354] Google Scholar

[ref101] 101. Thompson HM, Wilkins S, Battersby AH, Waite RJ, Wilkinson D. The effects of four insect growth-regulating (IGR) insecticides on honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colony development, queen rearing and drone sperm production. Ecotoxicology. 2005;14: 757–769. pmid:16160749
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[356] View Article

[357] PubMed/NCBI

[358] Google Scholar

[ref102] 102. Chen Y-W, Wu P-S, Yang E-C, Nai Y-S, Huang ZY. The impact of pyriproxyfen on the development of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colony in field. J Asia-Pac Entomol. 2016;19: 589–594.
View Article
Google Scholar

[360] View Article

[361] Google Scholar

[ref103] 103. Li X, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007;52: 231–253. pmid:16925478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[363] View Article

[364] PubMed/NCBI

[365] Google Scholar

[ref104] 104. Pokrywka NJ, Zhang H, Raley-Susman K. Distinct roles for hu li tai shao and swallow in cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis. Dev Dyn. 2014;243: 906–916. pmid:24677508
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[367] View Article

[368] PubMed/NCBI

[369] Google Scholar

[ref105] 105. Forêt S, Maleszka R. Function and evolution of a gene family encoding odorant binding-like proteins in a social insect, the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Genome Res. 2006;16: 1404–1413. pmid:17065610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[371] View Article

[372] PubMed/NCBI

[373] Google Scholar

[ref106] 106. Chan QWT, Chan MY, Logan M, Fang Y, Higo H, Foster LJ. Honey bee protein atlas at organ-level resolution. Genome Res. 2013;23: 1951–1960. pmid:23878156
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[375] View Article

[376] PubMed/NCBI

[377] Google Scholar

[ref107] 107. McAfee A, Chapman A, Pettis JS, Foster LJ, Tarpy DR. Trade-offs between sperm viability and immune protein expression in honey bee queens (Apis mellifera). Commun Biol. 2021;4: 1–11. pmid:33420325
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[379] View Article

[380] PubMed/NCBI

[381] Google Scholar

[ref108] 108. Morimoto RI, Kline MP, Bimston DN, Cotto JJ. The heat-shock response: regulation and function of heat-shock proteins and molecular chaperones. Essays Biochem. 1997;32: 17–29. pmid:9493008
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[383] View Article

[384] PubMed/NCBI

[385] Google Scholar

[ref109] 109. Alqarni AS, Ali H, Iqbal J, Owayss AA, Smith BH. Expression of heat shock proteins in adult honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) workers under hot-arid subtropical ecosystems. Saudi J BiolSci. 2019;26: 1372–1376. pmid:31762598
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[387] View Article

[388] PubMed/NCBI

[389] Google Scholar

[ref110] 110. McKinstry M, Chung C, Truong H, Johnston BA, Snow JW. The heat shock response and humoral immune response are mutually antagonistic in honey bees. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 8850. pmid:28821863
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[391] View Article

[392] PubMed/NCBI

[393] Google Scholar

[ref111] 111. Shih SR, Bach DM, Rondeau NC, Sam J, Lovinger NL, Lopatkin AJ, et al. Honey bee sHSP are responsive to diverse proteostatic stresses and potentially promising biomarkers of honey bee stress. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 22087. pmid:34764357
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[395] View Article

[396] PubMed/NCBI

[397] Google Scholar

[ref112] 112. Shih SR, Huntsman EM, Flores ME, Snow JW. Reproductive potential does not cause loss of heat shock response performance in honey bees. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 19610. pmid:33184302
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[399] View Article

[400] PubMed/NCBI

[401] Google Scholar

[ref113] 113. Chacon-Almeida VML, Simões ZLP, Bitondi MMG. Induction of heat shock proteins in the larval fat body of Apis mellifera L. bees. Apidologie. 2000;31: 487–501.
View Article
Google Scholar

[403] View Article

[404] Google Scholar

[ref114] 114. Gonzalez VH, Hranitz JM, McGonigle MB, Manweiler RE, Smith DR, Barthell JF. Acute exposure to sublethal doses of neonicotinoid insecticides increases heat tolerance in honey bees. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0240950. pmid:35213539
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[406] View Article

[407] PubMed/NCBI

[408] Google Scholar

[ref115] 115. Škerl MIS, Gregorc A. Heat shock proteins and cell death in situ localisation in hypopharyngeal glands of honeybee (Apis mellifera carnica) workers after imidacloprid or coumaphos treatment. Apidologie. 2010;41: 73–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[410] View Article

[411] Google Scholar

[ref116] 116. McMenamin AJ, Daughenbaugh KF, Flenniken ML. The heat shock response in the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is antiviral. Viruses. 2020;12: 245. pmid:32098425
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[413] View Article

[414] PubMed/NCBI

[415] Google Scholar

[ref117] 117. Riddiford LM. How does juvenile hormone control insect metamorphosis and reproduction? Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2012;179: 477–484. pmid:22728566
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[417] View Article

[418] PubMed/NCBI

[419] Google Scholar

[ref118] 118. Hartfelder K. Insect juvenile hormone: from “status quo” to high society. Braz J Med Biol. 2000;33: 157–177. pmid:10657056
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[421] View Article

[422] PubMed/NCBI

[423] Google Scholar

[ref119] 119. Rutz W, Gerig L, Wille H, Lüscher M. The function of juvenile hormone in adult worker honeybees, Apis mellifera. J Insect Physiol. 1976;22: 1485–1491.
View Article
Google Scholar

[425] View Article

[426] Google Scholar

[ref120] 120. Wirtz P, Beetsma J. Induction of caste differentiation in the honeybee (Apis mellifera) by juvenile hormone. Entomol Exp Appl. 1972;15: 517–520.
View Article
Google Scholar

[428] View Article

[429] Google Scholar

[ref121] 121. Capella ICS, Hartfelder K. Juvenile hormone effect on DNA synthesis and apoptosis in caste-specific differentiation of the larval honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ovary. J Insect Physiol. 1998;44: 385–391. pmid:12770156
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[431] View Article

[432] PubMed/NCBI

[433] Google Scholar

[ref122] 122. De SOUZA DA, HUANG MH, TARPY DR. Experimental improvement of honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen quality through nutritional and hormonal supplementation. Apidologie. 2019;50: 14–27. 10.1007/s13592-018-0614-y

[ref123] 123. Robinson GE, Strambi C, Strambi A, Huang Z-Y. Reproduction in worker honey bees is associated with low juvenile hormone titers and rates of biosynthesis. Gen CompEndocrinol. 1992;87: 471–480. pmid:1426950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[436] View Article

[437] PubMed/NCBI

[438] Google Scholar

[ref124] 124. Wegener J, Huang ZY, Lorenz MW, Lorenz JI, Bienefeld K. New insights into the roles of juvenile hormone and ecdysteroids in honey bee reproduction. J Insect Physiol. 2013;59: 655–661. pmid:23631954
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[440] View Article

[441] PubMed/NCBI

[442] Google Scholar

[ref125] 125. von Frisch K. Demonstration von Versuchen zum Nachweis des Farbensehens bei angeblich total farbenblinden Tieren. Verhandl Deutsch Zool Ges. 1914;24: 50–58.
View Article
Google Scholar

[444] View Article

[445] Google Scholar

[ref126] 126. Collins AM. Variation in time of egg hatch by the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2004;97: 140–146. [0140:VITOEH]2.0.CO;2
View Article
Google Scholar

[447] View Article

[448] Google Scholar

[ref127] 127. Bello JE, McElfresh JS, Millar JG. Isolation and determination of absolute configurations of insect-produced methyl-branched hydrocarbons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112: 1077–1082. pmid:25583471
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[450] View Article

[451] PubMed/NCBI

[452] Google Scholar

[ref128] 128. Tang B, Wang S, Wang S-G, Wang H-J, Zhang J-Y, Cui S-Y. Invertebrate Trehalose-6-Phosphate Synthase Gene: Genetic architecture, biochemistry, physiological function, and potential applications. Front Physiol. 2018;9. Available: pmid:29445344
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[454] View Article

[455] PubMed/NCBI

[456] Google Scholar

[ref129] 129. Shukla E, Thorat LJ, Nath BB, Gaikwad SM. Insect trehalase: Physiological significance and potential applications. Glycobiology. 2015;25: 357–367. pmid:25429048
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[458] View Article

[459] PubMed/NCBI

[460] Google Scholar

[ref130] 130. Thorat LJ, Gaikwad SM, Nath BB. Trehalose as an indicator of desiccation stress in Drosophila melanogaster larvae: A potential marker of anhydrobiosis. BBRC. 2012;419: 638–642. pmid:22387478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[462] View Article

[463] PubMed/NCBI

[464] Google Scholar

[ref131] 131. Storey KB, Storey JM. Insect cold hardiness: metabolic, gene, and protein adaptation. Can J Zool. 2012;90: 456–475.
View Article
Google Scholar

[466] View Article

[467] Google Scholar

[ref132] 132. Wen X, Wang S, Duman JG, Arifin JF, Juwita V, Goddard WA, et al. Antifreeze proteins govern the precipitation of trehalose in a freezing-avoiding insect at low temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 6683–6688. pmid:27226297
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[469] View Article

[470] PubMed/NCBI

[471] Google Scholar

[ref133] 133. Medina P, Smagghe G, Budia F, Estal P del, Tirry L, Viñuela E. Significance of penetration, excretion, and transovarial uptake to toxicity of three insect growth regulators in predatory lacewing adults. Arch Insect Biochem. 2002;51: 91–101. pmid:12232876
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[473] View Article

[474] PubMed/NCBI

[475] Google Scholar

[ref134] 134. Milne CP, Phillips JP, Krell PJ. A photomicrographic study of worker honeybee embryogenesis. J Apic Res. 1988;27: 69–83.
View Article
Google Scholar

[477] View Article

[478] Google Scholar

[ref135] 135. Carroll MJ, Brown N, Goodall C, Downs AM, Sheenan TH, Anderson KE. Honey bees preferentially consume freshly-stored pollen. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0175933. pmid:28430801
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[480] View Article

[481] PubMed/NCBI

[482] Google Scholar

Correction

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Round 1: Putative queen exposure via workers

Honey bees.

QMC assembly.

Incubators.

Treatments.

Egg production, mortality and pollen supplement consumption.

Camera monitoring–retinue behavior.

Embryo viability and queen and worker sampling.

Proteomics sample preparation.

Data processing.

Round 2: Monitoring workers following putative maternal exposure

Larval fostering.

QMC assembly.

Assessments and sampling.

Statistical analysis

Results

Round 1: Putative queen exposure via workers

Bioassay results.

Proteomics results.

Round 2: Monitoring workers following putative maternal exposure

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 Fig. First generation pollen consumption, queen weight change, and worker death.

S2 Fig. Expression of major royal jelly proteins and vitellogenin proteins in ovaries of queens.

S3 Fig. Second generation pollen consumption.

S1 Table. The identity of each QMC placed in incubator 2.

S2 Table. The QMC source identity of plates placed in foster colonies, the identity of the insect container the plates were placed in once the eggs had been reared to pupation, the number of eggs present on each plate, and the number of adults eclosing in each container.

S3 Table. Summary of the results of the GEE analyses for daily egg laying and worker retinue responses–Round 1.

S4 Table. Summary of the results of the GEE analyses for daily egg laying and worker retinue responses–Round 2.

S1 Data. Round 1 data including pollen consumption, queen weight change, retinue observations, egg production, worker mortality, egg eclosion rates, and rates of larval deformities.

S2 Data. Round 2 data including pollen consumption, queen weight change, retinue observations, egg production, worker mortality, egg eclosion rates, and adult emergence timing and mass.

S3 Data. Mass spectrometry sample metadata and ovary protein quantification data.

Acknowledgments

References