Next Article in Journal
Formyl Peptide Receptor 1 Signaling in Acute Inflammation and Neural Differentiation Induced by Traumatic Brain Injury
Previous Article in Journal
Stress Changes the Resting-State Cortical Flow of Information from Distributed to Frontally Directed Patterns
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/biology9090237
biology-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Combined Effects of Varroa destructor Parasitism and Exposure to Neonicotinoids Affects Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Memory and Gene Expression

by
Nuria Morfin
*,
Paul H. Goodwin
and
Ernesto Guzman-Novoa
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2020, 9(9), 237; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9090237
Submission received: 20 July 2020 / Revised: 17 August 2020 / Accepted: 19 August 2020 / Published: 20 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Behavioural Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are exposed biotic and abiotic stressors but little is known about their combined effect and impact on neural processes such as learning and memory, which could affect behaviours that are important for individual and colony survival. This study measured memory with the proboscis extension response (PER) assay as well as the expression of neural genes in bees chronically exposed to three different sublethal doses of the insecticide clothianidin and/or the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. The proportion of bees that positively responded to PER at 24 and 48 h post-training (hpt) was significantly reduced when exposed to clothianidin. V. destructor parasitism reduced the proportion of bees that responded to PER at 48 hpt. Combined effects between the lowest clothianidin dose and V. destructor for the proportion of bees that responded to PER were found at 24 hpt. Clothianidin, V. destructor and their combination differentially affected the expression of the neural-related genes, AmNrx-1 (neurexin), AmNlg-1 (neuroligin), and AmAChE-2 (acetylcholinesterase). Different doses of clothianidin down-regulated or up-regulated the genes, whereas V. destructor tended to have a down-regulatory effect. It appears that clothianidin and V. destructor affected neural processes in honey bees through different mechanisms.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) have a complex social organization in which worker bees perform a number of behaviors that are essential for colony survival [1]. To perform behaviors, bees rely on neural processes that allow them to react to environmental stimuli after perceiving and processing them through the central nervous system [2]. Neural processes are indispensable for behaviors that require associative learning, such as foraging behavior, in which bees remember the location of a food source and its distance to the hive using landmark maps and odor cues. This information is communicated to nestmates through the waggle dance [3,4]. Thus, associative learning is an essential neural process in honey bees.
Associative learning in honey bees can be affected by a number of factors, including neurotoxins [5]. Neurotoxins interact with neural receptors, ion channels and signaling pathways, which in turn may result in behavioral impairment [6]. Neonicotinoids, the most widely used insecticides worldwide, are neurotoxins [7,8], and clothianidin is one of the most commonly used neonicotinoids in field crops, particularly in corn and canola [9]. Thus, non-target insects, such as honey bees, could be exposed to repeated sublethal doses of neonicotinoids like clothianidin by foraging in plants with contaminated nectar and pollen [5,10]. The neurotoxic effect of neonicotinoids is related to their affinity for acetylcholine receptors (AChR) acting as agonists on nicotinic acethylcholine receptors (nAChRs), inducing a continuous opening of ion channels in the neurons, which leads to an excitatory state in the insect’s nervous system [11,12]. Neonicotinoids have been reported to negatively affect bee learning and memory [13].
Associative learning in honey bees can also be affected by parasites [5]. One of the major parasites of honey bees is ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. V. destructor parasitism has been associated with overwinter colony mortality [14,15]. At the individual level, V. destructor reduces longevity, causes weight loss, impairs homing ability and immunosuppresses honey bees [16,17,18,19,20]. Additionally, V. destructor acts as a vector for viruses that adversely affect the health of honey bees, mainly the deformed wing virus (DWV) [21,22]. Moreover, V. destructor has been reported to affect non-associative learning [23], and DWV impairs associative learning [24].
One of the most commonly used assays to measure associative learning and memory retention in bees is the proboscis extension response (PER) assay [25]. The PER assay consists of presenting an odor (conditioned stimulus, CS) along with a sugar reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) to stimulate the extension of the proboscis of a bee. Memory retention is tested by presenting the CS to the bee and record if she is able to extend her proboscis once the bee learns to associate the CS with the US [26]. Using the PER assay, it has been reported that neonicotinoids may affect memory and learning [27,28,29,30,31]. However, most of those studies have focused on single acute neonicotinoid exposure or treated bees ad libitum with sublethal doses of clothianidin for only 24 h [32,33,34], rather than multiple exposures to sublethal doses of neonicotinoids or the interaction with other stressors on the bees known to affect memory and learning, like parasites.
Among the factors that affect associative learning and memory in honey bees are neurotransmitters and synaptic proteins [35]. Acetylcholine (ACh) is one of the main neurotransmitters of the central nervous system and has been shown to be involved in learning processes in honey bees [36,37]. Thus, the expression of the gene for acetylcholinesterase (AChE), which encodes the enzyme for the catalytic breakdown of ACh, could have an important role in learning and memory in honey bees [38]. Additionally, pre and post-synaptic proteins, such as neurexins and neuroligins [39], have been recognized to be important in associative learning honey bees. The expression of the genes for neurexin (AmNrx-1) and neuroligin (AmNlg-1) were up-regulated in bees following PER training compared to non-trained control, indicating that they are affected by changes associated with learning and memory retention [40]. As expression of AmNrx-1, AmNlg-1 and AmAChE-2 has been previously used as molecular markers to assess the effect of stressors on neural gene expression [41], they could also be informative markers for studying the effects of stressors and their combined effects on honey bee memory retention.
Because neural processes regulate and influence honey bee behaviors affected by memory that are essential for colony survival, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of field-realistic repeated exposure to sublethal doses of clothianidin, V. destructor parasitism and the combined effect of clothianidin and V. destructor parasitism on memory retention and expression of AmNrx-1, AmNlg-1 and AmAChE-2 in honey bees. DWV levels were also determined.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Source of Honey Bees and V. destructor Mites

Bees were obtained from colonies of the Buckfast strain bred at the Honey Bee Research Centre, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The queens of colonies that produced the workers used in this study were mated under controlled conditions in isolation at Thorah Island, Simcoe, Ontario. The colonies were not subjected to any treatment or exposed to pesticides at any time during the study. Female V. destructor mites were collected from infested colonies as per Arechavaleta-Velasco and Guzman-Novoa [42], and placed in Petri dishes for their immediate use in the experiments.

2.2. Sublethal Doses of Clothianidin

The sublethal field realistic doses of clothianidin used in the study were calculated based on estimates of the amount of nectar a bee consumes in a day (25.5–39 mg) [1], as well as on the concentration of clothianidin found in nectar of canola grown from seeds treated with the insecticide (0.0012–0.0086 ng/mg [43,44]. Based on these calculations an adult bee could consume between 0.03 and 0.34 ng of clothianidin per day ( x ¯ = 0.15 ± 0.06 ng). The concentration of clothianidin (ng/µL) was calculated considering a daily consumption of 30–33 µL of 50% sucrose syrup per bee per day [45,46]. To prepare the doses of the insecticide, 10 mg clothianidin (Sigma Aldrich, Oakville, ON, Canada) was dissolved in 100 mL double distilled (ds) H2O, and then serial dilutions were made in 50% sucrose syrup to obtain 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL. A control was 0 ng clothianidin/µL.

2.3. Exposure to Clothianidin and/or V. destructor

Newly emerged bees were obtained from the source colonies and managed as described by [41,47]. There were seven treatments of clothianidin with or without V. destructor along with a non-treated control listed in Table 1. For each repetition, 20 to 40 bees were randomly assigned to each treatment and placed in hoarding cages (12.7 × 8.5 × 14.5 cm) that were kept in an incubator (32 ± 2 ˚C, 50 ± 10% RH) for 14 days. Each cage was provided with one 20 mL gravity feeder containing 50% sucrose syrup treated or not with different concentrations of clothianidin. To determine the amount of syrup consumed by the bees (and thus the amount of clothianidin), the feeders with the syrup were weighed before providing them to the cages and on days 3, 7 and 14, using a balance (Denver Instruments Model S-403, Bohemia, NY, USA). For the four treatments that had bees parasitized with V. destructor, a female mite was placed on the body of each bee using a fine paintbrush, and the attachment of the mite to the bee’s body was visually confirmed. The continued attachment of V. destructor over the 14 day period before the PER assays was not monitored, as V. destructor mites move, re-infest other bees or die. Bee mortality was recorded daily during the 14 days that the treatment lasted. The bees were treated during 14 days prior to the PER assays to ensure a chronic exposure to the stressors, and also because olfactory memory is age dependent, with bees between 13 and 16 days of age showing good memory retention in PER assays [48]. Seven repetitions of this experiment were conducted and the treatments that belonged to the same biological repetition were performed simultaneously.

2.4. Effect of Sublethal Doses of Clothianidin and/or V. destructor on Memory Retention

Memory retention was evaluated using the PER assay [49], which consists in training the bees to associate an odor as CS with a sugar reward as US. Briefly, each bee was immobilized by carefully introducing her into a modified 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube (to which a 4 mm cut was made at the bottom) in an upright position so that the head was exposed and the bee could freely move her head and proboscis, but not the rest of the body. A piece 1 × 2 cm piece of lab wipe (Kimwipes, Fisher Scientific, Mississauga, ON, Canada) was placed at the bottom of the tube to help the bee maintain its position. Each bee was assigned an identification number before the PER assay. Groups of 15 to 20 bees per treatment were kept in their respective tubes placed upright in a plastic microcentrifuge tube rack (Fisher Scientific, Mississauga, ON, Canada). After placing the bees in the rack, they were not disturbed for 30 min to allow them to acclimatize before being fed with 5 µL of 50% sucrose syrup using a micropipette (Fisherbrand, Mississauga, ON, Canada). The bees were then placed in a dark room at room temperature (20 to 22 °C) for 24 h before initiating the PER assay. The bees were individually fed 33 µL of 50% sucrose syrup (without clothianidin), after the training or memory tests, once a day at 16:00 h EST over the three days that the PER assay lasted.
First, each bee was trained to associate the CS with the US as per Felsenberg et al. [49]. A restrained bee was placed 3 cm from the tip of a syringe, which was used to deliver the scented air (CS). To produce scented air, the syringe barrel contained a 19.5 mm diameter piece of Whatman™ filter paper (Fisher Scientific) impregnated with 5 µL of clove oil (Eugenia spp.; Sigma-Aldrich). An aluminum airduct (100 mm diameter, 1000 mm long) was placed at the opposite side of the bee with a fan at the end of the airduct to suck the air through the airduct away from the syringe tip, thus preventing the clove oil scent from remaining at the station after exposure to the bee.
Each bee was exposed to clove oil scent during 10 s continuously by gently pushing the syringe plunger to deliver the scented air through the syringe tip. After the initial 3 s of exposure, the bee’s antennae were touched with a toothpick impregnated with sucrose syrup for 3 s to stimulate the proboscis extension response. Only if the bee extended the proboscis was she allowed to taste the syrup by her proboscis for the last 4 s of odor exposure. The toothpick was withdrawn for 4 s, and then the bee was again exposed to the toothpick to taste the sugar syrup for 3 additional s to reinforce learning the US [50]. Three training trails were performed per bee with intervals of 10 min between trails.
Each bee was subjected to three memory retention tests at 2, 24 and 48 h post-training (hpt). To test memory retention, each bee was exposed to clove oil scent for 5 s as described before, and the extension of the proboscis was recorded (positive or negative event [51]). After each PER assay was concluded, a stimulus response (SR) test was performed by presenting a toothpick with sucrose syrup to the bees’ antennae to verify that the bee was able to extend the proboscis indicating that no damage was suffered during the assay [52]. The bees that could not extend their proboscis during the SR test were not included in the results, and only the bees that survived until the last day of the PER assay were included in the statistical analyses. Seven repetitions were conducted for the PER assay, and treatments that belonged to the same biological repetition were performed simultaneously. From a total of 1463 bees that initiated the PER assay, only 864 were included in the statistical analyses for learning and memory. After the completion of the last PER assay, the bees were frozen at −70 °C for further analyses.

2.5. RNA Extraction and cDNA Synthesis

Total RNA was extracted from six to eight bees (full bodies) from each of three biological repetitions using TRIzol® Reagent (Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and concentration of the RNA were measured by determining the OD 260/280 nm ratio using a spectrophotometer (NanodropLite, Thermo Scientific, Mississauga, ON, Canada). Values between 1.8 and 2.0 were considered acceptable for purified RNA. cDNA was prepared using a RevertAid H Minus First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Fermentas, Burlington, ON, Canada) following the manufacturer’s instructions and using 2000 ng of RNA for each sample. The cDNA was stored at −20 °C.

2.6. DWV Quantification

To calculate the number of DWV genome copies (gc) per sample, primers specific for the DWV helicase and the PCR conditions of Di Prisco et al. [53] were used. Absolute quantification was performed using a BioRad CFX96™ thermocycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Mississauga, ON, Canada) and PowerUp Sybrgreen (2×) (Thermo Scientific). Each reaction consisted of 2 µL template, 0.4 µL forward and reverse primers (200 nM final concentration), 10 µL PowerUp Sybrgreen (2×) and 7.2 µL nuclease-free H2O. As a negative control, nuclease-free H2O was included instead of cDNA, and a positive control from previously identified DWV positive samples by qRT-PCR were included in each qRT-PCR run. Calibration curves to convert Ct values to DWV genome copies were performed using 300 bp gBlocks (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA, USA) that included the sequence of the forward primer, amplicon and reverse primer. The lyophilized gBlock was diluted with 20 µL of ds H2O to obtain an initial concentration of 10 ng/µL that was used to make serial dilutions from 109 to 101 copies. A linear equation was used to calculate the DWV genome copy numbers for each of the samples using the Ct values for each sample and known DWV copy number used to produce the standard curves. Three technical repetitions were performed for each of the three biological repetitions for DWV quantification.

2.7. Quantitative Real Time (qRT-PCR) and Gene Expression Analysis

The qRT-PCR was performed with a BioRad CFX96 thermocycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories) with PowerUp™ Sybrgeen (2×) (Thermo Scientific). Reactions were performed in 20 µL: 2 µL template, 0.6–1.4 µL primers (primer concentration varied between 400 and 700 nM, depending on the target optimization protocol), 10 µL PowerUp Sybrgreen (2×), and 5.2–6.8 µL nuclease-free H2O. The PCR conditions consisted of one cycle at 50 °C for 2 min, one cycle at 95° C for 10 min and 40 cycles at 95 °C for 15 s, followed by 60 s at 60 °C. To confirm the specificity of the target gene, a melt curve analysis was included after each qRT-PCR run. Among candidate constitutive genes (β-actin, AmRPS5 and AmGAPD2 [53,54,55]), AmRPS5 was selected as the reference gene as it had the lowest stability value at 0.13 compared to the stability value of β-actin (0.26) and AmGAPD2 (0.27), as determined by NormFinder [56]. Primers for AmRPS5 were those used by Evans [54], AmNrx-1 by Morfin et al. [57], AmNlg-1 by Biswas et al. [40], and AmAChE-2 by Morfin et al. [41].
The expression level of the target gene was normalized to the expression level of the reference gene using the 2−ΔΔCt (Livak) method [58] with the non-treated control group as calibrator. The Bio-Rad CFX Manager® software (Bio-Rad Laboratories) was used to calculate the expression ratio. Three technical repetitions were performed for each of the three biological repetitions for the analyses of gene expression.

2.8. Statistical Analyses

To analyse the probability of survival, the data of surviving bees were subjected to the Kaplan–Meier log rank method and the curves were compared using pairwise comparisons with an adjusted p-value and log rank (Mantel–Cox) tests. PER data from the training trials and memory retention tests were analysed with contingency tables using Chi2 tests of independence and adjusted residuals were calculated for post-hoc analysis to determine whether the proportion of bees positive to PER were different between treatments. The data for relative gene expression were tested with a Shapiro–Wilk test and were log2 transformed due to lack of normality. The transformed data were again subjected to Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests to confirm normality and equality of variances before being subjected to a two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The data on sugar consumption and DWV quantification were subjected to Kruskal–Wallis tests and Conover–Iman procedure, as they did not comply with normality. The above statistical analyses were performed using R studio version 3.4.3 [59] and IBM SPSS Statistic 25 [60] with the significance level set at p < 0.05 (α of 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Survival and Sugar Consumption

No significant differences in the survival curves of the different treatments were found (χ2(1) = 0.34, p = 0.55; Figure 1).
There was no significant effect of the treatments on sucrose syrup consumption (H(7) = 9.75, p = 0.20; Table 1).

3.2. Memory Retention

Significant treatment effects were found for the proportion of bees positive for memory retention in the PER assay (Chi2(23) = 382.96, p < 0.0001; Figure 2 and Supplementary Table S1). The post-hoc analysis showed no effects on the proportion of bees positive for memory retention at 2 hpt (p > 0.05). However, the medium and highest doses of clothianidin significantly reduced the proportion of bees positive for memory retention at 24 hpt (p < 0.05). V. destructor alone did not have an effect on the proportion of bees positive memory retention at 24 hpt (p > 0.05), but it did significantly decline in parasitized bees treated with clothianidin, regardless of the dose (p < 0.05). Thus, it seems that clothianidin combined with V. destructor have a negative effect on memory retention at 24 hpt. A significant reduction in the proportion of bees positive to memory retention was noted in bees exposed to the three doses of clothianidin, V. destructor or the combined stressors at 48 hpt (p < 0.05), indicating that both stressors affected long-term memory.

3.3. DWV Levels

There was a significant effect of the treatments on DWV levels (H(7) = 29.99, p < 0.0001; Figure 3). A significant increase in DWV gc was observed in bees treated with 4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL of clothianidin plus V. destructor compared to the control (p < 0.05). Bees parasitized by V. destructor showed DWV gc that was 11-fold higher than that of non-parasitized bees. The bees exposed to 4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL of clothianidin plus V. destructor had 17-fold higher DWV gc than the bees exposed to the same dose of clothianidin alone. However, there were no significant differences on DWV levels between the bees exposed to clothianidin alone and the control (p > 0.05). Thus, V. destructor was the main factor associated with an increase in DWV levels.

3.4. Gene Expression in Bees Assessed for Memory Retention

AmNrx-1 expression was significantly affected by clothianidin treatments (F(3,16) = 7.190, p = 0.003) and V. destructor (F(1,16) = 396.865, p < 0.0001), and clothianidin treatments interacted with V. destructor (F(3,16) = 21.313, p < 0.0001; Figure 4a). Compared to 0 ng/µL of clothianidin, significant differences were a 1.0 log2-fold up-regulation with 9 × 10−4 ng/µL of clothianidin alone (p < 0.0001), as well as a 0.78 to 1.6 log2-fold down-regulations by V. destructor alone (p < 0.0001), 9 × 10−4 ng/µL of clothianidin plus V. destructor (p < 0.0001), 4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL of clothianidin plus V. destructor (p < 0.0001) and 1 × 10−2 ng/µL of clothianidin plus V. destructor (p = 0.002). AmNrx-1 expression was always lower with V. destructor parasitism than without it although expression increased as higher doses of clothianidin were included with V. destructor. However, there was always a significant difference in the expression of this gene in bees treated with clothianidin plus V. destructor compared to the corresponding doses of clothianidin alone (p < 0.0001, p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Overall, the main effect on AmNrx-1 expression was shown as an up-regulation by the lowest dose of clothianidin, and a down-regulation of the gene in bees parasitized with V. destructor.
AmNlg-1 expression was not significantly affected by clothianidin treatments (F(3,16) = 2.016, p = 0.15), but was significantly affected by V. destructor (F(1,16) = 49.775, p < 0.0001), and an interaction between clothianidin treatments and V. destructor was observed (F(3,16) = 8.038, p = 0.002; Figure 4b). The expression patterns of AmNlg-1 was very similar to that of AmNrx-1 with treatments, except that expression declined from 9 × 10−4 ng/µL clothianidin plus V. destructor to 4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL clothianidin plus V. destructor with AmNlg-1, whereas it increased with AmNrx-1. The only significant difference relative to 0 ng/µL clothianidin between AmNlg-1 and AmNrx-1 expression was that the down-regulation by V. destructor alone was significant for AmNrx-1 expression (p < 0.0001) but not for AmNlg-1 expression (p = 0.37).
AmAChE-2 expression was significantly affected by clothianidin treatments (F(3,16) = 40.402, p < 0.0001) and V. destructor (F(1,16) = 8.119, p = 0.012), and an interaction between clothianidin treatments and V. destructor was observed (F(3,16) = 7.616, p = 0.002; Figure 4c). The pattern of expression of this gene with clothianidin alone showed an up-regulation in bees treated with 9 × 10−4 ng of clothianidin followed by a decrease in the gene’s expression as the dose increased. The pattern of AmAChE-2 expression in bees exposed to clothianidin plus V. destructor also showed a similar dose response, but with no changes with the medium and highest doses of clothianidin plus V. destructor. Compared to 0 ng/µL clothianidin, significant differences were observed for a 1.0 log2-fold up-regulation in bees treated with 9 × 10−4 ng of clothianidin alone (p < 0.0001), 0.80 log2-fold down-regulation in bees exposed to V. destructor alone (p = 0.003), and 0.55 log2-fold up-regulation in bees treated with 4.2 × 10−3 ng of clothianidin plus V. destructor (p = 0.04). Thus, the lowest dose of clothianidin had an up-regulatory effect on AmAChE-2, V. destructor alone had a down-regulatory effect, and the effect of the interaction between the two stressors was due to V. destructor reducing the down-regulatory effect of the highest dose of clothianidin.

4. Discussion

No effects of the treatments on survival were observed in this study. The results on mortality agree with those of Morfin et al. [47] who reported less than 2% mortality for bees that received the same treatments as in this study but over 7 days. Conversely, Morfin et al. [41] reported a decrease in the probability of survival in V. destructor parasitized bees, and in bees exposed to clothianidin (using the same doses as in this study), but for a longer period of exposure (21 days versus 14 days in this study and 7 days for Morfin et al. [47]), and concluded that the major stressor associated with decreased survival was V. destructor. Thus, it appears that longer periods of parasitism results in lower probability of survival with or without clothianidin. The results on the effect of clothianidin on survival also agree with those of previous studies that found no effect on survival with chronic sublethal exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides [29,61,62]. However, at a colony level, Straub et al. [63] found a decrease in overwinter colony survival with sublethal doses of thiamethoxam, clothianidin and V. destructor, whereas Siede et al. [64] reported no effects of clothianidin and V. destructor on colony mortality and overwinter success. The results could differ due to the many differences in methodologies as well as the concentrations of neonicotinoid used.
This study found no effects of the stressors on sugar consumption. Similarly, Tosi et al. [62] showed that sugar consumption was unaffected in bees exposed to sublethal doses of clothianidin. While food consumption was reduced in bees exposed to sublethal doses of imidacloprid [65], those doses were 10-fold higher than the oral LD50 (17.32 ng/bee) [66] and also much higher than used in this study.
Honey bees depend on neural processes, such as learning and memory, to perform behaviours that are necessary for their survival, like foraging, flying to congregation areas to mate or when performing hygienic tasks [67]. Thus, a reduction in a bees’ memory could have negative consequences for the colony. This scenario could occur when honey bees are exposed to stressors like neurotoxic insecticides and pathogens. The present study revealed a negative effect of the highest dose of clothianidin, with or without V. destructor, on memory retention. Further, the study showed that not only does sublethal exposure to clothianidin and V. destructor parasitism negatively affect memory retention in honey bees, but it also is the first to show an effect of the two stressors combined on memory retention. None of the stressors affected survivorship or memory retention in the short term (2 hpt), but two doses of clothianidin affected it in the midterm (24 hpt), and an effect between the lowest dose of clothianidin plus V. destructor was also observed as a decrease in the proportion of bees positive to memory retention at 24 hpt. The greatest impact was on long-term memory (48 hpt) where both stressors, alone or combined, significantly reduced memory retention. However, the effect of clothianidin on olfactory processing instead or in addition to memory retention could not be discarded, as an effect of neonicotinoids on olfactory response has been reported [34,68].
The effects of sublethal exposure to clothianidin on honey bee learning and memory found in this study partially agree with previous studies, which used a similar experimental protocol. For example, Alkassab and Kirchner [69] reported memory retention impairment in adult bees treated with clothianidin in sucrose syrup administered ad libitum for 12 consecutive days, exposing the bees to a lower dose (2.6 × 108-fold lower than the LD50) than those used in this study. While memory retention tested by PER was not affected at 1 hpt or 24 hpt, the specificity of memory (i.e., which among two types of odor was detectable) was significantly reduced at 24 hpt. Thus, it appears that the dose and time after the last training trial impacted memory retention. However, Alkassab and Kirchner [69] reported no significant effects of sublethal chronic exposure to clothianidin on learning during six training trials, which could be related to their use of lower doses and older bees (overwintered bees versus newly emerged bees in this study) for the PER assays. Piiroinen and Goulson [70] also reported negative effects on olfactory learning and memory in bees fed ad libitum with sucrose syrup containing clothianidin (3 × 102-fold lower than the LD50) for 12 consecutive days, which is similar to the doses and mode of exposure used in this study. Moreover, Piiroinen and Goulson [70] used the PER assay to test the interaction of clothianidin and Nosema, and found impairment in learning in honey bees infected with Nosema spores and in bees exposed to clothianidin alone, but no interaction was observed between clothianidin exposure and Nosema infection. While a combined effect of clothianidin and V. destructor was found in this study, it is difficult to compare the studies considering that Nosema is an intestinal parasite that damages the midgut epithelial cells [71] and V. destructor is an ectoparasite that feeds upon the fat body and hemolymph, and transmits viruses to honey bees [72,73,74]. It may be that different pathogens interact differently with clothianidin, impacting neural processes or not.
There are few reports on the effect of parasites on associative learning in bees. Contrary to this study, Kralj et al. [23] did not find differences for associative learning using the PER assay between parasitized and not parasitized bees with V. destructor. However, Kralj et al. [23] evaluated memory retention only at 1 and 12 min after training, whereas this study assessed memory retention at 2, 24 and 48 hpt and no effects were observed at 2 hpt. Therefore, effects at 1 and 12 min after training are unlikely. In addition, Kralj et al. [23] used adult bees parasitized for only one day compared to using adult bees parasitized for 14 days in this study. Based on these differences, it is not surprising that the results of the studies differ. However, Zanni et al. [75] reported negative effects on associative learning and memory in bees parasitized by V. destructor at the 5th instar larval stage, subjected to six training trials, and evaluated for memory retention 22 to 24 days after they were parasitized. Thus, the effect of V. destructor on associative learning and memory retention could be linked to the chronicity of the parasitism, like in this study. Allowing for a longer period, however, means that the effect could not only be due to V. destructor parasitism, but also to the effects of viruses that are vectored by V. destructor as they can infect the central nervous system of bees [21,76]. This study found that bees parasitized by V. destructor had higher levels of DWV than non-parasitized bees, as has previously been reported [77,78,79], and this could have affected memory retention. DWV can rapidly replicate, increasing from 101 to 104 gc per bee in seven days after exposure to V. destructor [80], and thus 14 days would have allowed time for considerable replication. Iqbal and Mueller [24] found that bees artificially inoculated with DWV three days before training showed impaired learning and memory as measured by the PER assay at 2 and 24 hpt, and three days should have been enough time for DWV to replicate in the brain tissue. Hence, there was sufficient time in this study for DWV to multiply in the experimental bees, causing detrimental effects on memory retention. In addition, V. destructor parasitism could impair memory by reducing the energy supplies of the bees (glycogen and triglycerides) after reduction in fat body or the loss of hemolymph by mite parasitism [16,74,81]. A reduction in energy supplies could also affect the activation of cellular immune responses, as the activation of defense mechanisms has an energetic cost for the hosts and could decrease the availability of energy to perform other functions or behaviors, such as learning [20,82]. Clearly, the effect of V. destructor parasitism and viral infection on memory retention could not be differentiated in this study. Further studies are warranted to study the separate effects of each of these stressors.
AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 expression was examined in this study as they appear to be markers of the effects of clothianidin exposure [41]. The expression of AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 showed a similar pattern in bees exposed to clothianidin alone with significant up-regulation of AmNrx-1 with the lowest dose of clothianidin alone, possibly related to the neuro-stimulatory effect of neonicotinoids at low doses [83]. In contrast, V. destructor had a down-regulatory effect on their expression, and there was a significant effect when combining the two stressors. Since their up-regulation could be associated with PER response, the down-regulation of AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 by V. destructor alone or combined with clothianidin could reflect a negative impact of those treatments on memory retention, which is consistent with the decreased proportion of bees being positive for long-term memory at 48 h with those treatments. However, Morfin et al. [41] found that AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 expression was up-regulated by the medium and highest doses of clothianidin plus V. destructor. While there are many similarities, such as the use of the same stressors, between this study and that of Morfin et al. [41], they differ in that the bees were exposed to the stressors for a longer period of time (21 versus 14 days), and the bees in this study were trained for associative learning in the PER assays, which is known to affect gene expression in honey bee brains [40].
AmAChE-2 expression was also analyzed in this study as it had been shown that acetylcholinesterase activity decreases in bees after associative learning training trials [36]. The pattern of expression of AmAChE-2 in bees exposed to clothianidin alone was similar to that of AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1, except that AmAChE-2 was down-regulated by the highest dose of clothianidin. However, the expression pattern with V. destructor alone or combined with clothianidin was quite different for AmAChE-2. Unexpectedly, the expression of AChE-2 decreased in bees only when parasitized by V. destructor and exposed to 9 × 10-4 ng of clothianidin. In contrast, Morfin et al. [41] found that AmAChE-2 expression was down-regulated in bees parasitized by V. destructor alone. The difference compared to this study could be due to the same reasons as those previously explained for AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 expression.
The patterns of expression of the three neural-related genes used in this study could not explain by themselves the reduction in memory detected by the PER assay related to the clothianidin dose. However, the use of high throughput techniques, such as RNA sequencing, would be able to examine a wide range of biological pathways related with neural and other processes that could affect learning and memory in honey bees. Further, studies on the effect of neurotoxic insecticides and parasites on the processing centers of the honey bee brain and sensory perception would help better understand the effects of the stressors on odor perception, which could impact odor learning by honey bees.

5. Conclusions

None of the stressors affected memory in the short term, but clothianidin, alone or combined with V. destructor, affected it in the midterm. However, long-term memory was most sensitive being affected by the two stressors, both alone or combined. Further, an interaction between the stressors was observed in the expression of neural-related genes, but there was not a clear relationship between changes in their expression and the dose of clothianidin. While a down-regulation of AmNrx-1 and AmNlg-1 expression by V. destructor could possibly explain this effect on memory retention, further investigations using a broader range of genes are warranted to better understand the molecular basis of their impact on honey bee memory and behaviors.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/9/9/237/s1, Table S1: Number of bees positive and negative to the PER assay at 2, 24 and 48 h post-training.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G.-N.; methodology, N.M., P.H.G., and E.G.-N.; formal analysis, N.M., P.H.G., and E.G.-N.; investigation, N.M.; resources, E.G.-N.; data curation, N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M.; writing—review and editing, N.M., P.H.G., and E.G.-N.; supervision, P.H.G. and E.G.-N.; project administration, E.G.-N.; funding acquisition, E.G.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (0414-0317, 2013), and by a grant from the Pinchin family to E.G.-N. Mexico’s council for science and technology (CONACyT) provided a scholarship to N.M.

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul Kelly, Nancy Bradbury, Dave Stotesbury, Hanan Gashout, Santiago Magaña, Wilson Oberstar, Brooke Wallace, Patrick Boelsteri, Stephanie Otto, Catherin VanderHeyden and Wendy Shipsides for their assistance during the experiments. We are also grateful to Les Eccles and Melanie Kempers from the Technology Transfer Program, Ontario Beekeepers’ Association, for their help in finding Varroa infested colonies. We thank Greg J. Hunt and Nigel Raine for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Winston, M.L. The Biology of the Honey Bee; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Webb, B. Cognition in insects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 367, 2715–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Gould, J.L. The locale map of honey bees: Do insects have cognitive maps? Science 1986, 232, 861–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Esch, H. Foraging Honey Bees: How Foragers Determine and Transmit Information About Feeding Site Locations; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hopwood, J.; Vaughan, M.; Shepherd, M.; Biddinger, D.; Mader, E.; Black, S.H.; Mazzacano, C. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action; Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Portland, OR, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  6. Belzunces, L.P.; Tchamitchian, S.; Brunet, J.-L. Neural effects of insecticides in the honey bee. Apidologie 2012, 43, 348–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Tomizawa, M.; Casida, J.E. Structure and diversity of insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 914–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wood, T.J.; Goulson, D. The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: A review of the evidence post 2013. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 17285–17325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Uneme, H. Chemistry of clothianidin and related compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 2932–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pisa, L.W.; Amaral-Rogers, V.; Belzunces, L.P.; Bonmatin, J.M.; Downs, C.A.; Goulson, D.; Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Krupke, C.; Liess, M.; McField, M.; et al. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 22, 68–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Tomizawa, M.; Casida, J.E. Molecular recognition of neonicotinoid insecticides: The determinants of life or death. Accounts Chem. Res. 2009, 42, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Matsuda, K.; Buckingham, S.D.; Kleier, D.; Rauh, J.J.; Grauso, M.; Sattelle, D.B. Neonicotinoids: Insecticides acting on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2001, 22, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blacquière, T.; Smagghe, G.; Van Gestel, C.A.M.; Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 2012, 21, 973–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Le Conte, Y.; Ellis, M.; Ritter, W. Varroa mites and honey bee health: Can Varroa explain part of the colony losses? Apidologie 2010, 41, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Guzman-Novoa, E.; Eccles, L.; Calvete, Y.; McGowan, J.; Kelly, P.G.; Correa-Benítez, A. Varroa destructor is the main culprit for the death and reduced populations of overwintered honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in Ontario, Canada. Apidologie 2010, 41, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Weinberg, K.P.; Madel, G. The Influence of the mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud. on the protein concentration and the haemolymph volume of the brood of worker bees and drones of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. Apidologie 1985, 16, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kralj, J.; Fuchs, S. Parasitic Varroa destructor mites influence flight duration and homing ability of infested Apis mellifera foragers. Apidologie 2006, 37, 577–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Navajas, M.; Migeon, A.; Alaux, C.; Martin-Magniette, M.; Robinson, G.E.; Evans, J.D.; Cros-Arteil, S.; Crauser, D.; Le Conte, Y. Differential gene expression of the honey bee Apis mellifera associated with Varroa destructor infection. BMC Genom. 2008, 9, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Koleoglu, G.; Goodwin, P.H.; Reyes-Quintana, M.; Hamiduzzaman, M.M.; Guzman-Novoa, E. Effect of Varroa destructor, wounding and varroa homogenate on gene expression in brood and adult honey bees. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Koleoglu, G.; Goodwin, P.H.; Reyes-Quintana, M.; Hamiduzzaman, M.M.; Guzmán-Novoa, E. Varroa destructor parasitism reduces hemocyte concentrations and prophenol oxidase gene expression in bees from two populations. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 1175–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Chen, Y.P.; Higgins, J.A.; Feldlaufer, M.F. Quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR analysis of deformed wing virus infection in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Emsen, B.; Guzman-Novoa, E.; Kelly, P.G. Honey production of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies with high and low Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) infestation rates in eastern Canada. Can. Èntomol. 2013, 146, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kralj, J.; Brockmann, A.; Fuchs, S.; Tautz, J. The parasitic mite Varroa destructor affects non-associative learning in honey bee foragers, Apis mellifera L. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2006, 193, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Iqbal, J.; Mueller, U. Virus infection causes specific learning deficits in honeybee foragers. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 1517–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Takeda, K. Classical conditioned response in the honey bee. J. Insect Physiol. 1961, 6, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bitterman, M.E.; Menzel, R.; Fietz, A.; Schäfer, S. Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J. Comp. Psychol. 1983, 97, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Decourtye, A.; Armengaud, C.; Renou, M.; Devillers, J.; Cluzeau, S.; Gauthier, M.; Pham-Delègue, M.-H. Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2004, 78, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dacher, M.; Lagarrigue, A.; Gauthier, M. Antennal tactile learning in the honeybee: Effect of nicotinic antagonists on memory dynamics. Neuroscience 2005, 130, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Aliouane, Y.; El Hassani, A.K.; Gary, V.; Armengaud, C.; Lambin, M.; Gauthier, M. Subchronic Exposure of honeybees to sublethal doses of pesticides: Effects on behavior. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009, 28, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tison, L.; Holtz, S.; Adeoye, A.; Kalkan, Ö.; Irmisch, N.S.; Lehmann, N.; Menzel, R. Effects of sublethal doses of thiacloprid and its formulation Calypso® on the learning and memory performance of honey bees. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 220, 3695–3705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tison, L.; Rößner, A.; Gerschewski, S.; Menzel, R. The neonicotinoid clothianidin impairs memory processing in honey bees. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 180, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Demares, F.; Pirk, C.W.; Nicolson, S.; Human, H. Neonicotinoids decrease sucrose responsiveness of honey bees at first contact. J. Insect Physiol. 2018, 108, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bartling, M.T.; Vilcinskas, A.; Lee, K.-Z. Sub-lethal doses of clothianidin inhibit the conditioning and biosensory abilities of the western honeybee Apis mellifera. Insects 2019, 10, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Mustard, J.A.; Gott, A.; Scott, J.; Chavarria, N.L.; Wright, G.A. Honeybees fail to discriminate floral scents in a complex learning task after consuming a neonicotinoid pesticide. J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb217174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Gauthier, M.; Grünewald, B. Neurotransmitter Systems in the Honey Bee Brain: Functions in Learning and Memory; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 155–169. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gauthier, M.; Belzunces, L.P.; Zaoujal, A.; Colin, M.E.; Richard, D. Modulatory effect of learning and memory on honey bee brain acetylcholinesterase activity. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Comp. Pharmacol. 1992, 103, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gauthier, M.; Dacher, M.; Thany, S.H.; Niggebrugge, C.; Deglise, P.; Kljucevic, P.; Armengaud, C.; Grunewald, B. Involvement of α-bungarotoxin-sensitive nicotinic receptors in long-term memory formation in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2006, 86, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Silman, I.; Sussman, J.L. Acetylcholinesterase: How is structure related to function? Chem. Interactions 2008, 175, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Knight, D.; Xie, W.; Boulianne, G.L. Neurexins and neuroligins: Recent insights from invertebrates. Mol. Neurobiol. 2011, 44, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Biswas, S.; Reinhard, J.; Oakeshott, J.; Russell, R.; Srinivasan, M.V.; Claudianos, C. Sensory regulation of neuroligins and neurexin I in the honeybee brain. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Morfin, N.; Goodwin, P.H.; Guzman-Novoa, E. Interaction of field realistic doses of clothianidin and Varroa destructor parasitism on adult honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) health and neural gene expression, and antagonistic effects on differentially expressed genes. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Arechavaleta-Velasco, M.E.; Guzman-Novoa, E. Relative effect of four characteristics that restrain the population growth of the mite Varroa destructor in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Apidologie 2001, 32, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EFED Risk Assessment for the Seed Treatment of Clothianidin 600FS on Corn and Canola. 2003. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-044309_20-Feb-03_a.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  44. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Clothianidin Registration of Prosper T400 Seed Treatment on Mustard Seed (oilseed and condiments) and Poncho/Votivo Seed Treatment on Cotton. 2010. Available online: https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/pollinators/clothianidinepamemo110210.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  45. Free, J.B.; Spencer-Booth, Y. Observations on the temperature regulation and food consumption of honeybees (Apis mellifera). J. Exp. Biol. 1958, 35, 930–937. [Google Scholar]
  46. Decourtye, A.; Lacassie, É.; Pham-Delègue, M.-H. Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morfin, N.; Goodwin, P.H.; Hunt, G.J.; Guzman-Novoa, E. Effects of sublethal doses of clothianidin and/or V. destructor on honey bee (Apis mellifera) self-grooming behavior and associated gene expression. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Arenas, A.; Farina, W.M. Age and rearing environment interact in the retention of early olfactory memories in honeybees. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2008, 194, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Felsenberg, J.; Gehring, K.B.; Antemann, V.; Eisenhardt, D. Behavioural pharmacology in classical conditioning of the proboscis extension response in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J. Vis. Exp. 2011, e2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Yang, E.-C.; Chang, H.-C.; Wu, W.-Y.; Chen, Y.-W. Impaired olfactory associative behavior of honeybee workers due to contamination of imidacloprid in the larval stage. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Eisenhardt, D. Molecular mechanisms underlying formation of long-term reward memories and extinction memories in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Learn. Mem. 2014, 21, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hammer, M. The neural basis of associative reward learning in honeybees. Trends Neurosci. 1997, 20, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Di Prisco, G.; Cavaliere, V.; Annoscia, D.; Varricchio, P.; Caprio, E.; Nazzi, F.; Gargiulo, G.; Pennacchio, F. Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 18466–18471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Evans, J.D. Beepath: An ordered quantitative-PCR array for exploring honey bee immunity and disease. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2006, 93, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Thompson, G.J.; Yockey, H.; Lim, J.; Oldroyd, B.P. Experimental manipulation of ovary activation and gene expression in honey bee (Apis mellifera) queens and workers: Testing hypotheses of reproductive regulation. J. Exp. Zool. Part A Ecol. Genet. Physiol. 2007, 307, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Andersen, C.L.; Jensen, J.L.; Ørntoft, T.F. Normalization of real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR Data: A model-based variance estimation approach to identify genes suited for normalization, applied to bladder and colon cancer data sets. Cancer Res. 2004, 64, 5245–5250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Morfin, N.; Given, K.; Evans, M.; Guzman-Novoa, E.; Hunt, G.J. Grooming behavior and gene expression of the Indiana “mite-biter” honey bee stock. Apidologie 2019, 51, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−∆∆ CT method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online: http://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 13 February 2012).
  60. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  61. Abbo, P.M.; Kawasaki, J.K.; Hamilton, M.; Cook, S.C.; Degrandi-Hoffman, G.; Li, W.F.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.P. Effects of imidacloprid and Varroa destructor on survival and health of European honey bees, Apis mellifera. Insect Sci. 2016, 24, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Tosi, S.; Nieh, J.C.; Sgolastra, F.; Cabbri, R.; Medrzycki, P. Neonicotinoid pesticides and nutritional stress synergistically reduce survival in honey bees. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 284, 20171711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Straub, L.; Williams, G.R.; Vidondo, B.; Khongphinitbunjong, K.; Retschnig, G.; Schneeberger, A.; Chantawannakul, P.; Dietemann, V.; Neumann, P. Neonicotinoids and ectoparasitic mites synergistically impact honeybees. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Siede, R.; Meixner, M.D.; Almanza, M.T.; Schöning, R.; Maus, C.; Büchler, R. A long-term field study on the effects of dietary exposure of clothianidin to varroosis-weakened honey bee colonies. Ecotoxicology 2018, 27, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Doublet, V.; Labarussias, M.; De Miranda, J.R.; Moritz, R.F.A.; Paxton, R.J. Bees under stress: Sublethal doses of a neonicotinoid pesticide and pathogens interact to elevate honey bee mortality across the life cycle. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 17, 969–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guideline on test methods for evaluating the side-effects of plant protection products on honeybees. EPPO Bull. 1992, 22, 203–215. [CrossRef]
  67. Dukas, R. Evolutionary biology of insect learning. Annu. Rev. Èntomol. 2008, 53, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Andrione, M.; Vallortigara, G.; Antolini, R.; Haase, A. Neonicotinoid-induced impairment of odour coding in the honeybee. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Alkassab, A.T.; Kirchner, W.H. Impacts of chronic sublethal exposure to clothianidin on winter honeybees. Ecotoxicology 2016, 25, 1000–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Piiroinen, S.; Goulson, D. Chronic neonicotinoid pesticide exposure and parasite stress differentially affects learning in honeybees and bumblebees. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 283, 20160246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Chen, Y.P.; Huang, Z.Y. Nosema ceranae, a newly identified pathogen of Apis mellifera in the USA and Asia. Apidologie 2010, 41, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. McMenamin, A.J.; Genersch, E. Honey bee colony losses and associated viruses. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 8, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Annoscia, D.; Brown, S.P.; Di Prisco, G.; De Paoli, E.; Del Fabbro, S.; Frizzera, D.; Zanni, V.; Galbraith, D.A.; Caprio, E.; Grozinger, C.M.; et al. Haemolymph removal by Varroa mite destabilizes the dynamical interaction between immune effectors and virus in bees, as predicted by Volterra’s model. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 286, 20190331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Ramsey, S.; Ochoa, R.; Bauchan, G.R.; Gulbronson, C.; Mowery, J.D.; Cohen, A.; Lim, D.; Joklik, J.; Cicero, J.M.; Ellis, J.D.; et al. Varroa destructor feeds primarily on honey bee fat body tissue and not hemolymph. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 1792–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Zanni, V.; Degirmenci, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shah, K.S.; Evans, E.C.; Pizzorno, M.C. Localization of deformed wing virus (DWV) in the brains of the honeybee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus. Virol. J. 2009, 6, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Yue, C.; Genersch, E. RT-PCR analysis of Deformed wing virus in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and mites (Varroa destructor). J. Gen. Virol. 2005, 86, 3419–3424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tentcheva, D.; Gauthier, L.; Bagny, L.; Fievet, J.; Dainat, B.; Cousserans, F.; Colin, M.E.; Bergoin, M. Comparative analysis of deformed wing virus (DWV) RNA in Apis mellifera and Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2005, 37, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Ryabov, E.V.; Wood, G.R.; Fannon, J.M.; Moore, J.; Bull, J.C.; Chandler, D.; Mead, A.; Burroughs, N.; Evans, D.J. A Virulent strain of deformed wing virus (DWV) of honeybees (Apis mellifera) prevails after Varroa destructor-mediated, or in vitro, transmission. PLoS Pathog. 2014, 10, e1004230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Di Prisco, G.; Zhang, X.; Pennacchio, F.; Caprio, E.; Li, J.; Evans, J.D.; DeGrandi-Hoffman, G.; Hamilton, M.C.; Chen, Y.P. Dynamics of persistent and acute deformed wing virus infections in honey bees, Apis mellifera. Viruses 2011, 3, 2425–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Arrese, E.L.; Soulages, J.L. Insect fat body: Energy, metabolism, and regulation. Annu. Rev. Èntomol. 2010, 55, 207–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Demas, G.E.; Adamo, S.A.; French, S.S. Neuroendocrine-immune crosstalk in vertebrates and invertebrates: Implications for host defence. Funct. Ecol. 2011, 25, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tan, J.; Galligan, J.J.; Hollingworth, R.M. Agonist actions of neonicotinoids on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors expressed by cockroach neurons. Neuro Toxicol. 2007, 28, 829–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 09 00237 g001 550
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival curves of adult bees exposed to field realistic doses of clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) for 14 consecutive days.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival curves of adult bees exposed to field realistic doses of clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) for 14 consecutive days.
Biology 09 00237 g001
Biology 09 00237 g002 550
Figure 2. Proportion of bees positive for memory retention at 2, 24 and 48 hpt. The bees were treated with clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) before the first training trial. The asterisks indicate a significant reduction in the proportion of bees positive to memory retention compared to the controls based on Chi2 analyses and adjusted residuals (α of 0.05).
Figure 2. Proportion of bees positive for memory retention at 2, 24 and 48 hpt. The bees were treated with clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) before the first training trial. The asterisks indicate a significant reduction in the proportion of bees positive to memory retention compared to the controls based on Chi2 analyses and adjusted residuals (α of 0.05).
Biology 09 00237 g002
Biology 09 00237 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean DWV genome copies (GCs) per µg of RNA (± S.E.) of bees that were exposed to clothianidin and/or V. destructor. Different letters (a, b and c) above the bars indicate significant differences based on a Kruskal–Wallis test and Conover Iman procedure. Non-transformed data are presented.
Figure 3. Mean DWV genome copies (GCs) per µg of RNA (± S.E.) of bees that were exposed to clothianidin and/or V. destructor. Different letters (a, b and c) above the bars indicate significant differences based on a Kruskal–Wallis test and Conover Iman procedure. Non-transformed data are presented.
Biology 09 00237 g003
Biology 09 00237 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean (± SEM) relative expression versus ng of clothianidin of bees positive to PER of the genes: AmNrx-1 (a); AmNlg-1 (b); AmAChE-2 (c). The relative gene expression was calculated using the Livak 2−ΔΔCt method, with AmRPS5 as reference gene and 0 ng as calibrator. Log2 transformed data are presented.
Figure 4. Mean (± SEM) relative expression versus ng of clothianidin of bees positive to PER of the genes: AmNrx-1 (a); AmNlg-1 (b); AmAChE-2 (c). The relative gene expression was calculated using the Livak 2−ΔΔCt method, with AmRPS5 as reference gene and 0 ng as calibrator. Log2 transformed data are presented.
Biology 09 00237 g004
Table
Table 1. Mean consumption of sugar syrup (±S.E.) of bees exposed to sublethal doses of clothianidin and/or V. destructor. The bees were treated with clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) for 14 days. No significant differences were observed based on Kruskal–Wallis test (α of 0.05).
Table 1. Mean consumption of sugar syrup (±S.E.) of bees exposed to sublethal doses of clothianidin and/or V. destructor. The bees were treated with clothianidin (0 ng clothianidin/µL, 9 × 10−4 ng clothianidin/µL, 4.2 × 10−3 ng clothianidin/µL, and 1 × 10−2 ng clothianidin/µL) and/or V. destructor (Vd) for 14 days. No significant differences were observed based on Kruskal–Wallis test (α of 0.05).
TreatmentMean Consumption of Sugar Syrup (± S.E.)
0 ng/µL29.41 ± 0.84 µL
9 × 10−4 ng/µL28.65 ± 0.85 µL
4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL28.53 ± 0.55 µL
1 × 10−2 ng/µL28.85 ± 0.90 µL
0 ng/µL + V. destructor27.64 ± 0.44 µL
9 × 10−4 ng/µL + V. destructor27.80 ± 0.55 µL
4.2 × 10−3 ng/µL + V. destructor27.89 ± 0.36 µL
1 × 10−2 ng/µL + V. destructor29.97 ± 0.63 µL

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Morfin, N.; Goodwin, P.H.; Guzman-Novoa, E. The Combined Effects of Varroa destructor Parasitism and Exposure to Neonicotinoids Affects Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Memory and Gene Expression. Biology 2020, 9, 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9090237

AMA Style

Morfin N, Goodwin PH, Guzman-Novoa E. The Combined Effects of Varroa destructor Parasitism and Exposure to Neonicotinoids Affects Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Memory and Gene Expression. Biology. 2020; 9(9):237. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9090237

Chicago/Turabian Style

Morfin, Nuria, Paul H. Goodwin, and Ernesto Guzman-Novoa. 2020. "The Combined Effects of Varroa destructor Parasitism and Exposure to Neonicotinoids Affects Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Memory and Gene Expression" Biology 9, no. 9: 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9090237

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