Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Nosema in bumble bees

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Nosema in bumble bees

    Bumblebees hit by honeybee diseases http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26242960

    Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

  2. #2

    Default

    Very interesting. Just how are we supposed to keep the honeybees free of disease to protect the bumblebee. Nosema is rife everywhere.

  3. #3
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Too late for Nosema ceranae but we could try to stop globalising every honeybee disease under the sun.

  4. #4
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevboab View Post
    Very interesting. Just how are we supposed to keep the honeybees free of disease to protect the bumblebee. Nosema is rife everywhere.
    Strangely the paper shows Nosema ceranae in Scotland more in the NW than the east, and Dwarf Wing Virus, the universal marker of Varroa infection, with a remarkably patchy distribution and only a 30-odd% prevalence. Anybody else think this is odd? Yet they then tried to correlate this with apparent disease in captured bumble bees. Maybe I should read it properly, but it doesn't completely add up, despite the prestigious journal publishing it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gavin View Post
    Strangely the paper shows Nosema ceranae in Scotland more in the NW than the east, and Dwarf Wing Virus, the universal marker of Varroa infection, with a remarkably patchy distribution and only a 30-odd% prevalence. Anybody else think this is odd? Yet they then tried to correlate this with apparent disease in captured bumble bees. Maybe I should read it properly, but it doesn't completely add up, despite the prestigious journal publishing it.
    Something odd right enough about this study. 30% is very low 'prevalence'. They did find replicating virus though. Hmmmm.

    Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greengumbo View Post
    Something odd right enough about this study. 30% is very low 'prevalence'. They did find replicating virus though. Hmmmm.
    GG (or anyone), how did they know the virus was replicating*? I saw the distinction in a supplementary table but didn't see their justification for discriminating the two.

    I hear that they captured bees (Apis and Bombus) at the same site using a net. How can they be sure that they are not cross-contaminating samples at the point of collection?

    I don't see why they used variables like number of sunshine hours to fine tune their model ....

    'including biologically relevant interactions while controlling for latitude, longitude and sunlight hours, and adding collection site and species identity as random factors. Our full model for DWV presence fitted the data significantly better than the null model without any of the test predictors and their interactions included (likelihood ratio test: X2519.03, d.f.55, P,0.002). '

    ... sounds like tinkering, no? And are we really to believe that fine-scale local variations in DWV/Varroa presence on honeybees influences levels of virus in bumble bees in the same local area? If so, how? Surely a mile or so down the road beekeeping practice will be different and DWV/Varroa levels different? And are Varroa supposed to do this apparently wholesale Apis-Bombus disease transfer?

    *PS
    What I mean is the distinction made in the paper between virus which is just present from virus which is replicating.
    Last edited by gavin; 26-02-2014 at 09:40 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Hey gavin....no idea why they do the all the control variables. It seems like fiddling around the edges to me as the model must be influenced by a million other things before considering sunshine etc. I'm not convinced that bumbles and honeybees come into contact much anyway. I wonder if a "DWV-like" virus is simply circulating in bumble bee populations anyway ? Much like DWV in honeybees was at benign levels until Varroa came on the scene ?

    Anyway in the methods bit they say "we tested all of our DWV positive Bombus samples and a subset of DWV positive Apis samples for virus replication, a strong indicator for infection. DWV is a positive strand virus whose negative strand is only present in a host once the virus is actively replicating". So this is a bit technical BUT you do a reverse transcription using a specific DWV primer in your first strand synthesis. This then acts as the priming site for PCR and, importantly, would only show a product if you have detected negative strand virus...ie replicating virus. However you need to run a shed load of controls to be sure the original primer you used for tagging is not acting independently from the RT and giving you false positives. My bible....the BEEBOOK....has a chapter of virology in bees that talks about this.

  8. #8

    Default

    Ha. You need a government wi baws to see that happen. Their too busy stealin cash fae folks oan benefits with empty rooms. Priorities !!!

  9. #9
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevboab View Post
    Ha. You need a government wi baws to see that happen. Their too busy stealin cash fae folks oan benefits with empty rooms. Priorities !!!
    Kev, we currently have two governments. One steals cash from folk with spare rooms from its base in the SE, and the other takes the lead on animal health including bees from Edinburgh. There's no chance that the one (mostly) responsible for animal health is going to grow baws as you say unless it starts getting a consistent message from Scotland's beekeepers that we are very concerned about the effects of historic and continuing importation of bee stocks from various places overseas. It even subsidises that activity with hardly a peep from our national organisation. If it does get a consistent and strong message then maybe something will happen. But as a community can we do it?

  10. #10

    Default

    If it does get a consistent and strong message then maybe something will happen. But as a community can we do it?

    To cut down on imports, beekeepers need a supply of queens/bees in place before that would ever happen. Operations in other parts of the world have no trouble breeding bees, so much so they have a surplus to supply the uk as well at very reasonable prices.

    Until that happens nothing will ever change.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •