Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Bacterial communities of indoor surface of stingless bee nests

  • Leandro Pio de Sousa

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    le.sousa454@gmail.com

    Affiliation Department of Genetic, Evolution, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Biology, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

Bacterial communities of indoor surface of stingless bee nests

  • Leandro Pio de Sousa
PLOS
x

Abstract

Microbes have been identified as fundamental for the good health of bees, acting as pathogens, protective agent against infection/inorganic toxic compounds, degradation of recalcitrant secondary plant metabolites, definition of social group membership, carbohydrate metabolism, honey and bee pollen production. However, study of microbiota associated with bees have been largely confined to the honeybees and solitary bees. Here, I characterized the microbiota of indoor surface nest of four brazilian stingless bee species (Apidae: Meliponini) with different construction behaviors and populations. Bees that use predominantly plant material to build the nest (Frieseomelitta varia and Tetragonisca angustula) have a microbiome dominated by bacteria found in the phylloplane and flowers such as Pseudomonas sp. and Sphingomonas sp. Species that use mud and feces (Trigona spinipes) possess a microbiome dominated by coliforms such as Escherichia coli and Alcaligenes faecalis. Melipona quadrifasciata, which uses both mud / feces and plant resin, showed a hybrid microbiome with microbes found in soil, feces and plant material. These findings indicate that indoor surface microbiome varies widely among bees and reflects the materials used in the construction of the nests.

Introduction

Since the dawn of large-scale sequencing, much knowledge has been gained about the diversity and role of microbes associated with bees. Microbes have been identified as fundamental for the good health of bees, not only acting as pathogens [1] but also participating in the protection against infection [2] and inorganic toxic compounds [3], degradation of recalcitrant secondary plant metabolites [4], definition of social group membership [5], carbohydrate metabolism [6], honey and bee pollen production [7] etc. Despite the great knowledge obtained, most of the data comes from studies with honey bees [8] and some solitary bees from the northern hemisphere [9]. The use of few species greatly limits the knowledge of the relationship between bees and microbes since geography alters the microbiome and each species is related to different microbial communities [10].

One of the least studied groups of bees is the stingless bees. Belonging to the Apidae family (including bumblebees, honey bees, carpenter bees and orchid bees) and Meliponini tribe with about 500 species, they can be found in most tropical or subtropical regions of the world and are characterized as eusocial bees and non-stinger, building their nest most often in tree hollows [11]. To date, very few studies have been done with the stingless bees microbiome, focusing on the gut and honey microbiome [1214]. Whether in stingless bees or honey bees, little is explored regarding the microbiome associated with their nests.

The study of the indoor environment microbiome associated with humans has gained much attention in recent years [1518]. It has been shown that these environments can be important vectors of diseases as well as varying a lot in relation to the type of environment and its geographical location [16]. Places with greater circulation of people, such as the subway [19], possess a great diversity of microbes, but there is also considerable diversity in the domestic environment, particularly in the dust that accumulates in homes without proper cleaning [20]. Regarding lifestyle, human and eusocial bees are similar because they spend a good part of their lives in closed environments and/or with great circulation of individuals. As seen in humans, it is possible that the habits of each bee species determine the structure of the bacterial community. For example, some species can use vertebrate feces and clay for nest construction, while other species use only material of plant origin (propolis, wax and vegetable resin) [2124]. So, the study of the indoor microbiome can help to understand the differences between environments and also how to deal with the spread of diseases both in humans and bees.

In order to describe the microbial diversity of indoor environment of nests, I characterized the bacterial communities found on the internal nest surfaces of four stingless bees using barcoded sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. Besides that, this study set out to determine whether the construction habit of different species influences nest bacterial communities.

Material and methods

Biological material

Twelve colonies of four species (n = 3 for Trigona spinipes, n = 3 for Frieseomelitta varia, n = 3 for Melipona quadrifasciata and n = 3 for Tetragonisca angustula) of stingless bees (Fig 1) were used for this study. The choice of species was made according to population (from 300 to 100000 individuals) and nests construction habits (presence of clay, feces, wax and propolis). The colonies were placed in eucalyptus wooden boxes (except for Trigona spinipes which the nest is external) and kept in a private collection in an urban area of the city of Campinas (with some forest fragments), southeast of Brazil. The phytophysiognomy is seasonal semideciduous rainforest with hot and humid spring/summer (september to march) and cold and dry autumn/winter (april to august). The sampling was performed in November, two days after a heavy rain day.

Sampling, DNA extraction and sequencing

Bacterial cells on internal nest surfaces of the 12 colonies were sampled separately by swabbed with cotton tipped swabs moistened with 0,9% NaCl solution. DNA extraction was done with magnetic beads (MagMax® ThermoFisher Scientific) according to manufacture protocol. 16S rRNA gene region was amplified using V3/V4 variable region primers 341F (CCTACGGGRSGCAGCAG) and 806R (GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT) since this pair has great taxonomy coverage in bacteria [25]. The PCR reactions were carried out using Platinum Taq (Invitrogen, USA). The 16S rRNA PCR products were purified using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen). Libraries were prepared using TruSeq DNA Sample Prep Kits (Illumina, San Diego, CA) and sequenced in a MiSeq system using the standard Illumina primers provided in the kit. A single-end 300 nucleotides run was performed. The sequences were deposited on BioProject PRJNA715737.

Sequence analysis

All sequences generated were processed and sorted using the default parameters in QIIME 2 according to Vernier et al 2020 [5]. High-quality sequences (>200 bp in length, quality score >25 according to QIIME parameters) were trimmed to 283 bp and clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 97% sequence identity using Mothur 1.44.3 https://github.com/mothur/mothur/releases). Representative sequences for each OTU were then aligned using PyNAST and assigned taxonomy with the RDP-classifier (http://rdp.cme.msu.edu) according to Flores et al 2011 [16].

Phylogenetic analysis

For phylogenetic analysis, all OTUs with Escherichia coli as the first BLASTn hit were selected (58 OTUs). The representative sequences for these OTUs were trimmed to 200 bp. The OTUs were aligned and phylogenetic tree construction were made by CLC Sequence Viewer 7 program (Tree construction method: UPGMA; Nucleotide distance measure: Kimura 80; bootstrapping analysis with 500 replicates).

Statistics

Alpha-diversity was calculated by the number of OTUs and Shannon diversity index, which was inferred using Qiime python scripts alpha_diversity.py and collate_alpha.py. For the comparison of relative abundance, the Friedman test (a non-parametric test for multiple comparisons) and Nemenyi post-hoc test were performed using the R package PMCMR (version 4.2, available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PMCMR/index.html).

Results

At the end of the quality control, 31564 sequences were generated for analysis (S1S8 Appendices), Frieseomelitta varia and Melipona quadrifasciata with the majority (24234 [standard error = ± 584 per sample] and 7217 [standard error = ± 184 per sample] reads respectively) and Tetragonisca angustula and Trigona spinipes contributing with less (36 [standard error = ± 10 per sample] and 77 [standard error = ± 14 per sample] reads respectively). Rarefaction analyzes indicate that with three samples per bee species studied, they were sufficient to access the total microbiota (S1 Fig). In the identification of bacteria via OTU analysis (Fig 2), 4 phyla were identified (Proteobacteria ranging from 96 to 78%, followed by Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes), 14 classes (about 80% from Alpha and Gammaproteobacteria), 66 families, 141 genera and 293 species.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Bacterial community associated of indoor surface of the nests (ANOVA; P<0.01).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.g002

Frieseomelitta varia is dominated by the genus Pseudomonas (54% of the sequences), almost all of which are identified as Pseudomonas syringae. Melipona quadrifasciata is dominated by Sphingomonas sp, Escherichia sp and Aeromonas sp, with Escherichia coli predominated (24%), data also found in Trigona spinipes, where Escherichia coli corresponded to 72.73% of the sequences found. In Tetragonisca angustula very few sequences were found, with Sphingomonas melonis predominated (17%). Frieseomelitta varia and Melipona quadrifasciata showed the highest indices of diversity, while Tetragonisca angustula and Trigona spinipes showed the lowest (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Shannon´s diversity index of indoor surface of the nests (p<0.01; Nemenyi test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.g003

Regarding specificity (Fig 4), in Frieseomelitta varia and Trigona spinipes most OTUs are bee-specific, while in Melipona quadrifasciata most are shared and in Tetragonisca angustula all are shared. No bacteria were shared by all bees. Pseudomonas sp. and Escherichia sp. are the most shared groups.

Phylogenetic analyses of Escherichia coli revealed OTUs from Frieseomelitta varia (two OTUs) and Trigona spinipes (six OTUs) and were grouped in two distinct clusters whereas Melipona quadrifasciata was grouped at least in four clusters (Fig 5).

thumbnail
Fig 5. Phylogenetic affiliation of Escherichia coli associated with brazilian stingless bees.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.g005

Discussion

As seen in human-built environments, the microbiome associated with the nest of stingless bees is also largely dominated by Proteobacteria, differing in the Orders found [2628]. While on the surface of human constructions, Rhizobiales dominate [16, 17, 26, 27], on the surface of the nests dominate Pseudomonadales and Enterobacteriales, varying from 55 to 31%. Gupta et al., 2019 [26] working with a floor surface microbiome, found Shannon indexes that oscillated around 8.2, a number much higher than those found in the present work. Gohli et al., 2019 [27] and Vargas-Robles et al., 2020 [29] working with subway surfaces also found higher rates, depending on the sample, ranging from 5 to 8. It is interesting to note that bees whose nests contain higher density population (Trigona spinipes and Tetragonisca angustula) showed less diversity and bees with less density (Melipona quadrifasciata and Frieseomelitta varia) showed greater diversity, apparently with no correlation between high microbial diversity and large nest population as expected. This finding differs once again from the microbiome of human constructs, since places with greater circulation of people had a greater diversity of microbes [19].

Few sequences were detected in Tetragonisca angustula and Trigona spinipes. Trigona spinipes, unlike Tetragonisca angustula, uses for nest construction mud and animal feces [30, 31], which would explain the large number of sequences of Escherichia coli and Alcaligenes faecalis, two common species in the digestive tract of mammals. In fact, Trigona spinipes honey is popularly considered "spoiled" [30], which could be due to the presence of contaminants, as seen in microbiological analyzes of honey from different species [13, 32, 33]. On the other hand, Tetragonisca angustula uses only wax to make its nests, in addition to small amounts of propolis (coming from plant resin) to seal cracks [36], which would explain the detection of microbes associated with aerial part of plants (Xanthomonas axonopodis and Sphingomonas melonis [34, 35]).

Frieseomelitta varia collects a lot of pollen and uses a large amount of plant resins, not only for the internal construction of the nest but also for the external protection, which is coated with a sticky resin that prevents the passage of possible predators [30]. The presence of this large amount of plant material could explain the prevalence of more than 50% of Pseudomonas syringae sequences, a species commonly found on the leaf surface of several plants, sometime as a pathogen [36]. These bacteria found in the nest can be contaminants from the leaves and lesions in the stems that the bees collect for the manufacture of resin and propolis. The presence of sequences of Leifsonia xyli, a fastidious pathogen only detected in plants such as sugar cane [37] and Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, an endophytic species [38], reinforce this hypothesis.

Finally, the bacteriological profile of Melipona quadrifasciata shows a mixture of bacteria isolated from phylloplane and flowers (Methylobacterium cerastii, Sphingomonas cynarae, Acinetobacter nectaris, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Erwinia billingiae, Pantoea ananatis, Pseudomonas putida, Sphingomonas sp. [3942]), soil (Arthrobacter oryzae, Belnapia soli, Bacillus ssp [43, 44]) and animal material (Campylobacter hominis, Corynebacterium sp., Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, Pantoea agglomerans [45]). In fact, this diverse profile may be related to the large quantity and variety of materials for building the nest, including geopropolis (a mixture of propolis with mud and which often contain pollen), pure clay, vegetable resins and mammal feces [30].

These differences between materials were reinforced by the genetic analysis of Escherichia coli detected in Trigona spinipes, Frieseomelitta varia and Melipona quadrifasciata. The phylogenetic analysis in Trigona spinipes and Frieseomelitta varia shows that there is great similarity between OTUs, forming two differentiated cluster. The bacteria from Melipona quadrifasciata formed at least four well-defined clusters. This may suggest that each bee uses animal material with different origins, which would explain the varied genetic profile of the several Escherichia coli.

This work showed the great diversity of bacteria associated with the surface of the nest of stingless bees, an environment still little explored. Bacteria found here are related to the type of material used for making the nests, materials that probably contribute to a large part of the contamination found on the surface of the nest. The microbiological profile found (dominated by Pseudomonas, Escherichia, Aeromonas and Sphingomonas) differs from the profile found in honey, propolis and pollen from other species already studied, where Bacillus sp. and Acetobacter sp. dominate [33, 46], which suggests that the microbiome varies in relation to the various components of the nest. No classical pathogenic bacteria were found for bees, such as Paenibacillus larvae and Lysinibacillus sphaericus, however, a large number of coliforms were also found, including Acinetobacter baumanii, Escherichia coli, Alcaligenes faecalis and Enterobacter cloacae, revealing risk of contamination of honey and other products for human consumption.

Future studies should be conducted to monitor the population dynamics of these bacteria, seeking to verify whether there are fluctuations throughout the year and whether the microbial profile depends on the location and degree of natural preservation where the nests are found, what is already verified in the gut microbiome [10]. It should also be investigated whether these bacteria have any role in the biology of bees, since fungi have already been shown to play a crucial role in the development of larvae, for example [47].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Rarefaction analysis with the sequencing data for different species of brazilian stingless bees.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.s001

(TIF)

S1 Appendix. Raw sequences from T. angustula 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.s002

(FASTQ)

S2 Appendix. Raw sequences from T. angustula 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.s003

(FASTQ)

S7 Appendix. Raw sequences from M. quadrifasciata 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.s008

(FASTQ)

S8 Appendix. Raw sequences from M. quadrifasciata 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252933.s009

(FASTQ)

References

  1. 1. Genersch E. American Foulbrood in honeybees and its causative agent, Paenibacillus larvae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2010.;103, S10–S19. pmid:19909971
  2. 2. Forsgren E, Olofsson TC, Váasquez A, Fries I. Novel lactic acid bacteria inhibiting Paenibacillus larvae in honey bee larvae. Apidologie. 2010; 41(1), 99–108.
  3. 3. Rothman JA, Leger L, Graystock P, Russell K, McFrederick QS. The bumble bee microbiome increases survival of bees exposed to selenate toxicity. Environ. Microbiol. 2019; 21(9), 3417–3429. pmid:31026366
  4. 4. Kešnerová L, Mars RA, Ellegaard KM, Troilo M, Sauer U, Engel P. Disentangling metabolic functions of bacteria in the honey bee gut. PLoS biol. 2017; 15(12), e2003467. pmid:29232373
  5. 5. Vernier C. L., Chin I. M., Adu-Oppong B., Krupp J. J., Levine J., Dantas G., et al. The gut microbiome defines social group membership in honey bee colonies. Sci. Adv. 2020; 6(42), eabd3431. pmid:33055169
  6. 6. Jones JC, Fruciano C, Marchant J, Hildebrand F, Forslund S, Bork P, et al. The gut microbiome is associated with behavioural task in honey bees. Insectes soc. 2018; 65(3), 419–429. pmid:30100619
  7. 7. Vásquez A, Olofsson TC. The lactic acid bacteria involved in the production of bee pollen and bee bread. J. Apic. Res. 2009;, 48(3), 189–195.
  8. 8. Moran NA. Genomics of the honey bee microbiome. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 2015; 10, 22–28. pmid:26140264
  9. 9. Li J, Powell JE, Guo J, Evans JD, Wu J, Williams P. Two gut community enterotypes recur in diverse bumblebee species. Curr. Biol. 2015; 25(15), R652–R653. pmid:26241138
  10. 10. Kwong WK, Medina LA, Koch H, Sing KW, Soh E JY, Ascher JS. Dynamic microbiome evolution in social bees. Sci. Adv. 2017; 3(3), e1600513. pmid:28435856
  11. 11. Michener CD. The bees of the world (Vol. 1). 2000. JHU press.
  12. 12. Paludo C. R., Pishchany G., Andrade-Dominguez A., Silva-Junior E. A., Menezes C., Nascimento F. S., et al. (2019). Microbial community modulates growth of symbiotic fungus required for stingless bee metamorphosis. PloS one, 14(7), e0219696. pmid:31344052
  13. 13. Rosli FN, Hazemi MHF, Akbar MA, Basir S, Kassim H, Bunawan H. Stingless Bee Honey: Evaluating Its Antibacterial Activity and Bacterial Diversity. Insects. 2020; 11(8), 500. pmid:32759701
  14. 14. Ngalimat MS, Rahman RNZRA, Yusof MT, Syahir A., Sabri S. Characterisation of bacteria isolated from the stingless bee, Heterotrigona itama, honey, bee bread and propolis. PeerJ. 2019; 7, e7478. pmid:31497388
  15. 15. Yassin MF, Almouqatea S. Assessment of airborne bacteria and fungi in an indoor and outdoor environment. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2010; 7(3), 535–544.
  16. 16. Flores GE, Bates ST, Knights D, Lauber CL, Stombaugh J, Knight R, et al. Microbial biogeography of public restroom surfaces. PloS one. 2011; 6(11), e28132. pmid:22132229
  17. 17. Hospodsky D, Qian J, Nazaroff WW, Yamamoto N, Bibby K, Rismani-Yazdi H. Human occupancy as a source of indoor airborne bacteria. PloS one. 2012; 7(4), e34867. pmid:22529946
  18. 18. Frankel M, Bekö G, Timm M, Gustavsen S, Hansen EW, Madsen AM. Seasonal variations of indoor microbial exposures and their relation to temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rate. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012; 78(23), 8289–8297. pmid:23001651
  19. 19. Leung MH, Wilkins D, Li EK, Kong FK, Lee PK. Indoor-air microbiome in an urban subway network: diversity and dynamics. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014; 80(21), 6760–6770. pmid:25172855
  20. 20. Shan Y, Wu W, Fan W, Haahtela T, Zhang G. House dust microbiome and human health risks. I. Microbiol. 2019. 1–8. pmid:30811000
  21. 21. Cordeiro H, Menezes C, Lage Filho NM, Dos Santos RIR, Teixeira JDS, Leão KDS. Vertebrate feces are stored inside colonies of Melipona flavolineata to be used later as building material. In Embrapa Amazônia Oriental-Resumo em anais de congresso (ALICE). In: ENCONTRO SOBRE ABELHAS, 10., 2012, Ribeirão Preto. Anais… Ribeirão Preto: FUNPEC, 2012.
  22. 22. Rasmussen C, Camargo JM. A molecular phylogeny and the evolution of nest architecture and behavior in Trigona ss (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Apidologie. 2008; 39(1), 102–118.
  23. 23. de Figueiredo-Mecca G, Bego LR, do Nascimento FS. Foraging behavior of Scaptotrigona depilis (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini) and its relationship with temporal and abiotic factors. Sociobiol. 2013; 60(3), 267–282.
  24. 24. Brito RM, Arias MC. Genetic structure of Partamona helleri (Apidae, Meliponini) from Neotropical Atlantic rainforest. Insectes soc. 2010; 57(4), 413–419.
  25. 25. Takahashi S, Tomita J, Nishioka K, Hisada T, Nishijima M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of bacteria and archaea using Next-generation sequencing. Plos One. 2014; e105592. pmid:25144201
  26. 26. Gupta M, Lee S, Bisesi M, Lee J. Indoor Microbiome and Antibiotic Resistance on Floor Surfaces: An Exploratory Study in Three Different Building Types. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(21), 4160. pmid:31661921
  27. 27. Gohli J, Bøifot KO, Moen LV, Pastuszek P, Skogan G, Udekwu K. I et al. The subway microbiome: seasonal dynamics and direct comparison of air and surface bacterial communities. Microbiome. 2019; 7(1), 1–16. pmid:30606251
  28. 28. Kembel SW, Jones E, Kline J, Northcutt D, Stenson J, Womack AM et al. Architectural design influences the diversity and structure of the built environment microbiome. The ISME journal. 2012; 6(8), 1469–1479. pmid:22278670
  29. 29. Vargas-Robles D, Gonzalez-Cedillo C, Hernandez AM, Alcaraz LD, Peimbert M. Passenger-surface microbiome interactions in the subway of Mexico City. bioRxiv. 2020. pmid:32813719
  30. 30. Nogueira Neto P. Vida e criação de abelhas indígenas sem ferrão (No. 595.799 N778). 1997. Nogueirapis.
  31. 31. André SP, Brito R, Miyazawa CS. Karyotypic description of four species of Trigona (Jurine, 1807)(Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini) from the the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2004; 27(2), 187–190.
  32. 32. Pucciarelli AB, Schapovaloff ME, Kummritz S, Señuk IA, Brumovsky LA, Dallagnol AM. Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of yateí (Tetragonisca angustula) honey for assessing quality standards and commercialization. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2014; 46(4), 325–332. pmid:25576417
  33. 33. Gilliam M, Roubik DW, Lorenz BJ. Microorganisms associated with pollen, honey, and brood provisions in the nest of a stingless bee Melipona fasciata. Apidologie. 1990; 21(2), 89–97.
  34. 34. Rigano LA, Siciliano F, Enrique R, Sendín L, Filippone P, Torres PS et al. Biofilm formation, epiphytic fitness, and canker development in Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2007; 20(10), 1222–1230. pmid:17918624
  35. 35. Buonaurio R, Stravato VM, Kosako Y, Fujiwara N, Naka T, Kobayashi K. Sphingomonas melonis sp. nov., a novel pathogen that causes brown spots on yellow Spanish melon fruits. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002; 52(6), 2081–2087. pmid:12508872
  36. 36. Hirano SS, Upper CD. Population biology and epidemiology of Pseudomonas syringae. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1990; 28(1), 155–177.
  37. 37. Monteiro-Vitorello CB, Camargo LE, Van Sluys MA, Kitajima JP, Truffi D, Do Amaral AM. The genome sequence of the gram-positive sugarcane pathogen Leifsonia xyli subsp. Xily. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2004; 17(8), 827–836. pmid:15305603
  38. 38. Muthukumarasamy R, Revathi G, Seshadri S, Lakshminarasimhan C. Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus (syn. Acetobacter diazotrophicus), a promising diazotrophic endophyte in tropics. Curr Sci. 2002; 137–145.
  39. 39. Whipps J, Hand P, Pink D, Bending GD. Phyllosphere microbiology with special reference to diversity and plant genotype. J Appl Microbiol. 2008; 105(6), 1744–1755. pmid:19120625
  40. 40. Wellner S, Lodders N, Kämpfer P. Diversity and biogeography of selected phyllosphere bacteria with special emphasis on Methylobacterium spp. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2011; 34(8), 621–630. pmid:22000032
  41. 41. Lindow SE, Brandl MT. Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003; 69(4), 1875–1883. pmid:12676659
  42. 42. Kageyama A, Morisaki K, Ōmura S, Takahashi Y. Arthrobacter oryzae sp. nov. and Arthrobacter humicola sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008; 58(1), 53–56. pmid:18175682
  43. 43. Jin L, Lee HG, No KJ, Ko SR, Kim HS, Ahn CY et al. Belnapia soli sp. nov., a proteobacterium isolated from grass soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2013; 63(6), 1955–1959. pmid:23024144
  44. 44. Le Chatelier E, Nielsen T, Qin J, Prifti E, Hildebrand F, Falony G. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature. 2013; 500(7464), 541–546. pmid:23985870
  45. 45. Junker RR, Loewel C, Gross R, Dötterl S, Keller A, et al. Composition of epiphytic bacterial communities differs on petals and leaves. Plant Biol. 2011; 13: 918–924. pmid:21972888
  46. 46. de Paula GT, Menezes C, Pupo MT, Rosa CA. Stingless bees and microbial interactions. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 2020.
  47. 47. Paludo CR, Menezes C, Silva-Junior EA, Vollet-Neto A, Andrade-Dominguez A, Pishchany G. Stingless bee larvae require fungal steroid to pupate. Sci. rep. 2018; 8(1), 1–10. pmid:29311619