Next Article in Journal
Pneumococcal Serotypes Associated with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Hospitalizations in Adults in Spain, 2016–2020: The CAPA Study
Previous Article in Journal
Melipona scutellaris Geopropolis: Chemical Composition and Bioactivity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/microorganisms11112780
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Solitary Bees Host More Bacteria and Fungi on Their Cuticle than Social Bees

by
Markus Thamm
1,†,
Fabienne Reiß
2,†,
Leon Sohl
2,
Martin Gabel
1,3,
Matthias Noll
2,4,* and
Ricarda Scheiner
1,*
1
Behavioral Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany
2
Institute of Bioanalysis, Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts, 96450 Coburg, Germany
3
Landesbetrieb Landwirtschaft Hessen, Bee Institute Kirchhain, 35274 Kirchhain, Germany
4
Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research, University of Bayreuth, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(11), 2780; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112780
Submission received: 10 October 2023 / Revised: 1 November 2023 / Accepted: 12 November 2023 / Published: 16 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Veterinary Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bees come into contact with bacteria and fungi from flowering plants during their foraging trips. The Western honeybee (Apis mellifera) shows a pronounced hygienic behavior with social interactions, while the solitary red mason bee (Osmia bicornis) lacks a social immune system. Since both visit the same floral resources, it is intriguing to speculate that the body surface of a solitary bee should harbor a more complex microbiome than that of the social honeybee. We compared the cuticular microbiomes of A. mellifera (including three European subspecies) and O. bicornis for the first time by bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal ITS gene-based high-throughput amplicon sequencing. The cuticular microbiome of the solitary O. bicornis was significantly more complex than that of the social A. mellifera. The microbiome composition of A. mellifera subspecies was very similar. However, we counted significantly different numbers of fungi and a higher diversity in the honeybee subspecies adapted to warmer climates. Our results suggest that the cuticular microbiome of bees is strongly affected by visited plants, lifestyle and adaptation to temperature, which have important implications for the maintenance of the health of bees under conditions of global change.

1. Introduction

Honeybees and wild bees are of great ecological and economic importance as pollinators [1]. In the social Western honey bee (Apis mellifera), only the fertile queens lay eggs. All of the other tasks are performed by sterile female workers [2]. This globally distributed species shows remarkable intraspecific diversity based on differences in morphology, colony development and behavior [3], leading to 30 subspecies. The three subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera, Apis mellifera carnica and Apis mellifera iberiensis represent typical honeybee subspecies adapted to different climatic conditions. The original distribution of A.m. mellifera ranged from the border of the Alps up to Scandinavia and from France to the Ural Mountains [3], i.e., relatively cool areas within Europe. A.m. carnica is the dominant honeybee subspecies in central Europe, originally extending to southeastern Austria and the northwestern Balkans [3], showing adaptation to warmer climates than A.m. mellifera. The natural distribution of A.m. iberiensis covers the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands [3,4,5], i.e., the warmest regions in Europe. Despite the dominance of honeybees in public awareness, the vast majority of bees are solitary [6]. The red mason bee (Osmia bicornis) is a frequent solitary bee in Europe [7]. Each female is fertile and builds her own nest, where eggs are laid in separate cells, along with pollen and nectar provisions [8]. Higher organisms are permanently associated with microbial aggregations formed by bacteria and fungi [9,10]. Pollinators can contribute considerably to the spread of microorganisms by frequent contact with diverse plant surfaces. The ecological community of commensal, symbiotic and pathogenic microorganisms within a given environment is regarded as a microbiome [11]. Surprisingly, the well-studied core gut microbiome of honeybees comprises few bacterial taxa [12,13]. Different castes and even different individuals can display a very different microbiome composition [14,15,16,17]. We assume a long coevolution between hosts and microbiota, which is favored by the social structure of honeybees. Supportive phylogenetic analyses suggest that the primary intestinal bacterial lineages were acquired concomitantly with eusociality [18]. Moreover, honeybees have a social immune system involving allogrooming and resin collection to defeat microorganisms [19,20]. In solitary bees, the gut microbiome is more diverse and flexible [21,22,23,24]. Here, individuals generally do not interact directly. Nevertheless, the same gut bacteria occur in mother bees, pollen provisions and larvae [25,26]. Intriguingly, the same types of bacteria can be found on flowers [24]. Similar results have been reported for honeybees and other flower-visiting insects [27,28].
Flowers likely represent turnover points for bacterial transfer. A bee touches a flower with its tarsae, antennae or proboscis. The cuticle forms the insect’s outer layer. The exoskeletal microbiome composition likely depends on direct interactions of bees with their environment. Bees collect pollen from flowers and store it on their hind legs (honeybees) or on the hairs on the ventral side of their abdomen (red mason bees). Thus, the exchange of microorganisms between flowers and bees is inevitable. Furthermore, honeybee combs are coated with antibiotic propolis [29], which likely influences the composition of their microbiomes. A.m. mellifera and A.m. iberiensis are known to use propolis extensively [3,30]. Red mason bees build their nests in wooden tubes, mixing mud and other materials with their mandibles. Several solitary bees additionally use mandibular gland secretions or secretions of symbiotic bacteria instead of propolis to disinfect their nest cells [31,32]. Due to their different ranges, A. mellifera subspecies and O. bicornis are also exposed to different microbial environments. This raises the question of whether and how the microbiome is determined by the environment.
For the first time, in this study, we compared the microbiome composition of honeybee and red mason bee cuticles. We hypothesized that their cuticular microbiomes would differ due to their differing lifestyles, even though they forage in the same habitats. The cuticular microbiome of honeybees should be more strongly regulated by the social immune system and should harbor lower bacterial and fungal diversity and abundance than those of solitary bees. We further analyzed three different honeybee subspecies originating from different regions in Europe that were artificially maintained in the same location. The subspecies should differ in their cuticular microbiome, as they showed behavioral differences [30] and likely visited different flowers due to differences in preferences for floral resources. All three honeybee subspecies should have a less complex cuticular microbiome compared to solitary bees.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

In this study, we analyzed the microbiomes of A.m. carnica, A.m. mellifera, A.m. iberiensis and O. bicornis (each n = 20). Honeybee in-hive workers were collected from a single colony per subspecies, as described earlier [30]. O. bicornis were purchased commercially but were allowed to nest and forage in the same habitat as our honeybee colonies. All bees were maintained in the same habitat. All individuals were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −20 °C.

2.2. Cuticle Preparation

Antennae, legs and wings were removed under frozen conditions and used for subsequent analyses. The inner organs were carefully removed. The antennae, legs, wings, head capsule, thorax and abdomen without internal organs were summarized as cuticles. In total, five independent replicates per species/subspecies pool were analyzed. Each pool consisted of four individuals.

2.3. Nucleic Acid Extraction

Genomic DNA (gDNA) extraction was performed using a Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe Microprep Kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The final extraction volume was 40 µL per sample. The nucleic acid concentration was determined using a Qubit™ fluorometer. All extracts were stored at −20 °C.

2.4. Quantitative PCR

Bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers were quantified using quantitative PCR (qPCR). The bacterial 16S rRNA gene (16S) was amplified using 341F and 785R primers [31]. Fungal internal transcribed spacer 2 region (ITS) was analyzed with the fITS7 and ITS4 primers [32]. Each reaction contained iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (1×, Bio-Rad) (Hercules, CA, USA), forward/reverse primer (each 300 nM), PCR Enhancer (1×, biotechrabbit) (Berlin, Germany) and the template DNA (1 µL) in a total volume of 20 µL. Each sample, standard or negative control (nuclease-free master mix blank) was analyzed in independent triplicates in 96-well plates. Runs were performed on a C1000 Touch thermocycler combined with a CFX96 Touch Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad). Each run consisted of 3 min at 95 °C followed by 40 cycles of 5 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 52/52.7 °C (16S/ITS) and 30 s at 60 °C. Runs were completed by a melting curve analysis (65–95 °C with an increment of 0.5 °C/5 s). The gene copy number was calculated by comparing cycle threshold values (CT) to a standard curve of 10-fold dilutions of gDNA extracted from a known concentration of Escherichia coli K-12 (DSM 423) and Fusarium solani (DSM 1164) as described above. The standard gDNA concentrations ranged from 5 × 1012 to 5 × 103 (E. coli) and from 5 × 1011 to 5 × 103 gene copies (F. solani). Multiple dilutions were run simultaneously to check for qPCR inhibition, and 10-fold-diluted DNA extracts were found to be best-suited for qPCR analyses. The CT and qPCR efficiency were calculated by Bio-Rad software CFX manager version 3.1.

2.5. Next-Generation Sequencing

We used 25 µL per gDNA extract to generate 16S/ITS amplicons with the primers as described above. Each sample was amplified five times and pooled afterwards for each species to reduce PCR biases. Quality measurements, library preparation and Illumina© sequencing (300 nt paired-end) on a Miseq V3 (Illumina) (San Diego, CA, USA) were performed by LGC Genomics GmbH (Berlin, Deutschland). Raw data were demultiplexed using bcl2fastq (2.17.1.14, Illumina) and sorted by reads and amplicon inline barcodes. Barcode sequences and adapters were removed, and reads shorter than 100 bp were discarded. Primer detection and separation were performed with three mismatches allowed (per primer). Sequences with incomplete primer pairs were discarded. Complementary reads were combined using BBMerge (v34.48, [33]). Operational taxonomic unit (OTU) identification was carried out using Mothur (v1.35.1, [34]). Sequences with ambiguous bases, homopolymeric segments and average quality scores below 33 were removed, and short reads (truncated and non-specific amplicons) were excluded [35]. Chimeras were eliminated by the UCHIME algorithm [36]. Sequences were aligned to the 16S Mothur-Silva SEED r119 reference [37]. OTUs were selected by clustering with an identity level of 97% using the average neighbor method and taxonomically classified using the Silva reference classification [38]. ITS2 sequences were clustered using CD-HIT-EST (v4.6.1, [39]) with an identity level of 97% using the most abundant sequence. Taxonomic classification was achieved using the UNITE v6 reference database [40]. Singleton OTUs were discarded. Finally, OTU count tables were created (BIOM format, [41]) for each bacterial OTU and fungal OTU. Ecological and metabolic functions of detected fungal OTUs were predicted using the FungalTraits database [42]. Bacterial OTU functions were predicted using the FAPROTAX v.1.1 database [43]. The functions of each prokaryotic taxa were annotated according to the literature on the characterized strains.

2.6. Statistics

Statistical analyses were performed using R (4.1.2). Datasets were initially tested for normal distribution and variance homogeneity (Jarque–Bera test and Levene’s test, respectively). For an OTU composition overview of the bacterial and fungal communities, the relative abundances (AR) per sample were calculated: ni/N (ni = amount sequence reads per OTU, N = sum of all bacterial/fungal reads). Visualization of AR was conducted with OriginPro 2022 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). Estimation of alpha diversity was performed using the R package ‘vegan’ (2.5.7). Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) were used to calculate beta diversity using R packages ‘FactoMineR’ (2.4) and ‘vegan’. Statistical differences between the species/subspecies were analyzed using PERMANOVA and ANOSIM analysis with the ‘vegan’ package. To test for significant differences in bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers or different diversity indices, we applied linear regression analysis with subspecies nested in species. The ‘emmeans’ package (1.7.2) was used to compute contrasts using Tukey’s range test. Data visualization was performed with R packages ‘ggplot2’ (3.3.3), ‘ggpubr’ (0.4.0), ‘cowplot’ (1.1.1), ‘magick’ (2.7.0) and ‘png’ (0.1–7). The bacterial and fungal genera that differed significantly among the bee species/subspecies were identified using indicator species analysis conducted using the “multipatt” function in the ‘indicspecies’ package, which calculates indicator values with the ‘r.g’ function.

3. Results

3.1. Bacterial and Fungal Gene Copy Numbers

The cuticular microbiome of A. mellifera revealed significantly lower bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers than those of O. bicornis (Figure 1). Bacterial gene copy numbers did not differ between honeybee subspecies (Figure 1A). Fungal gene copy numbers were significantly lower in A.m. mellifera than A.m. iberiensis (Figure 1B).

3.2. Cuticular Microbiome Composition

The microbiomes of O. bicornis and A. mellifera differed significantly in their compositions (Figure 2 and Figure S1). The most abundant bacterial genera of the honeybees’ cuticular microbiome were Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Gilliamella, Rhizobiales, Saccharibacter and Snodgrassela (relative abundance > 5%). In contrast, Spiroplasma was the most abundant taxon and also an indicator genus for the O. bicornis cuticle (Figure 2A; Table 1). Lactobacillus and Citrobacter were the next most abundant bacterial genera.
The cuticular fungal microbiome of O. bicornis differed significantly from that of A. mellifera (Figure 2B), with Bettsia (indicator species, Table 1), Ascomycota (non-classified), Capnoidales and Monascus as the most abundant genera (relative abundance > 5%). Additionally, a significant difference between the A.m. mellifera and A.m. iberiensis fungal microbiome was observed (p = 0.0391). The most abundant genera on the cuticular fungal microbiome of A. mellifera bees were Alternaria, Capnoidales (non-classified), Metschnikowia, Saccharomyces, Melampsora and Aurebasidium.

3.3. Cuticular Microbiome Diversity

The cuticular bacterial and fungal genera richness was highest in O. bicornis and A.m. iberiensis, while the other A. mellifera subspecies had a significantly lower richness (Figure 3A). Overall, 27 bacterial and 24 fungal genera were detected on all bees (Figure S1). Eighty-one bacterial genera were exclusive to O. bicornis. Bacterial genera in the A. mellifera subspecies were considerably lower. Each subspecies has exclusive bacterial genera (A.m. iberiensis, 75; A.m. carnica, 10; A.m. mellifera, 15). Similarly, O. bicornis had the highest number of exclusive fungal genera (108), while A. mellifera showed many fewer exclusive fungal genera (A.m. carnica, 7; A.m. mellifera, 12; A.m. iberiensis, 30).
The Shannon index of the cuticular microbiomes was similar between all bees. Differences in richness, evenness, Chao1 and ACE were found between A. mellifera and O. bicornis (Table 2). Within the honeybee subspecies, A.m. iberiensis and A.m. mellifera differed significantly only in richness, Chao1 and ACE (Table 2). In summary, the cuticular microbiome diversity of A.m. iberiensis was more similar to that of O. bicornis than to the other two honeybee subspecies (Figure 3). The cuticular bacterial and fungal community compositions were very similar between the three honeybee subspecies but dissimilar to those of O. bicornis (Figure 4 and Figure S2).
The composition pattern of cuticular bacterial functions significantly differed between O. bicornis and both A.m. carnica (p = 0.0262) and A.m. iberiensis (p = 0.0332) but did not differ from that of A.m. mellifera (p = 0.0619). O. bicornis showed the highest diversity in bacterial functions. Nevertheless, all four groups were dominated by bacterial communities capable of nitrogen fixation and nitrate reduction (Figure 5A). O. bicornis also differed from honeybees in the composition of fungal functions (A.m. mellifera, p = 0.0079; A.m. carnica, p = 0.009; A.m. iberiensis, p = 0.0082). The high proportion of animal parasites is noteworthy. While the cuticles of honeybees were dominated by plant pathogenic fungi compared to O. bicornis, A.m. iberiensis differed significantly from A.m. mellifera (p = 0.0375) in its fungal functional community composition but not from A.m. carnica (p = 0.1847).
In total, fifteen indicator species were identified that were associated with the respective bee species. The most bacterial indicator species were found for O. bicornis, followed by A.m. iberiensis (Table 1). In total, 51 fungal indicator species were found in all bee species, while Trimmatostroma was a fungal indicator species for both O. bicornis and A. m iberiensis (Table 1). Similar to the bacterial indicator species, O. bicornis also has the most fungal indicator species (38 genera), followed by A.m. iberiensis (8), A.m. mellifera (4) and A.m. carnica (1).

4. Discussion

4.1. Social Bees Display a Reduced Cuticular Microbiome

We hypothesized that microorganisms on the cuticle of O. bicornis would be more abundant and more diverse than those of A. mellifera, as the latter has an effective social immune system [19,20]. Indeed, we found significant differences in the cuticular microbiome between the two species. The microbial communities of red mason bees were more diverse (Figure 2 and Figure 4). For example, Lactobacillus, which is typical of the honeybee gut [44], was less abundant on the cuticle of red mason bees (Figure 2). The microbiome of solitary bees is considered to be shaped by the environment rather than by intraspecific transmission [45]. Even Lactobacillus members present on O. bicornis could be obtained from flowers [23]. We demonstrated, for the first time, a high abundance of the genus Spiroplasma on O. bicornis, which is potentially pathogenic [46]. These differences probably have little functional significance. In both bee species, chemoheterotrophy and fermentation are the predominant bacterial functions. This can be explained by their lifestyles. Honeybees have few environmental contacts, consisting mainly of their hive and the plants they visit. This also applies to red mason bees. However, honeybees secrete wax for nest building [47]. Osmia bees need to collect soil material [48] and are likely to be exposed to multiple soil microbes. Soil comprises a wide range microbial habitats [49], which may account for additional functional communities (e.g. nitrogen fixation and nitrate reduction; Figure 5).
Several fungal genera were absent, whereas others seem to be more specific to O. bicornis (Figure 2). This also affected the fungal functional composition. In honeybees, plant pathogens appear to be important, while they account for a lower abundance in red mason bees, where animal parasites were more prominent (Figure 5). Such findings are unlikely for honeybees because they use propolis to combat pathogens [50], combined with frequent cleaning and allogrooming [19,51,52].
Sooty mold fungi seem to be omnipresent on honeybee cuticles, despite the low relative abundance. This common plant disease is associated with honeydew, which honeybees collect [53]. These fungi are reduced on O. bicornis cuticles. It is unclear whether O. bicornis collect honeydew under natural conditions and whether other cuticular microbes can reduce sooty mold, although they have been shown to collect honeydew under semi-field conditions [54]. In addition, we detected twelve nectar-saprotrophic fungal species on honeybees, but only three species occurred in O. bicornis, with significantly reduced abundances (Figure 2). Although honeybees avoid yeast-inoculated nectar [55,56], it seems plausible that the processing of the nectar favors certain fungal species [57]. Here, ripe fruit juice collection [58] may be an additional source of infection.

4.2. Honeybee Subspecies from the Same Environment Resemble Similar Cuticular Microbiomes

Differences in microbiome quantities and composition of the different honeybee subspecies were moderate (Figure 2 and Figure 4). A.m. mellifera’s cuticle harbors some microbial genera that were absent or reduced in the other two subspecies. However, the functional bacterial composition appears similar, with chemoheterotrophy and fermentation dominating (Figure 5). This suggests a negligible maternal effect on the cuticular microbiome, as the environment of the colonies was identical, whereas the queens originated from different European locations. We observed similar results with the fungal cuticular microbiome. Although A.m. mellifera was colonized by some additional genera, the functional composition was similar to that of the other two subspecies (Figure 5). Only plant pathogens were less abundant in A.m. mellifera. This subspecies is known to use antimicrobiotic propolis extensively [3]. However, this is also true for A.m. iberiensis and, therefore, cannot explain these differences. We conclude that environmental microbiomes are more relevant for the cuticular microbiome of bees than the genetic imprint of the subspecies.

4.3. The Cuticular Microbiome Differs from the Gut Microbiome

The gut microbiome of adult worker honeybees usually comprises members of up to nine distinct bacterial genera [44,59,60], some of which were also found on the cuticle (Figure 2). Surprisingly, these bacteria are rarely found in the hive [61,62,63]. It is possible that some of these bacteria also perform important cuticle functions. For example, the prominent Lactobacillus can contribute to a low pH, which is an important defense mechanism against pathogens [64]. Maybe they also perform this role on the cuticle. However, we can also detect fewer common gut-typical genera on the cuticle. These include, for example, Bifidobacterium, Gilliamella and Snodgrassella, which are thought to be important in fighting certain pathogens [65,66,67,68,69]. Since horizontal transmission is likely not restricted to the gut [70], allogrooming forces constant repopulation. Other genera, such as Frischella and Bartonella, were not apparent on honeybee cuticles. Here, the conditions are probably not optimal for all gut microbes, which include the aerobic environment, nutrient availability [17], pH [71], temperature conditions [72], increased UV exposure [73] and the microbial community. The fungal microbiome situation is different. We found genera (Alternaria, Aureobasidium and Melampsora) known from the gut [74,75] and the previously unreported Metschnikowia. The fungal microbiome of the gut appears to be mainly shaped by the environment and nutrient availability [74,76,77]. This is likely similar for the cuticle, as many of the fungi we found are common in the environment and associated with bees. For instance, Alternaria and Aureobasidium are ubiquitously distributed [78,79]. Rust genus Melampsora is a typical plant pathogen [80]. Furthermore, Metschnikowia is likely distributed by pollinators [81,82]. In the future, it will be necessary to analyze which species are bee-specific and colonize the cuticle permanently and which are temporary guests. Another question that needs to be answered is the extent to which the cuticle microbiome, as a whole, as well as certain representatives, actually influences the gut microbiome and, thus, bee health. The gut microbiome has been shown to have a positive effect on food utilization and defense against certain infections [83]. The cuticular microbiome may also play an important role in fending off pathogens, given that the cuticle is the first direct contact with the environment.

5. Conclusions

Herein, we compared, for the first time, the cuticular microbiome of the social A. mellifera with that of the solitary O. bicornis. As expected, honeybees had a less diverse microbiome, most likely due to their social lifestyle. Furthermore, within different honeybee subspecies living in the same habitat, we found only minor differences in their cuticular microbiome, suggesting a minor effect of genotype. In future experiments, it will be exciting to more closely study which particular hygienic behaviors have a specific impact on the cuticular microbiome of honeybees.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11112780/s1, Figure S1: Full legend of the cuticular community of bacterial and fungal genera (please see Figure 2); Figure S2: Detrended correspondence analysis of the cuticle microbiome composition; Figure S3: Full legend of bacterial functions found in the cuticular bacterial communities (please see Figure 5).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T., F.R., M.N. and R.S.; methodology, M.T., F.R., M.N. and R.S.; validation, M.N. and R.S.; formal analysis, F.R. and M.N.; investigation, M.T., F.R., L.S. and M.G.; resources, M.N. and R.S.; data curation, F.R. and M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T. and F.R.; writing—review and editing, M.T., F.R., L.S., M.G., M.N. and R.S.; visualization, M.T. and F.R.; supervision, M.N. and R.S.; project administration, M.N. and R.S.; funding acquisition, M.N. and R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Bavarian Environment Agency and supported by a grant from the Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection to M.N. and R.S. within the network BayÖkotox (ID75253) (TP6 Bewertung Biozid-haltiger Baustoffe; TP 2 Honig- und Wildbienen unter Stress).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Our dataset is publicly available via NCBI accession number PRJNA879967: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA879967/.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Julia Kenzel and Eva-Maria Wittmann for their excellent project organization and Felix Schneider for his help with the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hein, L. The economic value of the pollination service, a review across scales. Open Ecol. J. 2009, 2, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Winston, M.L. The Biology of the Honey Bee; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ruttner, F. Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. De La Rúa, P.; Galián, J.; Serrano, J.; Moritz, R.F. Genetic structure and distinctness of Apis mellifera L. populations from the Canary Islands. Mol. Ecol. 2001, 10, 1733–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Radloff, S.; Hepburn, H.; Hepburn, C.; De la Rúa, P. Morphometric affinities and population structure of honey bees of the Balearic Islands (Spain). J. Apic. Res. 2001, 40, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Danforth, B.N.; Cardinal, S.; Praz, C.; Almeida, E.A.; Michez, D. The impact of molecular data on our understanding of bee phylogeny and evolution. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Westrich, P. Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs. Bände I+II; Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  8. Strohm, E.; Daniels, H.; Warmers, C.; Stoll, C. Nest provisioning and a possible cost of reproduction in the megachilid bee Osmia rufa studied by a new observation method. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2002, 14, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fanning, S.; Mitchell, A.P. Fungal biofilms. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Flemming, H.C.; Wingender, J.; Szewzyk, U.; Steinberg, P.; Rice, S.A.; Kjelleberg, S. Biofilms: An emergent form of bacterial life. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lederberg, J.; McCray, A.T. Ome SweetOmics–A genealogical treasury of words. Science 2001, 15, 8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kwong, W.K.; Moran, N.A. Gut microbial communities of social bees. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Miller, D.L.; Parish, A.J.; Newton, I.L. Transitions and transmission: Behavior and physiology as drivers of honey bee-associated microbial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Corby-Harris, V.; Maes, P.; Anderson, K.E. The bacterial communities associated with honey bee (Apis mellifera) foragers. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kapheim, K.M.; Rao, V.D.; Yeoman, C.J.; Wilson, B.A.; White, B.A.; Goldenfeld, N.; Robinson, G.E. Caste-specific differences in hindgut microbial communities of honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0123911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tarpy, D.R.; Mattila, H.R.; Newton, I.L. Development of the honey bee gut microbiome throughout the queen-rearing process. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 3182–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jones, J.C.; Fruciano, C.; Hildebrand, F.; Al Toufalilia, H.; Balfour, N.J.; Bork, P.; Engel, P.; Ratnieks, F.L.; Hughes, W.O. Gut microbiota composition is associated with environmental landscape in honey bees. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kwong, W.K.; Medina, L.A.; Koch, H.; Sing, K.W.; Soh, E.J.Y.; Ascher, J.S.; Jaffé, R.; Moran, N.A. Dynamic microbiome evolution in social bees. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kolmes, S.A. Grooming specialists among worker honey bees, Apis mellifera. Anim. Behav. 1989, 37, 1048–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Simone-Finstrom, M. Social immunity and the superorganism: Behavioral defenses protecting honey bee colonies from pathogens and parasites. Bee World 2017, 94, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Keller, A.; Grimmer, G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Diverse microbiota identified in whole intact nest chambers of the red mason bee Osmia bicornis (Linnaeus 1758). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McFrederick, Q.S.; Rehan, S.M. Characterization of pollen and bacterial community composition in brood provisions of a small carpenter bee. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25, 2302–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McFrederick, Q.S.; Thomas, J.M.; Neff, J.L.; Vuong, H.Q.; Russell, K.A.; Hale, A.R.; Mueller, U.G. Flowers and wild megachilid bees share microbes. Microb. Ecol. 2017, 73, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Voulgari-Kokota, A.; Grimmer, G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Keller, A. Bacterial community structure and succession in nests of two megachilid bee genera. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2019, 95, fiy218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hosokawa, T.; Kikuchi, Y.; Fukatsu, T. How many symbionts are provided by mothers, acquired by offspring, and needed for successful vertical transmission in an obligate insect–bacterium mutualism? Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 5316–5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Keller, A.; Brandel, A.; Becker, M.C.; Balles, R.; Abdelmohsen, U.R.; Ankenbrand, M.J.; Sickel, W. Wild bees and their nests host Paenibacillus bacteria with functional potential of avail. Microbiome 2018, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ushio, M.; Yamasaki, E.; Takasu, H.; Nagano, A.J.; Fujinaga, S.; Honjo, M.N.; Ikemoto, M.; Sakai, S.; Kudoh, H. Microbial communities on flower surfaces act as signatures of pollinator visitation. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ożarowski, M.; Karpiński, T.M.; Alam, R.; Lochyńska, M. Antifungal Properties of Chemically Defined Propolis from Various Geographical Regions. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wang, Z.; Peng, A.H.; Lu, D.D.; Song, Y.J.; Wang, C.L.; Xie, W.D. Manumycin-type derivatives from a Streptomyces sp. associated with meson bee Osmia cornifrons. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2018, 13, 1934578X1801300605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Scheiner, R.; Lim, K.; Meixner, M.D.; Gabel, M.S. Comparing the appetitive learning performance of six European honeybee subspecies in a common apiary. Insects 2021, 12, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Y.; Qian, P.Y. Conservative fragments in bacterial 16S rRNA genes and primer design for 16S ribosomal DNA amplicons in metagenomic studies. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Porras-Alfaro, A.; Liu, K.L.; Kuske, C.R.; Xie, G. From genus to phylum: Large-subunit and internal transcribed spacer rRNA operon regions show similar classification accuracies influenced by database composition. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bushnell, B.; Rood, J.; Singer, E. BBMerge–accurate paired shotgun read merging via overlap. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schloss, P.D.; Westcott, S.L.; Ryabin, T.; Hall, J.R.; Hartmann, M.; Hollister, E.B.; Lesniewski, R.A.; Oakley, B.B.; Parks, D.H.; Robinson, C.J.; et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7537–7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Whelan, R.A.; Doranalli, K.; Rinttilä, T.; Vienola, K.; Jurgens, G.; Apajalahti, J. The impact of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32315 on the pathology, performance, and intestinal microbiome of broiler chickens in a necrotic enteritis challenge. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 3450–3463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Edgar, R.C.; Haas, B.J.; Clemente, J.C.; Quince, C.; Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2194–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Quast, C.; Pruesse, E.; Yilmaz, P.; Gerken, J.; Schweer, T.; Yarza, P.; Peplies, J.; Glöckner, F.O. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 41, D590–D596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Buettner, C.; Noll, M. Differences in microbial key players in anaerobic degradation between biogas and sewage treatment plants. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 133, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, W.; Godzik, A. Cd-hit: A fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2006, 22, 1658–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kõljalg, U.; Nilsson, H.R.; Schigel, D.; Tedersoo, L.; Larsson, K.H.; May, T.W.; Taylor, A.F.; Jeppesen, T.S.; Frøslev, T.G.; Lindahl, B.D.; et al. The taxon hypothesis paradigm—On the unambiguous detection and communication of taxa. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. McDonald, D.; Clemente, J.C.; Kuczynski, J.; Rideout, J.R.; Stombaugh, J.; Wendel, D.; Wilke, A.; Huse, S.; Hufnagle, J.; Meyer, F.; et al. The Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) format or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the ome-ome. Gigascience 2012, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Põlme, S.; Abarenkov, K.; Henrik Nilsson, R.; Lindahl, B.D.; Clemmensen, K.E.; Kauserud, H.; Nguyen, N.; Kjöller, R.; Bates, S.T.; Baldrian, P.; et al. FungalTraits: A user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 2020, 105, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Louca, S.; Parfrey, L.W.; Doebeli, M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science 2016, 353, 1272–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martinson, V.G.; Danforth, B.N.; Minckley, R.L.; Rueppell, O.; Tingek, S.; Moran, N.A. A simple and distinctive microbiota associated with honey bees and bumble bees. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lozo, J.; Berić, T.; Terzić-Vidojević, A.; Stanković, S.; Fira, D.; Stanisavljević, L. Microbiota associated with pollen, bee bread, larvae and adults of solitary bee Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2015, 105, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fünfhaus, A.; Ebeling, J.; Genersch, E. Bacterial pathogens of bees. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Blomquist, G.J.; Chu, A.J.; Remaley, S. Biosynthesis of wax in the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. Insect Biochem. 1980, 10, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pinilla-Gallego, M.S.; Crum, J.; Schaetzl, R.; Isaacs, R. Soil textures of nest partitions made by the mason bees Osmia lignaria and O. cornifrons (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Apidologie 2018, 49, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Przybyłek, I.; Karpiński, T.M. Antibacterial properties of propolis. Molecules 2019, 24, 2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Drescher, N.; Klein, A.M.; Schmitt, T.; Leonhardt, S.D. A clue on bee glue: New insight into the sources and factors driving resin intake in honeybees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cini, A.; Bordoni, A.; Cappa, F.; Petrocelli, I.; Pitzalis, M.; Iovinella, I.; Dani, F.R.; Turillazzi, S.; Cervo, R. Increased immunocompetence and network centrality of allogroomer workers suggest a link between individual and social immunity in honeybees. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kunkel, H.; Kloft, W. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Honigtauforschung. Apidologie 1977, 8, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Konrad, R.; Wäckers, F.L.; Romeis, J.; Babendreier, D. Honeydew feeding in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis as affected by aphid species and nectar availability. J. Insect Physiol. 2009, 55, 1158–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rering, C.C.; Rudolph, A.B.; Beck, J.J. Pollen and yeast change nectar aroma and nutritional content alone and together, but honey bee foraging reflects only the avoidance of yeast. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 4141–4150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Scheiner, R.; Strauß, S.; Thamm, M.; Farré-Armengol, G.; Junker, R.R. The bacterium Pantoea ananatis modifies behavioral responses to sugar solutions in honeybees. Insects 2020, 11, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bugarova, V.; Godocikova, J.; Bucekova, M.; Brodschneider, R.; Majtan, J. Effects of the carbohydrate sources nectar, sucrose and invert sugar on antibacterial activity of honey and bee-processed syrups. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Shackleton, K.; Balfour, N.J.; Al Toufailia, H.; Gaioski Jr, R.; de Matos Barbosa, M.; Silva, C.A.d.S.; Bento, J.M.; Alves, D.A.; Ratnieks, F.L. Quality versus quantity: Foraging decisions in the honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata) feeding on wildflower nectar and fruit juice. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 7156–7165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Engel, P.; Martinson, V.G.; Moran, N.A. Functional diversity within the simple gut microbiota of the honey bee. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 11002–11007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moran, N.A.; Hansen, A.K.; Powell, J.E.; Sabree, Z.L. Distinctive gut microbiota of honey bees assessed using deep sampling from individual worker bees. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e36393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Anderson, K.E.; Sheehan, T.; Eckholm, B.; Mott, B.; DeGrandi-Hoffman, G. An emerging paradigm of colony health: Microbial balance of the honey bee and hive (Apis mellifera). Insectes Sociaux 2011, 58, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Koch, H.; Abrol, D.P.; Li, J.; Schmid-Hempel, P. Diversity and evolutionary patterns of bacterial gut associates of corbiculate bees. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22, 2028–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Taylor, M.A.; Robertson, A.W.; Biggs, P.J.; Richards, K.K.; Jones, D.F.; Parkar, S.G. The effect of carbohydrate sources: Sucrose, invert sugar and components of mānuka honey, on core bacteria in the digestive tract of adult honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Palmer-Young, E.C.; Raffel, T.R.; McFrederick, Q.S. pH-mediated inhibition of a bumble bee parasite by an intestinal symbiont. Parasitology 2019, 146, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Koch, H.; Schmid-Hempel, P. Gut microbiota instead of host genotype drive the specificity in the interaction of a natural host-parasite system. Ecol. Lett. 2012, 15, 1095–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cariveau, D.P.; Elijah Powell, J.; Koch, H.; Winfree, R.; Moran, N.A. Variation in gut microbial communities and its association with pathogen infection in wild bumble bees (Bombus). ISME J. 2014, 8, 2369–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Guo, J.; Wu, J.; Chen, Y.; Evans, J.D.; Dai, R.; Luo, W.; Li, J. Characterization of gut bacteria at different developmental stages of Asian honey bees, Apis cerana. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 127, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Erban, T.; Ledvinka, O.; Kamler, M.; Nesvorna, M.; Hortova, B.; Tyl, J.; Titera, D.; Markovic, M.; Hubert, J. Honeybee (Apis mellifera)-associated bacterial community affected by American foulbrood: Detection of Paenibacillus larvae via microbiome analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Erban, T.; Ledvinka, O.; Kamler, M.; Hortova, B.; Nesvorna, M.; Tyl, J.; Titera, D.; Markovic, M.; Hubert, J. Bacterial community associated with worker honeybees (Apis mellifera) affected by European foulbrood. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Powell, J.E.; Martinson, V.G.; Urban-Mead, K.; Moran, N.A. Routes of acquisition of the gut microbiota of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 7378–7387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Walker, A.W.; Duncan, S.H.; McWilliam Leitch, E.C.; Child, M.W.; Flint, H.J. pH and peptide supply can radically alter bacterial populations and short-chain fatty acid ratios within microbial communities from the human colon. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 3692–3700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hammer, T.J.; Le, E.; Moran, N.A. Thermal niches of specialized gut symbionts: The case of social bees. Proc. R. Soc. B 2021, 288, 20201480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fahimipour, A.K.; Hartmann, E.M.; Siemens, A.; Kline, J.; Levin, D.A.; Wilson, H.; Betancourt-Román, C.M.; Brown, G.; Fretz, M.; Northcutt, D.; et al. Daylight exposure modulates bacterial communities associated with household dust. Microbiome 2018, 6, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ludvigsen, J.; Andersen, Å.; Hjeljord, L.; Rudi, K. The honeybee gut mycobiota cluster by season versus the microbiota which cluster by gut segment. Vet. Sci. 2020, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Callegari, M.; Crotti, E.; Fusi, M.; Marasco, R.; Gonella, E.; De Noni, I.; Romano, D.; Borin, S.; Tsiamis, G.; Cherif, A.; et al. Compartmentalization of bacterial and fungal microbiomes in the gut of adult honeybees. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2021, 7, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Yun, J.H.; Jung, M.J.; Kim, P.S.; Bae, J.W. Social status shapes the bacterial and fungal gut communities of the honey bee. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Tauber, J.P.; Nguyen, V.; Lopez, D.; Evans, J.D. Effects of a resident yeast from the honeybee gut on immunity, microbiota, and Nosema disease. Insects 2019, 10, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Prasongsuk, S.; Lotrakul, P.; Ali, I.; Bankeeree, W.; Punnapayak, H. The current status of Aureobasidium pullulans in biotechnology. Folia Microbiol. 2018, 63, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wang, H.; Guo, Y.; Luo, Z.; Gao, L.; Li, R.; Zhang, Y.; Kalaji, H.M.; Qiang, S.; Chen, S. Recent Advances in Alternaria Phytotoxins: A Review of Their Occurrence, Structure, Bioactivity, and Biosynthesis. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J.A.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Di Pietro, A.; Spanu, P.D.; Rudd, J.J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J.; et al. The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jimenez, S.I.; Carroll, C.; Babcock, T.; Derstine, N.; Hadwin, A.; Moore, M.; Gries, G. Yeasts harbored by vespine wasps in the Pacific Northwest. Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Colda, A.; Bossaert, S.; Verreth, C.; Vanhoutte, B.; Honnay, O.; Keulemans, W.; Lievens, B. Inoculation of pear flowers with Metschnikowia reukaufii and Acinetobacter nectaris enhances attraction of honeybees and hoverflies, but does not increase fruit and seed set. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Raymann, K.; Moran, N.A. The role of the gut microbiome in health and disease of adult honey bee workers. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 11 02780 g001
Figure 1. Bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers of the cuticular microbiome from A. mellifera and O. bicornis. (A) Bacterial gene copy numbers differed significantly between species (R2 = 0.31, F(3, 16) = 3.885, p = 0.029). Significant differences were present between O. bicornis and A. mellifera (p = 0.0075) but not between honeybee subspecies (p > 0.05). (B) Fungal gene copy numbers differed significantly between species and subspecies (R2 = 0.65, FF(3, 16) = 12.78, p = 0.0002). Differences not only occurred between O. bicornis and A. mellifera (p = 0.0001) but also between A.m. mellifera and A.m. iberiensis (p = 0.033) but not in the other two combinations (p > 0.05). Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals.
Figure 1. Bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers of the cuticular microbiome from A. mellifera and O. bicornis. (A) Bacterial gene copy numbers differed significantly between species (R2 = 0.31, F(3, 16) = 3.885, p = 0.029). Significant differences were present between O. bicornis and A. mellifera (p = 0.0075) but not between honeybee subspecies (p > 0.05). (B) Fungal gene copy numbers differed significantly between species and subspecies (R2 = 0.65, FF(3, 16) = 12.78, p = 0.0002). Differences not only occurred between O. bicornis and A. mellifera (p = 0.0001) but also between A.m. mellifera and A.m. iberiensis (p = 0.033) but not in the other two combinations (p > 0.05). Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals.
Microorganisms 11 02780 g001
Microorganisms 11 02780 g002
Figure 2. Bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers of the cuticular microbiome from A. mellifera and O. bicornis. Cuticular bacterial and fungal community composition of A. mellifera and O. bicornis. Relative sequence read abundances of the bacterial (A) and fungal (B) communities at the genus level. The legend indicates all genera with a relative sequence read abundance >1%. Each species/subspecies is represented by the mean of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences according to one-way non-parametric multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). Unclassified members of the respective taxon are marked with *. The full legend is presented in Figure S1.
Figure 2. Bacterial and fungal gene copy numbers of the cuticular microbiome from A. mellifera and O. bicornis. Cuticular bacterial and fungal community composition of A. mellifera and O. bicornis. Relative sequence read abundances of the bacterial (A) and fungal (B) communities at the genus level. The legend indicates all genera with a relative sequence read abundance >1%. Each species/subspecies is represented by the mean of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences according to one-way non-parametric multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). Unclassified members of the respective taxon are marked with *. The full legend is presented in Figure S1.
Microorganisms 11 02780 g002
Microorganisms 11 02780 g003
Figure 3. Diversity indices of the cuticular microbiomes of honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Statistical comparisons are summarized in Table 2. Chao1: Chao1 Index; ACE: abundance-based coverage estimator.
Figure 3. Diversity indices of the cuticular microbiomes of honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Statistical comparisons are summarized in Table 2. Chao1: Chao1 Index; ACE: abundance-based coverage estimator.
Microorganisms 11 02780 g003
Microorganisms 11 02780 g004
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of the cuticular bacterial (A) and fungal (B) community composition on A. mellifera subspecies and O. bicornis. Please see the figure legend for the color code. Each species/subspecies is represented by one of five independent replicates, which each consisted of four individuals. The lines emphasize the centroid of the communities, which represents the mean community composition of a species/subspecies. Data were also supported by DCA analysis (Figure S2).
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of the cuticular bacterial (A) and fungal (B) community composition on A. mellifera subspecies and O. bicornis. Please see the figure legend for the color code. Each species/subspecies is represented by one of five independent replicates, which each consisted of four individuals. The lines emphasize the centroid of the communities, which represents the mean community composition of a species/subspecies. Data were also supported by DCA analysis (Figure S2).
Microorganisms 11 02780 g004
Microorganisms 11 02780 g005
Figure 5. Functional assignment of the cuticular bacterial (A) and fungal community composition (B) of three honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences according to one-way non-parametric multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). The full legend is presented in Figure S3.
Figure 5. Functional assignment of the cuticular bacterial (A) and fungal community composition (B) of three honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. Each species/subspecies is represented by the median of five independent replicates, each consisting of four individuals. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences according to one-way non-parametric multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). The full legend is presented in Figure S3.
Microorganisms 11 02780 g005
Table 1. Cuticular bacterial and fungal indicator species analysis of three honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. The stat value and significance of each species are ranked according to the respective stat value.
Table 1. Cuticular bacterial and fungal indicator species analysis of three honeybee subspecies and red mason bees. The stat value and significance of each species are ranked according to the respective stat value.
Bee Species/SubspeciesStatp-Value FamilyGenusFunction
BacteriaA.m. iberiensis0.6950.0048**Lactobacillales uncl.Lactobacillales uncl.NA
0.6690.0322*Elev-16S-1332Elev-16S-1332 uncl.NA
0.6650.0322*ChitinophagaceaeChitinophagaceae uncl.aerobic chemoheterotrophy chemoheterotrophy
0.6140.0367*Rhodospirillales Incertae SedisCandidatus AlysiosphaeraNA
0.4560.0355*SolirubrobacteraceaeSolirubrobacteraerobic chemoheterotrophy chemoheterotrophy
0.4230.0177*SphingomonadaceaeSphingomonasaerobic chemoheterotrophy chemoheterotrophy
O. bicornis0.8330.0030**Xanthomonadales Incertae SedisSteroidobacteraerobic chemoheterotrophy
0.7820.0003***HyphomicrobiaceaeRhodoplanesphototrophy
0.7470.0003***Actinobacteria uncl.Actinobacteria uncl.NA
0.7440.0003***RhodobiaceaeRhodobiumaerobic chemoheterotrophy photoheterotrophy phototrophy
0.7070.0303*PlanctomycetaceaePir4 lineagechemoorganotrophy
0.7010.0342*NocardiaceaeNocardiaaerobic chemoheterotrophy chemoheterotrophy
0.6610.0003***SpiroplasmataceaeSpiroplasmaparasitic
0.6570.0347*NocardioidaceaeKribbellachemoorganotrophy
0.6290.0303*VerrucomicrobiaceaeVerrucomicrobiaceae uncl.aerobic chemoheterotrophy chemoheterotrophy
FungiA.m. mellifera0.6590.0368*PhaeosphaeriaceaePhaeosphaeriaceae uncl.litter saprotroph
0.6080.0406*Tremellales uncl.Cryptococcusunspecified saprotroph
0.6000.0368*EremascaceaeEremascusunspecified saprotroph
0.5120.0083**NectriaceaeNectriaceae uncl.plant pathogen animal parasite
A.m. iberiensis0.7360.0008***XylariaceaeXylariawood saprotroph
0.6820.0383*Ascomycota uncl.Torulafoliar endophyte
0.6780.0383*Tremellomycetes uncl.Tremellomycetes uncl.NA
0.6100.0269*PleosporaceaeAlternariaplant pathogen
0.5930.0383*Xylariales uncl.Dinemasporiumlitter saprotroph
0.5260.0424*MetschnikowiaceaeMetschnikowianectar tap saprotroph
0.4400.0436*HerpotrichiellaceaeExophialaanimalparasite
0.4340.0438*AmphisphaeriaceaeAmphisphaeriaceae uncl.plant pathogen
A.m. carnica0.70.0087**MicrobotryaceaeMicrobotryumplant pathogen
O. bicornis 10.9000.0001***DavidiellaceaeCladosporiumlitter saprotroph
0.8890.0001***PolyporaceaeFomeswood saprotroph
0.8770.0001***MycosphaerellaceaeMycosphaerellaceae uncl.plant pathogen
0.8730.0001***Capnodiales uncl.Toxicocladosporiumplant pathogen
0.8450.0005***Capnodiales uncl.Pseudotaeniolinalitter saprotroph
0.8270.0037**CystofilobasidiaceaeGuehomycesNA
0.8160.0001***SaccharomycetaceaeSaccharomycetaceae uncl.nectar tap saprotroph
0.8050.0001***CordycipitaceaeCordycipitaceae uncl.animal parasite
0.8020.0001***AscosphaeraceaeBettsiaanimal parasite
0.7990.0003***TrichocomaceaeAspergillusunspecifiedsaprotroph
1 excerpt of the 10 genera with the highest Stat-value; Signif. Codes: *** = 0, ** = 0.001, * = 0.01.
Table 2. Statistical comparison of diversity indices for the cuticular microbiomes of honeybees and red mason bees (see also Figure 3). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p< 0.05, **: p< 0.01.
Table 2. Statistical comparison of diversity indices for the cuticular microbiomes of honeybees and red mason bees (see also Figure 3). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p< 0.05, **: p< 0.01.
Index Contrastp-Value
RichnessR2 = 0.58
F(3,16) = 9.696
p = 0.0007		A. mellifera vs. O. bicornis
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. mellifera
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. iberiensis
A.m. mellifera vs. A.m. iberiensis		0.0014
0.8306
0.0249
0.0076		**
ns
*
**
Chao1R2 = 0.52
F(3,16) = 7.849
p = 0.0002		A. mellifera vs. O. bicornis
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. mellifera
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. iberiensis
A.m. mellifera vs. A.m. iberiensis		0.005
0.6236
0.0544
0.0083		**
ns
ns
**
EvennessR2 = 0.42
F(3,16) = 5.514
p = 0.0085		A. mellifera vs. O. bicornis
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. mellifera
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. iberiensis
A.m. mellifera vs. A.m. iberiensis		0.0036
0.9508
0.2180
0.1318		**
ns
ns
ns
ACER2 = 0.55
F(3,16) = 8.634
p = 0.0012		A. mellifera vs. O. bicornis
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. mellifera
A.m. carnica vs. A.m. iberiensis
A.m. mellifera vs. A.m. iberiensis		0.003
0.5574
0.0538
0.0065		**
ns
ns
**
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thamm, M.; Reiß, F.; Sohl, L.; Gabel, M.; Noll, M.; Scheiner, R. Solitary Bees Host More Bacteria and Fungi on Their Cuticle than Social Bees. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112780

AMA Style

Thamm M, Reiß F, Sohl L, Gabel M, Noll M, Scheiner R. Solitary Bees Host More Bacteria and Fungi on Their Cuticle than Social Bees. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(11):2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112780

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thamm, Markus, Fabienne Reiß, Leon Sohl, Martin Gabel, Matthias Noll, and Ricarda Scheiner. 2023. "Solitary Bees Host More Bacteria and Fungi on Their Cuticle than Social Bees" Microorganisms 11, no. 11: 2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112780

APA Style

Thamm, M., Reiß, F., Sohl, L., Gabel, M., Noll, M., & Scheiner, R. (2023). Solitary Bees Host More Bacteria and Fungi on Their Cuticle than Social Bees. Microorganisms, 11(11), 2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11112780

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop