Next Article in Journal
Sand Particle Size and Phosphorus Amount Affect Rhizophagus irregularis Spore Production Using In Vitro Propagated Spore as a Starter Inoculum in Rhizosphere of Maize (Zea mays) Plantlets
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating Candida glabrata Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) in Mice Using Bioluminescence Imaging
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 7
Issue 10
10.3390/jof7100845
jof-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

A Snapshot Picture of the Fungal Composition of Bee Bread in Four Locations in Bulgaria, Differing in Anthropogenic Influence

by
Svetoslav G. Dimov
*,
Lyuben Zagorchev
,
Mihail Iliev
,
Tereza Dekova
,
Ralitza Ilieva
,
Meglena Kitanova
,
Dimitrina Georgieva-Miteva
,
Martin Dimitrov
and
Slavil Peykov
Faculty of Biology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 8 Dragan Tzankov Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2021, 7(10), 845; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7100845
Submission received: 3 September 2021 / Revised: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 7 October 2021 / Published: 9 October 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Information about the fungal composition of bee bread, and the fermentation processes to which the fungi contribute significantly, is rather scarce or fragmentary. In this study, we performed an NGS-based metagenomics snapshot picture study of the fungal composition of bee bread in four locations in Bulgaria during the most active honeybee foraging period at the end of June 2020. The sampling locations were chosen to differ significantly in climatic conditions, landscape, and anthropogenic pressure, and the Illumina 2 × 250 paired-end reads platform was used for amplicon metagenomics study of the ITS2 region. We found that some of the already reported canonical beneficial core fungal species were present within the studied samples. However, some fungal genera such as Monilinia, Sclerotinia, Golovinomyces, Toxicocladosporium, Pseudopithomyces, Podosphaera and Septoriella were reported for the first time among the dominant genera for a honeybee related product. Anthropogenic pressure negatively influences the fungal composition of the bee bread in two different ways—urban/industrial pressure affects the presence of pathogenic species, while agricultural pressure is reflected in a decrease of the ratio of the beneficial fungi.

1. Introduction

Bee bread is made by the bees from a mixture of collected pollen, plant nectar, and honey which are subjected to fermentation to raise the nutrient value of the pollen. This fermentation is accomplished by bacteria and fungi, originating from the bees’ saliva as well as from those present within the corbicular pollen. It provides easily digestible carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, and vitamins for the bee larvae and the adult bees, but also acts as a functional food (feed), possessing antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties [1,2,3]. Even though many studies in the last years have been focused on the bacterial composition of bee bread [4,5,6], those on fungal composition are rather scarce despite the publication of some of them dating from the ’80s [7]. An exception is the study of Tauber et al. [8]. Few exceptions [9,10] are motivated by the fact that bee bread represents a commercial interest presenting beneficial properties for human health [3].
Even though bee bread fungal microbiota is strongly influenced by seasonal and ecological factors, some “core” fungal genera have been identified within the pollen and bee bread—Cladosporium, Mucor, Alternaria, Botrytis, Penicillium, Aspergillus and Rhizopus [11,12]. Many of these have an ambiguous nature acting as probiotics [13] and/or shaping the bees’ health and fitness [14] but also being producers of mycotoxins [15,16]. However, available data suggest that their positive influence overcomes the negative one, at least for the beehives [13,17,18].
Because the microbial composition of the honeybees’ microbiomes, as well as those of the honeybee products, is strongly influenced by the landscape and anthropogenic pressure [19], we decided to investigate the fungal composition in bee bread at the end of June 2020 in four different locations in Bulgaria (Figure 1). This period was chosen as one of the most active concerning the honeybees’ foraging activities while the locations were selected because of the different degrees of anthropogenic pressure, as well as the landscape and the climatic features. In all the apiaries in this study European honeybees (Apis mellifera macedonica) [20] were reared.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling Locations

Location 1: Sofia. This is the capital city of Bulgaria, located in a vast valley surrounded by mountains all around. The climate is typically continental. The constant population is over 1,600,000 inhabitants, and some more 200,000–300,000 people come for work on a daily basis. The apiary is located in the district of Obelya (Geographic coordinates: 42.744263 N, 23.264150 E; Elevation: 550 m). A highway, several busy boulevards, a thermal power plant, and many industrial enterprises are located within a 1–2 km range. Two of the capital’s biggest residential areas with 120,000 and 80,000 inhabitants respectively are also located within the foraging range of the bees. The agricultural activities are scarce and limited to the production for the personal use of fruits and vegetables in the local gardens. The anthropogenic pressure is estimated as very high because of the urbanization and the presence of many industrial enterprises.
Location 2: Dushantzi. The village is located within a small valley in a pre-mountain rural area in the mid-western part of the country (Geographic coordinates: 42.698124 N, 24.262389 E; Elevation: 720 m). The climate is continental. The number of residents is about 700. The agricultural activities within the foraging range of the bees are developed but not very intensive (some potato crops fields and sheep breeding). Many preserved natural areas and forests are also located within the 1–2 km zone. A big dam can be found at 1.5 km air distance. The closest industrial enterprise (a mining company) is located at 7 km air distance. The anthropogenic pressure is estimated as moderate.
Location 3: Kalina. The village is located at the most North-West part of the country in the large Danube plane (Geographic coordinates: 44.068890 N, 22.767405 N; Elevation: 105 m). The climate is continental. The number of the constant inhabitants is about 40. The agricultural activities are intensive with sunflower as the main crop in large fields. A small dam used for irrigation is located 100 m from the apiary. No industrial enterprises are located within a 12 km range. The anthropogenic pressure is estimated as high because of intensive agriculture.
Location 4: Momchilovtzi. The village is located in the southern part of Bulgaria in the middle of the Rhodopes mountain (Geographic coordinates: 41.657372 N, 24.773179 E; Elevation 1180 m). The climate is continental but with a strong influence from the Eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea which is at about 60 km distance. The number of the constant inhabitants is about 1050. The main agricultural activity is animal farming, mostly sheep breeding in the high-mountain pastures (several herds of a few hundred sheep). Because of the limitations of the terrain, crop growing is limited to potatoes and beans cultivation for personal use in small fields. No industrial enterprises are located within a radius of more than 30 km. The anthropogenic pressure is estimated as very low.

2.2. Bee Bread Sampling

About 200 mg (the content of 3 bee bread containing cells) of 2–4 days old (estimated by the beekeepers) bee bread was taken in sterile conditions from 3 randomly chosen hives in each apiary in the four different locations, and pooled together. Samples were put immediately at −10 °C and stored and transported to the laboratory at the same temperature within no more than 8 h. In the laboratory the samples were stored at −20 °C.

2.3. DNA Isolation

The sample pools from the four apiaries were mixed with an electric homogenizer and a sterile pestle, then 50 mg of bee bread mixture were used for DNA isolation with Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe Microprep Kit (Zymo Research, Cat. No. D6012, Irvine, CA, USA) according to the instruction manual. The quality of the extracted DNA was estimated by agarose electrophoresis in 1% gel in a TBE buffer system while the exact concentration was measured with a Quantus™ Fluorimeter (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The obtained DNA concentrations varied between 45 and 72 ng/µL.

2.4. Metagenomic Analyses

2.4.1. NGS-Sequencing

The DNA samples were shipped in dry ice to the Novogene Company Ltd. (Cambridge, UK). The sequencing was performed on the Illumina HiSeq 2 × 250 bp paired-end reads platform with 30 k tags per sample. The ITS2 region was sequenced with primers ITS3 (5′-GCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGC-3′) and ITS4 (5-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′), giving an amplicon product of 386 bp. The bioinformatics processing of the obtained data was executed by Novogene Company Ltd.

2.4.2. Sequences Processing

The raw data were first processed for the removal of the barcodes and the primers’ sequences. The paired-end reads were merged by the FLASH V1.2.7 software tool [21]. The quality filtering of the raw tags was performed according to Bokulich [22] and Caporaso [23]. The tags were compared with the reference database (http://drive5.com/uchime/uchime_download.html, accessed on 24 September 2020) using the UCHIME algorithm [24] to detect chimera sequences, and then to obtain the effective tags. The chimera sequences were removed accordingly to Haas [25].

2.4.3. Otus Analyses

All of the effective tags were analyzed by the Uparse v7.0.1001 software [26], and sequences with ≥97% similarity were assigned to the same OTUs. The representative sequences were analyzed by BLAST with Qiime v.1.7.0 [27], and against the Unite database [28]. MUSCLE v.3.8.31 [29,30] was used to construct the phylogenetic relationship of the OTUs representative sequences. OTUs abundance information was normalized using a standard sequence number corresponding to the sample with the fewest sequences. Subsequent analyses of alpha diversity were performed based on this output of normalized data. Krona charts were created using the Krona display [31].

2.4.4. Alpha Diversity Analyses

The samples’ alpha diversity analyses were estimated based on the community richness indices by the Chao1 estimator (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.chao1.html#skbio.diversity.alpha.chao1, accessed on 3 September 2021) [32] and the ACE estimator (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.ace.html#skbio.diversity.alpha.ace, accessed on 17 October 2020) [33,34], as well the community diversity indices by the Shanon index (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.shannon.html#skbio.diversity.alpha.shannon, accessed on 17 October 2020) [35,36] and the Simpson index (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.simpson.html#skbio.diversity.alpha.simpson, accessed on 17 October 2020) [35,37]. The index of the sequencing depth was evaluated based on Good’s coverage (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.goods_coverage.html#skbio.diversity.alpha.goods_coverage, accessed on 18 October 2020) [38]. The index of phylogenetic diversity was calculated with the PD whole tree (http://scikit-bio.org/docs/latest/generated/skbio.diversity.alpha.faith_pd.html?highlight=pd#skbio.diversity.alpha.faith_pd, accessed on 18 October 2020) [39].

3. Results

3.1. NGS Sequencing Results

The analyses of the raw data are summarized in Table 1. The sequencing was of very good quality, allowing to proceed with the rest of the analyzes.

3.2. OTUs Counts

The results from the OTUs counts are displayed in Table 2. The numbers of the taxon tags varied between 504 and 3556 (on average 1610), while the number of the OTUs—between 156 and 281 (on average 198). The percentage of the unique tags varied between 0.84 % and 5.69 % (on average 2.77 %).

3.3. OTUs Taxonomic Annotation

The percentages based on the taxonomically annotated OTUs of the fungal phyla are presented in Table 3, while the Krona charts for the four locations in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the relative abundances of the lower taxonomic ranks. The most abundant phylum was Ascomycota, accounting for more than 99 % of the OTUs found in all locations. Basidiomycota comes in second place, insignificantly represented at every location (0.04–0.30%), except for Dushantzi. Mucorcomycota was scarcely presented and only in Sofia with 0.30%. Of the fungal OTUs in Dushantzi, 0.06% were unclassified.
All dominant genera accounted for more than 1% of the overall genera in the four locations. These belonged to the Ascomycota phylum, and are the focus of this study. They are listed in Table 4 while their incidence in the four locations is shown on the Venn diagram in Figure 6.

3.4. Alpha Diversity Analyses

The calculated alpha diversity indexes are presented in Table 5.

4. Discussion

The NGS data reads used for this study was of good quality as illustrated by the values in Table 1, especially those of Q20, Q30, and the percentages of the effective tags, allowing correct further analyses. However, some confusion could arise as a result of the relatively high percentages of unclassified tags which varied approximately between 94% and 98%. A high percentage of unclassified fungi when ITS-based methods are employed is not unusual and could be explained by the incompleteness of the international databases with data of environmental samples [8,19,40]. For example, it varies from above 50% to 80% for environmental samples [40,41,42] to “significant” [43] and above 98% [44] for fermented foods and products.
Our results are close to those reported in one study of the corbicular pollen and bee bread, where the authors reported more than 93% Ascomycota OTUs counts [10]. Thus, the close percentages in the four locations, despite the differences in the taxon tags and the OTUs accounted for (Table 2), indicate that these numbers represent a tendency, and they are not random variations as a result of the chosen methodology.
Concerning the results of the annotation of the NGS data (Table 2), close numbers of the total tags and the unclassified tags were observed, except for Sofia where they were significantly lower. However, Sofia comes in first place in the percentage of the unique tags, despite being in third place in the number of taxon tags. Concerning the number of OTUs, the numbers were again close, except for Kalina where it was significantly higher. Nevertheless, Kalina comes in last place in the number of unique tags, and in second place in the number of the taxon tags. The highest number of the taxon tags was observed in Dushantzi, but it had one of the lowest OTUs number. The lowest numbers of the OTUs and the taxon tags were observed in Momchilovtzi, but it was second place in the number of the unique tags. All these observations led us to the conclusion that no correlations between the numbers of the total tags, the taxon tags, the OTUs, and the unique tags could be formulated, neither for the environmental conditions, nor the degree of the anthropogenic pressure, as well as the richness and the evenness of the fungal microbiota within the bee bread.
In practice, all fungi which could have an impact on bee bread fermentation and quality belonged to Ascomycota. Basidiomycota, Mucoromycota, and the unclassified phyla were represented only symbolically (Table 3, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). This is the reason why the focus of our study was further put only on the Ascomycota dominant genera, represented by more than 1% percent of the annotated taxon tags within the samples from the four locations.
Members of 16 fungal genera appeared among the dominant species. Among the core fungal microbiota species reported in the literature [11,12], members of only three genera were found in our study—Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Alternaria. From them, only Cladosporium was present in the samples from all four locations, while Penicillium and Alternaria were present in the samples coming from three locations. Till now Monilinia was not reported to be part of the core fungal microbiota species. However, members of the genus were found within the samples of two of the locations. Members of all the other dominant genera were accounted for only one location.
Members of the Cladosporium genus come in first place by average combined content of 54% in all the locations, and they are also in first place in the samples from Dushantzi, Momchilovtzi and Sofia, being accounted for with more than 60% of all of the OTUs counts. The only location where Cladosporium is in second place is Kalina (15% of the OTUs counts), where the first place was occupied by members of the Toxicocladosporium genus (24% of the OTUs counts). This filamentous fungus has been reported previously to be one of the predominant genera within corbicular pollen and bee bread [9,10,11,13]. Its predominance within the core microbiota could be explained by its ability to secrete organic acids which preserve the collected pollen, by the secretion of extracellular enzymes which raise the nutritional value of the pollen [13], as well as by inhibiting pathogenic bacteria and fungi, for example, Ascoshpaera apis [10].
Members of the Penicillium genus were found at three of the locations (Momchilovtzi, Sofia, and Kalina) with percentages from 1% to 8% of the OTUs counts (average content of 3% among the whole study), but even higher contents have been reported [9]. They have been reported to be present in honey [45,46], in bee pollen [11], and even in stingless bee products [47]. This could be easily explained by their important role [48], similar to that of the Cladosporium species.
Alternaria species were also found in three of the four locations, being absent only in Kalina, and accounted for between 1% and 4%, and a total of 2% in the whole study. Although some species are phytopathogenic [49], they are also placed among the core members of the bees and bee products microbiotas [11,45,46]. They are important species, playing roles within the beehives, similar to those of Cladosporium and Penicillium species. Their widespread occurrence could also be supported by the recent findings that they possess the potential to inhibit the growth of the causative agents of the American foulbrood disease (AFB) and chalkbrood disease (CBD) [18].
Monilinia was also found within the samples in more than one location—Dushantzi and Sofia with 9% and 2% of the OTUs counts respectively. Almost no information about the presence of these species within bee products is published, except that bees could be vectors for the propagation of the molds belonging to this genus [50]. Evidently, Monilinia species possess the ability to thrive within fermenting bee bread. However, it was never reported to be found among the dominant fungal species in two of the locations. This unusual finding allows us to speculate that even though the genus Monilinia is not a member of the core fungal genera, it might play some role in the fermentation of bee bread. This guess is further supported by its third place with 9% of the OTUs counts in the sample from Dushantzi.
All other dominant fungal genera were found in only one location, despite being or not being members of the core genera.
Dushantzi was the only location where the Botrytis genus was present among the dominant genera, being at second place by the number of OUTs accounted for. It was also the only single dominant genus in addition to those already discussed. Members of this genus are plant pathogens. However, they are also members of the core bees-related genera. Spores of the genus have been found in pollen [11] and honey [46], but they have also been reported to have a beneficial effect on the development of worker bees [51], and also have a nutritional value [13].
Similar to Dushantzi, within the sample from Momchilovtzi only one genus was present among the dominant ones in addition to the other three core genera—in this case, Sclerotinia, which accounted for 34% of the OTUs. This is a surprising finding, keeping in mind that members of this genus are plant pathogens [52], as well as considering the extremely high percentage of the occurrence which cannot be considered as random or as a flaw of the methodology. One can only speculate that this fungus could have a similar impact on the bees and bee products as the other already discussed plant pathogens. However, this hypothesis should be debated with great caution because of the lack of supporting scientific data, except for one report of the association of Sclerotinia sp. with stingless bees [53].
Within the samples from Sofia, in addition to the three core genera, Cladosporium, Penicillium and Alternaria, two additional dominant genera were accounted for—Ascosphaera and Golovinomyces. Ascoshaera is a rigorous bee pathogen, being the causative agent of CBD, so being in second place by 34% of the annotated OTUs was an unexpected finding. More strikingly, when the samples were taken, the beekeeper selected hives that in his opinion were healthy. One possible explanation of the observed paradox is the ability of Alternaria and some lactic acid bacteria to inhibit the growth of this pathogen [18,54]. Members of the Golovinomyces are strict plant pathogens [55], and, until now, they have never been reported to be associated with bees and bee products. Once again, some plausible explanations of this finding are, if they are not some kind of contamination, they could have some nutritional value—either by themselves, or by secreting extracellular enzymes raising the nutritional value of the pollen.
The greatest number of genera among the dominant ones was found in the samples from Kalina—10, from which only two were among the core genera. In addition to Cladosporium and Penicillium (15% and 8% of the annotated OTUs counts respectively), Toxicocladosporium, Pseudopithomyces, Camarosporium, Paraconiothyrium, Podosphaera, Paraphaeosphaeria, Periconia and Septoriella were accounted for. The picture is even more astounding because the first and the second place by the number of annotated OTUs were occupied by non-core genera Toxicocladosporium and Pseudopithomyces with 24% and 18% respectively, while the third place with 15% is claimed by the core Cladosporium and the non-core Camarosporium genera. The remaining non-core dominant genera were accounted for with only 1% to 4%.
Until now, Toxicocladosporium genus has never been reported to be associated with bee products and bees. Members of the genus were found in many different environments such as soils [56], marine waters [57], household air conditioners [58], bronchoalveolar lavage fluid [59], different plants [60,61], and even in insects—in the planthopper gut [62] and the Thitarodes larvae hemolymph [63]. However, members of this genus have never been established as strict pathogens of the plant and animal species where they thrive. The high percentage of the Toxicocladosporium among the annotated OTUs, placing it at first place, is difficult to explain. One plausible hypothesis is that members of this genus are not pathogens, and at the same time are closely related to the other Cladosporiaceae genus observed, which is the most common core genus Cladosporium. Thus, it could play a similar role in the bee bread fermentation process. Still, further omics analyses are needed to confirm or reject this hypothesis.
Among the dominant genera in Kalina three members of the Didymosphaeriaceae family were found—Pseudopithomyces, which arrives at second place with 18% of the annotated OTUs, and Paraconiothyruium and Paraphaeosphaeria with 4% and 1% respectively. Pseudopithomyces species have been reported to be present in different ecological niches—freshwaters [64], seawaters [65], where they could also be associated with algae [66], to be endophytes [67] and/or plant pathogens [68], and to be present within the human fungal microbiome, together with Paraphaeosphaeria species [69], but most importantly they were found to be part of a fruit fly species microbiome [70]. Most likely, with 18% of the annotated OTUs counts their presence is not an accident, a hypothesis supported by the fact that they have been found in human and insect microbiomes. Paraconithyrium species have already been reported for corbicular pollen [9], while they are mostly endophytes and bioremediators [71,72]. They were also declared safe for honeybees as biocontrol agents used for soil treatments in the USA and the EU [73]. Being present within the corbicular pollen indicates that maybe they are also present within the bees’ microbiome, and to be transferred to bee bread from the insects’ saliva used for the construction of pollen granules. As for their 4% of the annotated OTUs counts, they have the potential to have a noticeable impact on bee bread fermentation. Paraphaeosphaeria species are also usually plant endophytes [74]. However, finding it within bee bread is not a surprising fact, being already reported to be present within honey samples [75], as well as to be reported as a gut endosymbiont for other insect species [76].
Within the Kalina samples, with 15% of the annotated OTUs counts, members of the Camarosporium genus disputed the third place of occurrence with those of the core genus Cladosporium, showing, therefore, that this finding is not a random chance. Information about this genus is rather scarce, its members being mostly known to be saprobes or plant pathogens [77]. However, further investigations are needed because they have been reported to be present within honey samples [78].
The last dominant genera found in Kalina bee bread samples were Podosphaera, Periconia and Septoriella accounted for by 1% of the annotated OTUs counts. From them, only members of the Periconia genus were reported to be found in honeybees-related products [78], and in an animal in general, a Haliconia sp. sponge [66]. The other two are plant pathogens [79,80]. Despite being among the dominant genera, the impact of these three would be minimal, if not non-existent, because of their very low content, especially for those which have never been associated with bees or insects. Additionally, Periconia sp. was recently reported as a human pathogen causing corneal ulcers [81].
If we compare the dominant genera composition of the four locations (Figure 6) regarding the landscape and the anthropogenic influence, the lowest number of dominant genera, in total 4, is observed in Dushantzi and Momchilovtzi, where the landscape is hilly and mountainous, and the anthropogenic pressure is minimal or not existent. On the other hand, the highest numbers of dominant genera were observed in Sofia and Kalina, respectively 6 and 10, where the anthropogenic pressure is high, and the landscape is flat, and where plant, human, and honeybee pathogens were accounted for. However, two types of anthropogenic pressure can be differentiated—urban/industrial and agricultural. The agricultural pressure reflects on the overall diminution of the beneficial fungal genera—only two core genera were present in Kalina with a combined percentage of 23%, as well as on the increase of the number of the non-canonical fungal genera, mainly by plant pathogens and saprophytes. On the other hand, the urban and industrial anthropogenic pressure did not reflect on the combined percentage of the beneficial fungal genera—at the three locations three core genera were observed with combined percentages from 61% to 71%, surprisingly the highest being observed in Sofia where the apiary was contaminated with Ascosphaera but showed no symptoms. This observation coincides with the well-documented ability of the honeybees to adapt to urban areas [82,83]. Nevertheless, the pressure of the urban conditions does have some negative impact which in our case was the observation of pathogenic fungi.
As the methodology used in the study comprises a PCR step of amplification of a part of the fungal ITS2 regions, some concerns about the validity of the data could arise. Despite this methodology being imposed itself globally as a gold standard for metagenomic studies, and research of its validity having been published [84], the alpha diversity indexes should be examined in every case (Table 5). The calculated values of the Chao1 and the ACE indices were close to the observed numbers of the fungal species, which is not a surprise because the calculated Good’s coverage index in all samples was 1.000, meaning that all samples were representative accounting for all present species within the samples [33,38,85]. Finally, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity PD whole tree indexes were calculated, which account for the phylogenetic realization of the species richness but do not consider the species abundance [39]. Keeping these considerations in mind, the results presented in this study should be considered as correct and informative, despite the fact that some minor deviances in the cited percentages of the annotated OTUs tags could not be completely excluded.

5. Conclusions

A bee bread microbiota survey study was performed in locations with different landscapes, climatic conditions, and degrees of anthropogenic pressure within a narrow timeframe of 8 days in the most active honeybees foraging period at the end of June. Some of the core honeybee-related fungal genera which were reported in the scientific literature were found, some others were reported to our knowledge for the first time within the dominant genera: Monilinia, Sclerotinia, Golovinomyces, Toxicocladosporium, Pseudopithomyces, Podosphaera and Septoriella. We also found that the degree of the anthropogenic pressure does have a negative impact on the bee bread fungal microbiota, the strongest one being that of intensive agriculture.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by BULGARIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE FUND, grant number KΠ-06-H26/8 from 17 December 2018. The APC was funded by BULGARIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE FUND. Check carefully that the details given are accurate and use the standard spelling of funding agency names at https://search.crossref.org/funding (accessed on 3 September 2021). Any errors may affect your future funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like also to express his gratitude to the following beekeepers for their cooperation and for providing the bees: Atanas Atanasov from Kalina, Andrei Andreev from Momchilovtzi, and Dimitar Dimitrov from Sofia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Bakour, M.; Fernandes, Â.; Barros, L.; Sokovic, M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Lyoussi, B. Bee bread as a functional product: Chemical composition and bioactive properties. LWT 2019, 109, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mărgăoan, R.; Stranț, M.; Varadi, A.; Topal, E.; Yücel, B.; Cornea-Cipcigan, M.; Campos, M.G.; Vodnar, D.C. Bee Collected Pollen and Bee Bread: Bioactive Constituents and Health Benefits. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Yucel, B.; Topal, E.; Kosoglu, M. Chapter 2: Bee products as functional food. In Superfood and Functional Food—An Overview of Their Processing and Utilization; InTech: London, UK, 2017; pp. 15–33. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ispirli, H.; Dertli, E. Detection of fructophilic lactic acid bacteria (FLAB) in bee bread and bee pollen samples and determination of their functional roles. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pełka, K.; Worobo, R.; Walkusz, J.; Szweda, P. Bee Pollen and Bee Bread as a Source of Bacteria Producing Antimicrobials. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vásquez, A.; Olofsson, T.C. The lactic acid bacteria involved in the production of bee pollen and bee bread. J. Apic. Res. 2009, 48, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gilliam, M.; Prest, D.B.; Lorenz, B.J. Microbiology of pollen and bee bread: Taxonomy and enzymology of molds. Apidologie 1989, 20, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Tauber, J.P.; McMahon, D.; Ryabov, E.V.; Kunat, M.; Ptaszyńska, A.A.; Evans, J.D. Honeybee intestines retain low yeast titers, but no bacterial mutualists, at emergence. Yeast 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sinpoo, C.; Williams, G.R.; Chantawannakul, P. Dynamics of fungal communities in corbicular pollen and bee bread. Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2017, 44, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar]
  10. Disayathanoowat, T.; Li, H.; Supapimon, N.; Suwannarach, N.; Lumyong, S.; Chantawannakul, P.; Guo, J. Different Dynamics of Bacterial and Fungal Communities in Hive-Stored Bee Bread and Their Possible Roles: A Case Study from Two Commercial Honey Bees in China. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Sinkevicine, J.; Amsiejus, A. Prevalence of microscopic fungi in bee pollen. Biologija 2019, 65, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yoder, J.A.; Jajack, A.J.; Rosselot, A.E.; Smith, T.J.; Yerke, M.C.; Sammataro, D. Fungicide Contamination Reduces Beneficial Fungi in Bee Bread Based on an Area-Wide Field Study in Honey Bee, Apis mellifera, Colonies. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2013, 76, 587–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hsu, C.-K.; Wang, D.-Y.; Wu, M.-C. A Potential Fungal Probiotic Aureobasidium melanogenum CK-CsC for the Western Honey Bee, Apis mellifera. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dharampal, P.S.; Carlson, C.; Currie, C.R.; Steffan, S.A. Pollen-borne microbes shape bee fitness. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2019, 286, 20182894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. González, G.; Hinojo, M.; Mateo-Castro, R.; Medina-Vaya, A.; Jiménez, M. Occurrence of mycotoxin producing fungi in bee pollen. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005, 105, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kostić, A.Ž.; Milinčić, D.D.; Petrović, T.S.; Krnjaja, V.S.; Stanojević, S.P.; Barać, M.B.; Tešić, Ž.L.; Pešić, M.B. Mycotoxins and mycotoxin producing fungi in pollen: Review. Toxins 2019, 11, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Isayeva, A.F.; Seyidova, G.M.; Abdullayeva, S.A.; Novruzova, M.S.; Muradov, P.Z. Characteristic of Species Composition of Fungi Involved in the Formation of Mycobiota of Honey Bees in Azerbaijan. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2019, 10, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ye, M.-H.; Fan, S.-H.; Li, X.-Y.; Tarequl, I.M.; Yan, C.-X.; Wei, W.-H.; Yang, S.-M.; Zhou, B. Microbiota dysbiosis in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) larvae infected with brood diseases and foraging bees exposed to agrochemicals. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 201805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ptaszyńska, A.; Latoch, P.; Hurd, P.; Polaszek, A.; Michalska-Madej, J.; Grochowalski, Ł.; Strapagiel, D.; Gnat, S.; Załuski, D.; Gancarz, M.; et al. Amplicon Sequencing of Variable 16S rRNA from Bacteria and ITS2 Regions from Fungi and Plants, Reveals Honeybee Susceptibility to Diseases Results from Their Forage Availability under Anthropogenic Landscapes. Pathogens 2021, 10, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ruttner, F. Chapter 14: Honeybees of the central Mediterranean and southeastern Europe. In Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees; Gabler: Oslo, Norway, 1988; pp. 240–257. [Google Scholar]
  21. Magoč, T.; Salzberg, S. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bokulich, N.A.; Subramanian, S.; Faith, J.J.; Gevers, D.; Gordon, J.I.; Knight, R.; Mills, D.A.; Caporaso, J.G. Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caporaso, J.G.; Kuczynski, J.; Stombaugh, J.; Bittinger, K.; Bushman, F.D.; Costello, E.K.; Fierer, N.; Peña, A.G.; Goodrich, J.K.; Gordon, J.I.; et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2010, 7, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. 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] [Green Version]
  25. Haas, B.J.; Gevers, D.; Earl, A.M.; Feldgarden, M.; Ward, D.V.; Giannoukos, G.; Ciulla, D.; Tabbaa, D.; Highlander, S.K.; Sodergren, E.; et al. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 2011, 21, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Edgar, R.C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 996–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Altschul, S.F.; Gish, W.; Miller, W.; Myers, E.W.; Lipman, D.J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 215, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kõljalg, U.; Nilsson, H.; Abarenkov, K.; Tedersoo, L.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Bahram, M.; Bates, S.T.; Bruns, T.D.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Callaghan, T.M.; et al. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22, 5271–5277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Edgar, R.C. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, 1792–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Edgar, R.C. MUSCLE: A multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinform. 2004, 5, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ondov, B.D.; Bergman, N.H.; Phillippy, A.M. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a Web browser. BMC Bioinform. 2011, 12, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Chao, A. Non-parametric estimation of the classes in a population. Scand. J. Stat. 1984, 11, 265–270. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chao, A.; Lee, S.M. Estimating the number of classes via sample coverage. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1992, 87, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chao, A.; Yang, M.C.K. Stopping Rules and Estimation for Recapture Debugging with Unequal Failure Rates. Biometrika 1993, 80, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lemos, L.N.; Fulthorpe, R.R.; Triplett, E.W.; Roesch, L.F. Rethinking microbial diversity analysis in the high throughput sequencing era. J. Microbiol. Methods 2011, 86, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. McCarthy, B.C.; Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2004, 131, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chao, A.; Lee, S.-M.; Chen, T.-C. A generalized good’s nonparametric coverage estimator. Chin. J. Math. 1988, 16, 189–199. [Google Scholar]
  39. Faith, D.P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 1992, 61, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Buée, M.; Reich, M.; Murat, C.; Morin, E.; Nilsson, R.H.; Uroz, S.; Martin, F. 454 Pyrosequencing analyses of forest soils reveal an unexpectedly high fungal diversity. New Phytol. 2009, 184, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lepère, C.; Domaizon, I.; Humbert, J.-F.; Jardillier, L.; Hugoni, M.; Debroas, D. Diversity, spatial distribution and activity of fungi in freshwater ecosystems. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Y.; Sen, B.; He, Y.; Xie, N.; Wang, G. Spatiotemporal Distribution and Assemblages of Planktonic Fungi in the Coastal Waters of the Bohai Sea. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Rich, J.O.; Anderson, A.M.; Leathers, T.D.; Bischoff, K.M.; Liu, S.; Skory, C.D. Microbial contamination of commercial corn-based fuel ethanol fermentations. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 11, 100433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aregbe, A.Y.; Mu, T.; Sun, H. Effect of different pretreatment on the microbial diversity of fermented potato revealed by high-throughput sequencing. Food Chem. 2019, 290, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kiš, M.; Furmeg, S.; Tkalec, V.J.; Zadravec, M.; Lugomer, M.D.; Končurat, A.; Benić, M.; Pavliček, D. Characterisation of Croatian honey by physicochemical and microbiological parameters with mold identification. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kiš, M.; Furmeg, S.; Tkalec, V.; Zadravec, M.; Benić, M.; Sokolović, J.; Majnarić, D. Identification of moulds from Croatian honey. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2019, 11, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barbosa, R.; Bezerra, J.D.P.; Souza-Motta, C.M.; Frisvad, J.; Samson, R.A.; Oliveira, N.T.; Houbraken, J. New Penicillium and Talaromyces species from honey, pollen and nests of stingless bees. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2018, 111, 1883–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Anderson, K.E.; Sheehan, T.H.; Eckholm, B.; Mott, B.M.; Degrandihoffman, 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]
  49. Marin-Felix, Y.; Restrepo, M.H.; Wingfield, M.; Akulov, O.; Carnegie, A.; Cheewangkoon, R.; Gramaje, D.; Groenewald, J.; Guarnaccia, V.; Halleen, F.; et al. Genera of phytopathogenic fungi: GOPHY 2. Stud. Mycol. 2019, 92, 47–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Batra, L.R.; Batra, S.W.T. Floral mimicry induced by mummy-berry fungus exploits host’s pollinators as vectors. Science 1985, 228, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Parish, J.B.; Scott, E.S.; Hogendoorn, K. Nutritional benefit of fungal spores for honey bee workers. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Boland, G.; Hall, R. Index of plant hosts of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 1994, 16, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ngalimat, M.S.; Rahman, R.N.Z.R.A.; Yusof, M.T.; Hamzah, A.S.A.; Zawawi, N.; Sabri, S. A Review on the Association of Bacteria with Stingless Bees. Sains Malays. 2020, 49, 1853–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Janashia, I.; Choiset, Y.; Józefiak, D.; Déniel, F.; Coton, E.; Moosavi-Movahedi, A.A.; Chanishvili, N.; Haertlé, T. Beneficial Protective Role of Endogenous Lactic Acid Bacteria Against Mycotic Contamination of Honeybee Beebread. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2018, 10, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Takamatsu, S.; Matsuda, S.; Grigaliunaite, B. Comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the genus Golovinomyces (Ascomycota: Erysiphales) reveals close evolutionary relationships with its host plants. Mycologia 2013, 105, 1135–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Adhikari, M.; Kim Hyun, S.; Gurung Sun, K.; Bazie, S.; Lee Hyun, G.; Lee Hyang, B.; Lee Youn, S. Two new records of ascomycetes from crop field soils in korea. Korean J. Mycol. 2017, 45, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Fotedar, R.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Kolecka, A.; Zeyara, A.; Al Malki, A.; Al Shammari, H.; Al Marri, M.; Kaul, R.; Boekhout, T. Toxicocladosporium aquimarinum sp. nov. and Toxicocladosporium qatarense sp. nov., isolated from marine waters of the Arabian Gulf surrounding Qatar. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 2992–3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hashimoto, K.; Oda, H.; Saito, Y.; Akimoto, M.; Nojiri, T.; Kawakami, Y. Isolation of simplicillium sympodiophorum and toxicocladosporium irritans from the blowout air of household air conditioners. Biocontrol Sci. 2021, 26, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Crous, P.; Wingfield, M.; Richardson, D.; Le Roux, J.; Strasberg, D.; Edwards, J.; Roets, F.; Hubka, V.; Taylor, P.; Heykoop, M.; et al. Fungal Planet description sheets: 400–468. Pers. Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2016, 36, 316–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bezerra, J.D.P.; Sandoval-Denis, M.; Paiva, L.M.; Silva, G.; Groenewald, J.Z.; Souza-Motta, C.M.; Crous, P.W. New endophytic Toxicocladosporium species from cacti in Brazil, and description of Neocladosporium gen. nov. IMA Fungus 2017, 8, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Moubasher, A.; Abdel-Sater, M.; Soliman, Z.S. Diversity of floricolous yeasts and filamentous fungi of some ornamental and edible fruit plants in assiut area, egypt. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology. J. Fungal Biol. 2018, 8, 135–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brentassi, M.E.; Medina, R.; de la Fuente, D.; Franco, M.E.; Toledo, A.V.; Saparrat, M.C.; Balatti, P.A. Endomycobiome associated with females of the planthopper Delphacodes kuscheli (Hemiptera: Delphacidae): A metabarcoding approach. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wu, H.; Rao, Z.-C.; Cao, L.; De Clercq, P.; Han, R.-C. Infection of Ophiocordyceps sinensis Fungus Causes Dramatic Changes in the Microbiota of Its Thitarodes Host. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 577268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Goh, J.; Jeon, Y.-J.; Mun Hye, Y.; Chung, N.; Park, Y.-H.; Park, S.; Hwang, H.; Cheon, W. Isolation and characterization of eleven unrecorded pezizomycotina species from freshwater ecosystems in korea. Korean J. Mycol. 2020, 48, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ningsih, B.N.S.; Rukachaisirikul, V.; Pansrinun, S.; Phongpaichit, S.; Preedanon, S.; Sakayaroj, J. New aromatic polyketides from the marine-derived fungus Pseudopithomyces maydicus PSU-AMF350 and their antimicrobial activity. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chin, J.M.W.; Puchooa, D.; Bahorun, T.; Jeewon, R. Molecular characterization of marine fungi associated with Haliclona sp. (sponge) and Turbinaria conoides and Sargassum portierianum (brown algae). In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences; Gabler: Oslo, Norway, 2021; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  67. Yuan, X.-L.; Cao, M.; Liu, X.-M.; Du, Y.-M.; Shen, G.-M.; Zhang, Z.-F.; Li, J.-H.; Zhang, P. Composition and Genetic Diversity of the Nicotiana tabacum Microbiome in Different Topographic Areas and Growth Periods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Perelló, A.; Aulicino, M.; Stenglein, S.A.; Labuda, R.; Moreno, M.V. Pseudopithomyces chartarum associated with wheat seeds in Argentina, pathogenicity and evaluation of toxigenic ability. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. You, N.; Xu, J.; Wang, L.; Zhuo, L.; Zhou, J.; Song, Y.; Ali, A.; Luo, Y.; Yang, J.; Yang, W.; et al. Fecal Fungi Dysbiosis in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Obesity 2021, 29, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Majumder, R.; Sutcliffe, B.; Taylor, P.W.; Chapman, T.A. Microbiome of the Queensland Fruit Fly through Metamorphosis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Damm, U.; Verkley, G.; Crous, P.; Fourie, P.; Haegi, A.; Riccioni, L. Novel Paraconiothyrium species on stone fruit trees and other woody hosts. Pers. Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2008, 20, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Perazzolli, M.; Nesler, A.; Giovannini, O.; Antonielli, L.; Puopolo, G.; Pertot, I. Ecological impact of a rare sugar on grapevine phyllosphere microbial communities. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 232, 126387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kevan, P.G.; Shipp, L.; Smagghe, G. Ecological intensification: Managing biocomplexity and biodiversity in agriculture through pollinators, pollination and deploying biocontrol agents against crop and pollinator diseases, pests and parasites. In Entomovectoring for Precision Biocontrol and Enhanced Pollination of Crops; Gabler: Oslo, Norway, 2020; pp. 19–51. [Google Scholar]
  74. Dantas, S.B.S.; Alves, F.A.M.; Chapla, V.M. Chemical, diversity and biotechnological potential of endophytic fungi isolated from Brazilian Cerrado plants. Biota Neotrop. 2021, 21, 20201069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pérez-Atanes, S.; Seijo-Coello, M.D.C.; Méndez-Alvarez, J. Contribution to the study of fungal spores in honeys of Galicia (NW Spain). Grana 2001, 40, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Shao, M.-W.; Lu, Y.-H.; Miao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, T.-T.; Zhang, Y.-L. Diversity, Bacterial Symbionts and Antibacterial Potential of Gut-Associated Fungi Isolated from the Pantala flavescens Larvae in China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Huseyin, E.; Selcuk, F.; Akgul, H. Species of camarosporium on forest trees and shrubs new reports from anatolian peninsula. Int. J. For. Hortic. 2017, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  78. Magyar, D.; Mura-Mészáros, A.; Grillenzoni, F.; Information, R. Fungal diversity in floral and honeydew honeys. Acta Bot. Hung. 2016, 58, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Azhari, A.; Supratman, U. The Chemistry and Pharmacology of Fungal Genus Periconia: A Review. Sci. Pharm. 2021, 89, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Marin-Felix, Y.; Restrepo, M.H.; Iturrieta-González, I.; García, D.; Gené, J.; Groenewald, J.; Cai, L.; Chen, Q.; Quaedvlieg, W.; Schumacher, R.; et al. Genera of phytopathogenic fungi: GOPHY 3. Stud. Mycol. 2019, 94, 1–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Gunasekaran, R.; Janakiraman, D.; Rajapandian, S.G.K.; Appavu, S.P.; Venkatesh, P.N.; Prajna, L. Periconia species-An unusual fungal pathogen causing mycotic keratitis. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2021, 39, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Egerer, M.; Kowarik, I. Confronting the Modern Gordian Knot of Urban Beekeeping. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 956–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sponsler, D.B.; Bratman, E.Z. Beekeeping in, of or for the city? A socioecological perspective on urban apiculture. People Nat. 2021, 3, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Giner, C.R.; Forn, I.; Romac, S.; Logares, R.; de Vargas, C.; Massana, R. Environmental Sequencing Provides Reasonable Estimates of the Relative Abundance of Specific Picoeukaryotes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 4757–4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Zheng, X.; Liu, F.; Shi, X.; Wang, B.; Li, K.; Li, B.; Zhuge, B. Dynamic correlations between microbiota succession and flavor development involved in the ripening of Kazak artisanal cheese. Food Res. Int. 2018, 105, 733–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jof 07 00845 g001 550
Figure 1. Locations of the apiaries from which the samples were taken.
Figure 1. Locations of the apiaries from which the samples were taken.
Jof 07 00845 g001
Jof 07 00845 g002 550
Figure 2. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Dushantzi.
Figure 2. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Dushantzi.
Jof 07 00845 g002
Jof 07 00845 g003 550
Figure 3. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Momchilovtzi.
Figure 3. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Momchilovtzi.
Jof 07 00845 g003
Jof 07 00845 g004 550
Figure 4. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Sofia.
Figure 4. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Sofia.
Jof 07 00845 g004
Jof 07 00845 g005 550
Figure 5. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Kalina.
Figure 5. Krona display of the fungal composition of the samples from Kalina.
Jof 07 00845 g005
Jof 07 00845 g006 550
Figure 6. Venn diagram of the dominant fungal genera in the four locations.
Figure 6. Venn diagram of the dominant fungal genera in the four locations.
Jof 07 00845 g006
Table
Table 1. Results from the NGS sequencing of the samples.
Table 1. Results from the NGS sequencing of the samples.
LocationNumber of the Raw Paired-End ReadsNumber of the Raw TagsNumber of the Clean TagsNumber of the Effective TagsNumber of Bases of the Effective Tags (Nt)Average Length of the Effective Tags (Nt)Q20 ValueQ30 ValueGC Content Percentage in Effective TagsPercentage of Effective Tags in Raw Paired End
Dushantzi139,921138,997138,469137,83750,312,89236599.3997.5754.3098.51
Momchilovtzi116,925116,125115,783115,63541,254,72935799.4997.9558.2498.90
Sofia86,10284,75483,87683,67930,482,59436498.2494.9459.3297.19
Kalina112,607108,655102,645102,27337,731,50936997.1092.1462.9190.82
Table
Table 2. Summarization of the annotation of the NGS data.
Table 2. Summarization of the annotation of the NGS data.
LocationTotal TagsUnclassified TagsTaxon Tags% of the Unclassified TagsUnique Tags% of the Unique TagsOTUs
Dushantzi275,674267,432355697.01%46861.70%169
Momchilovtzi231,270224,17450496.93%65922.85%156
Sofia167,358157,20463893.93%95165.69%185
Kalina204,546201,080174298.31%17240.84%281
Table
Table 3. Fungal phyla found in the four locations.
Table 3. Fungal phyla found in the four locations.
DushantziMomchilovtziSofiaKalina
Ascomycota99.94%99.96%99.40%99.90%
Basidiomycota-0.04%0.30%0.10%
Mucoromycota--0.30%-
Unclassified0.06%---
Table
Table 4. Relative abundance of the Ascomycota genera found in the four locations 1.
Table 4. Relative abundance of the Ascomycota genera found in the four locations 1.
DushantziMomchilovtziSofiaKalinaAverage
Cladosporium60%59%67%15%54%
Penicillium0%1%1%8%3%
Alternaria4%1%3%0%2%
Monilinia9%0%2%0%3%
Sclerotinia0%34%0%0%9%
Ascosphaera0%0%24%0%6%
Toxicocladosporium0%0%0%24%6%
Botrytis20%0%0%0%5%
Pseudopithomyces0%0%0%18%5%
Camarosporium0%0%0%15%4%
Paraconiothyrium0%0%0%4%1%
Podosphaera0%0%0%1%0%
Golovinomyces0%0%1%0%0%
Paraphaeosphaeria0%0%0%1%0%
Periconia0%0%0%1%0%
Septoriella0%0%0%1%0%
1 The sum of the percentages does not equal 100% because of the presence of unclassified tags.
Table
Table 5. Alpha diversity indexes.
Table 5. Alpha diversity indexes.
LocationObserved SpeciesShannonSimpsonChao1ACEGoods CoveragePD Whole Tree
Dushantzi1692.1400.635180.538183.6001.00014.665
Momchilovtzi1562.9630.727171.120177.2291.00013.575
Sofia1852.9240.795200.120204.5721.00012.889
Kalina2812.1780.506281.000281.0001.00017.992
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dimov, S.G.; Zagorchev, L.; Iliev, M.; Dekova, T.; Ilieva, R.; Kitanova, M.; Georgieva-Miteva, D.; Dimitrov, M.; Peykov, S. A Snapshot Picture of the Fungal Composition of Bee Bread in Four Locations in Bulgaria, Differing in Anthropogenic Influence. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7100845

AMA Style

Dimov SG, Zagorchev L, Iliev M, Dekova T, Ilieva R, Kitanova M, Georgieva-Miteva D, Dimitrov M, Peykov S. A Snapshot Picture of the Fungal Composition of Bee Bread in Four Locations in Bulgaria, Differing in Anthropogenic Influence. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(10):845. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7100845

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dimov, Svetoslav G., Lyuben Zagorchev, Mihail Iliev, Tereza Dekova, Ralitza Ilieva, Meglena Kitanova, Dimitrina Georgieva-Miteva, Martin Dimitrov, and Slavil Peykov. 2021. "A Snapshot Picture of the Fungal Composition of Bee Bread in Four Locations in Bulgaria, Differing in Anthropogenic Influence" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 10: 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7100845

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