@article{RuedenauerRaubenheimerKessnerBeierleinetal.2020,
  author    = {Ruedenauer, Fabian A. and Raubenheimer, David and Kessner-Beierlein, Daniela and Grund-Mueller, Nils and Noack, Lisa and Spaethe, Johannes and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Best be(e) on low fat: linking nutrient perception, regulation and fitness},
  series = {Ecology Letters},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Ecology Letters},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.13454},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-208709},
  pages     = {545-554},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Preventing malnutrition through consuming nutritionally appropriate resources represents a challenge for foraging animals. This is due to often high variation in the nutritional quality of available resources. Foragers consequently need to evaluate different food sources. However, even the same food source can provide a plethora of nutritional and non-nutritional cues, which could serve for quality assessment. We show that bumblebees, Bombus terrestris , overcome this challenge by relying on lipids as nutritional cue when selecting pollen. The bees 'prioritised' lipid perception in learning experiments and avoided lipid consumption in feeding experiments, which supported survival and reproduction. In contrast, survival and reproduction were severely reduced by increased lipid contents. Our study highlights the importance of fat regulation for pollen foraging bumblebees. It also reveals that nutrient perception, nutrient regulation and reproductive fitness can be linked, which represents an effective strategy enabling quick foraging decisions that prevent malnutrition and maximise fitness.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchilcherHilsmannRauscheretal.2021,
  author    = {Schilcher, Felix and Hilsmann, Lioba and Rauscher, Lisa and Değirmenci, Laura and Krischke, Markus and Krischke, Beate and Ankenbrand, Markus and Rutschmann, Benjamin and Mueller, Martin J. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Scheiner, Ricarda},
  title     = {In vitro rearing changes social task performance and physiology in honeybees},
  series = {Insects},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Insects},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2075-4450},
  doi       = {10.3390/insects13010004},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252305},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In vitro rearing of honeybee larvae is an established method that enables exact control and monitoring of developmental factors and allows controlled application of pesticides or pathogens. However, only a few studies have investigated how the rearing method itself affects the behavior of the resulting adult honeybees. We raised honeybees in vitro according to a standardized protocol: marking the emerging honeybees individually and inserting them into established colonies. Subsequently, we investigated the behavioral performance of nurse bees and foragers and quantified the physiological factors underlying the social organization. Adult honeybees raised in vitro differed from naturally reared honeybees in their probability of performing social tasks. Further, in vitro-reared bees foraged for a shorter duration in their life and performed fewer foraging trips. Nursing behavior appeared to be unaffected by rearing condition. Weight was also unaffected by rearing condition. Interestingly, juvenile hormone titers, which normally increase strongly around the time when a honeybee becomes a forager, were significantly lower in three- and four-week-old in vitro bees. The effects of the rearing environment on individual sucrose responsiveness and lipid levels were rather minor. These data suggest that larval rearing conditions can affect the task performance and physiology of adult bees despite equal weight, pointing to an important role of the colony environment for these factors. Our observations of behavior and metabolic pathways offer important novel insight into how the rearing environment affects adult honeybees.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{DeğirmencineePoelloth2023,
  author    = {Değirmenci [n{\´e}e P{\"o}lloth], Laura},
  title     = {Sugar perception and sugar receptor function in the honeybee (\(Apis\) \(mellifera\))},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-32187},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-321873},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {In the eusocial insect honeybee (Apis mellifera), many sterile worker bees live together with a reproductive queen in a colony. All tasks of the colony are performed by the workers, undergoing age-dependent division of labor. Beginning as hive bees, they take on tasks inside the hive such as cleaning or the producing of larval food, later developing into foragers. With that, the perception of sweetness plays a crucial role for all honeybees whether they are sitting on the honey stores in the hive or foraging for food. Their ability to sense sweetness is undoubtedly necessary to develop and evaluate food sources. Many of the behavioral decisions in honeybees are based on sugar perception, either on an individual level for ingestion, or for social behavior such as the impulse to collect or process nectar. In this context, honeybees show a complex spectrum of abilities to perceive sweetness on many levels. They are able to perceive at least seven types of sugars and decide to collect them for the colony. Further, they seem to distinguish between these sugars or at least show clear preferences when collecting them. Additionally, the perception of sugar is not rigid in honeybees. For instance, their responsiveness towards sugar changes during the transition from in-hive bees (e.g. nurses) to foraging and is linked to the division of labor. Other direct or immediate factors changing responsiveness to sugars are stress, starvation or underlying factors, such as genotype. Interestingly, the complexity in their sugar perception is in stark contrast to the fact that honeybees seem to have only three predicted sugar receptors. In this work, we were able to characterize the three known sugar receptors (AmGr1, AmGr2 and AmGr3) of the honeybee fully and comprehensively in oocytes (Manuscript II, Chapter 3 and Manuscript III, Chapter 4). We could show that AmGr1 is a broad sugar receptor reacting to sucrose, glucose, maltose, melezitose and trehalose (which is the honeybees' main blood sugar), but not fructose. AmGr2 acts as its co-receptor altering AmGr1's specificity, AmGr3 is a specific fructose receptor and we proved the heterodimerization of all receptors. With my studies, I was able to reproduce and compare the ligand specificity of the sugar receptors in vivo by generating receptor mutants with CRISPR/Cas9. With this thesis, I was able to define AmGr1 and AmGr3 as the honeybees' basis receptors already capable to detect all sugars of its known taste spectrum. In the expression analysis of my doctoral thesis (Manuscript I, Chapter 2) I demonstrated that both basis receptors are expressed in the antennae and the brain of nurse bees and foragers. This thesis assumes that AmGr3 (like the Drosophila homologue) functions as a sensor for fructose, which might be the satiety signal, while AmGr1 can sense trehalose as the main blood sugar in the brain. Both receptors show a reduced expression in the brain of foragers when compared with nurse bees. These results may reflect the higher concentrated diet of nurse bees in the hive. The higher number of receptors in the brain may allow nurse bees to perceive hunger earlier and to consume the food their sitting on. Forager bees have to be more persistent to hunger, when they are foraging, and food is not so accessible. The findings of reduced expression of the fructose receptor AmGr3 in the antennae of nurse bees are congruent with my other result that nurse bees are also less responsive to fructose at the antennae when compared to foragers (Manuscript I, Chapter 2). This is possible, since nurse bees sit more likely on ripe honey which contains not only higher levels of sugars but also monosaccharides (such as fructose), while foragers have to evaluate less-concentrated nectar. My investigations of the expression of AmGr1 in the antennae of honeybees found no differences between nurse bees and foragers, although foragers are more responsive to the respective sugar sucrose (Manuscript I, Chapter 2). Considering my finding that AmGr2 is the co-receptor of AmGr1, it can be assumed that AmGr1 and the mediated sucrose taste might not be directly controlled by its expression, but indirectly by its co-receptor. My thesis therefore clearly shows that sugar perception is associated with division of labor in honeybees and appears to be directly or indirectly regulated via expression. The comparison with a characterization study using other bee breeds and thus an alternative protein sequence of AmGr1 shows that co-expression of different AmGr1 versions with AmGr2 alters the sugar response differently. Therefore, this thesis provides first important indications that alternative splicing could also represent an important regulatory mechanism for sugar perception in honeybees. Further, I found out that the bitter compound quinine lowers the reward quality in learning experiments for honeybees (Manuscript IV, Chapter 5). So far, no bitter receptor has been found in the genome of honeybees and this thesis strongly assumes that bitter substances such as quinine inhibit sugar receptors in honeybees. With this finding, my work includes other molecules as possible regulatory mechanism in the honeybee sugar perception as well. We showed that the inhibitory effect is lower for fructose compared to sucrose. Considering that sugar signals might be processed as differently attractive in honeybees, this thesis concludes that the sugar receptor inhibition via quinine in honeybees might depend on the receptor (or its co-receptor), is concentration-dependent and based on the salience or attractiveness and concentration of the sugar present. With my thesis, I was able to expand the knowledge on honeybee's sugar perception and formulate a complex, comprehensive overview. Thereby, I demonstrated the multidimensional mechanism that regulates the sugar receptors and thus the sugar perception of honeybees. With this work, I defined AmGr1 and AmGr3 as the basis of sugar perception and enlarged these components to the co-receptor AmGr2 and the possible splice variants of AmGr1. I further demonstrated how those sugar receptor components function, interact and that they are clearly involved in the division of labor in honeybees. In summary, my thesis describes the mechanisms that enable honeybees to perceive sugar in a complex way, even though they inhere a limited number of sugar receptors. My data strongly suggest that honeybees overall might not only differentiate sugars and their diet by their general sweetness (as expected with only one main sugar receptor). The found sugar receptor mechanisms and their interplay further suggest that honeybees might be able to discriminate directly between monosaccharides and disaccharides or sugar molecules and with that their diet (honey and nectar).},
  subject      = {Biene},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ScheinerEntlerBarronetal.2017,
  author    = {Scheiner, Ricarda and Entler, Brian V. and Barron, Andrew B. and Scholl, Christina and Thamm, Markus},
  title     = {The Effects of Fat Body Tyramine Level on Gustatory Responsiveness of Honeybees (Apis mellifera) Differ between Behavioral Castes},
  series = {Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience},
  number    = {55},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnsys.2017.00055},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-157874},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Division of labor is a hallmark of social insects. In the honeybee (Apis mellifera) each sterile female worker performs a series of social tasks. The most drastic changes in behavior occur when a nurse bee, who takes care of the brood and the queen in the hive, transitions to foraging behavior. Foragers provision the colony with pollen, nectar or water. Nurse bees and foragers differ in numerous behaviors, including responsiveness to gustatory stimuli. Differences in gustatory responsiveness, in turn, might be involved in regulating division of labor through differential sensory response thresholds. Biogenic amines are important modulators of behavior. Tyramine and octopamine have been shown to increase gustatory responsiveness in honeybees when injected into the thorax, thereby possibly triggering social organization. So far, most of the experiments investigating the role of amines on gustatory responsiveness have focused on the brain. The potential role of the fat body in regulating sensory responsiveness and division of labor has large been neglected. We here investigated the role of the fat body in modulating gustatory responsiveness through tyramine signaling in different social roles of honeybees. We quantified levels of tyramine, tyramine receptor gene expression and the effect of elevating fat body tyramine titers on gustatory responsiveness in both nurse bees and foragers. Our data suggest that elevating the tyramine titer in the fat body pharmacologically increases gustatory responsiveness in foragers, but not in nurse bees. This differential effect of tyramine on gustatory responsiveness correlates with a higher natural gustatory responsiveness of foragers, with a higher tyramine receptor (Amtar1) mRNA expression in fat bodies of foragers and with lower baseline tyramine titers in fat bodies of foragers compared to those of nurse bees. We suggest that differential tyramine signaling in the fat body has an important role in the plasticity of division of labor through changing gustatory responsiveness.},
  language  = {en}
}