590 Tiere (Zoologie)
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Journal article (1)
Keywords
- Apis mellifera (4) (remove)
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).
1. Honeybees, which are among the most important pollinators globally, do not only collect pollen and nectar during foraging but may also disperse diverse microbes. Some of these can be deleterious to agricultural crops and forest trees, such as the bacterium Pantoea ananatis, an emerging pathogen in some systems. P. ananatis infections can lead to leaf blotches, die-back, bulb rot, and fruit rot. 2. We isolated P. ananatis bacteria from flowers with the aim of determining whether honeybees can sense these bacteria and if the bacteria affect behavioral responses of the bees to sugar solutions. 3. Honeybees decreased their responsiveness to different sugar solutions when these contained high concentrations of P. ananatis but were not deterred by solutions from which bacteria had been removed. This suggests that their reduced responsiveness was due to the taste of bacteria and not to the depletion of sugar in the solution or bacteria metabolites. Intriguingly, the bees appeared not to taste ecologically relevant low concentrations of bacteria. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our data suggest that honeybees may introduce P.ananatis bacteria into nectar in field-realistic densities during foraging trips and may thus affect nectar quality and plant fitness.
Non-target effects of a multiple insect resistant Bt-maize on the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)
(2011)
Honey bee pollination is an ecologically and economically important ecosystem service. New methodological developments are needed to research the underlying factors of globally observed bee losses. The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is a key non-target arthropod species for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops. For GM-crop risk assessments, mainly methods for monitoring adult honey bees under laboratory conditions are documented. However, protocols with robust methods for standardized colonies or in vitro reared honey bee larvae are currently lacking. Within the research, presented in this this dissertation, multiple methodological developments are achieved; a mortality trap (Chapter II), a ‘full life cycle test’ (III), a novel in vitro rearing methodology (IV), a standardized in vitro test for Bt-pollen (V), a mixed toxicity test for purified transgenic proteins (VI), and a bacterial flora test with pollen digestion rate monitoring (VII). Overall, the studies did not indicate a detrimental effect caused by Bt-maize pollen, or by purified Bt-proteins at worst case exposure levels. Considering the risk for honey bees and larvae, we conclude that the tested Bt-maize Mon89034xMon88017 is not likely to cause harm to honey bee colonies. The study methods presented are highly recommended for future environmental risk assessment studies testing GM-crop biosafety on honey bees.
Soziale Insekten wie die Honigbiene (Apis mellifera) besitzen ein breites Spektrum an Abwehrmechanismen gegen Pathogenbefall, sowohl auf der Ebene der Kolonie (soziale Immunität) als auch auf der Stufe des Individuums (angeborenes Immunsystem). Die Hauptaufgabe der relativ kurzlebigen Drohnen besteht in der Begattung von Jungköniginnen. Daher stellte sich die Frage, ob auch die Drohnen ähnlich den Arbeiterinnen mit energieaufwendigen Immunreaktionen auf Infektionen reagieren. Wie im Folgenden beschrieben, konnte ich nachweisen, dass Drohnen eine ausgeprägte Immunkompetenz besitzen. Das angeborene Immunsystem setzt sich aus humoralen und zellulären Abwehrreaktionen zusammen. Bei der humoralen Immunantwort werden bestimmte evolutionär konservierte Signalkaskaden aktiviert, an deren Ende die Expression einer Vielzahl von antimikrobiellen Peptiden (AMPs) und immunspezifischen Proteinen (IRPs) steht. Zur Analyse der humoralen Immunantwort wurden von mir zum einen Hemmhoftests durchgeführt, um die gesamte antimikrobielle Aktivität der Haemolymphe nach artifizieller Infektion zu ermitteln und zum anderen spezifische AMPs bzw. IRPs identifiziert. Hierzu wurden die Haemolymphproteine in ein- oder zwei-dimensionalen Polyacrylamidgelen aufgetrennt und ausgewählte Proteinbanden bzw. -spots mittels nano HPLC/Massenspektrometrie analysiert. Die Hauptkomponenten des zellulären Immunsystems sind Wundheilung, Phagozytose, Einkapselung und Nodulation. In meiner Arbeit habe ich zum ersten Mal Noduli bei infizierten Drohnen nachweisen können. Frisch geschlüpfte adulte Drohnen (1d) weisen ein breites Spektrum an Immunreaktionen auf, das sowohl humorale als auch zelluläre Immunantworten umfasst. Nach Infektion mit dem Gram-negativen Bakterium E.coli und verschiedenen bakteriellen Zellwandbestandteilen wie Lipopolysaccharid (LPS), Peptidoglycan (PGN) und 1,3ß-Glucan (Bestandteil von Pilzzellwänden), werden die AMPs Hymenoptaecin, Defensin 1 und Abaecin induziert. Desweiteren exprimieren junge adulte Drohnen eine Reihe hochmolekularer immunspezifischer Proteine (IRPs) wie z.B. Carboxylesterase (CE 1), eine Serinprotease, die möglicherweise an der Prozessierung der Prophenoloxidase beteiligt ist, ein Peptidoglycan-interagierendes Protein (PGRP-S2) und zwei Proteine unbekannter Funktion, IRp42 und IRp30. Parallel zu bekannten bienenspezifischen AMPs wurde ein animales Peptidtoxin (APT) in Drohnenlarven, adulten Drohnen und adulten Hummeln nach E.coli Infektion in der Haemolymphe nachgewiesen. Von dem als OCLP 1 (ω-conotoxin-like protein 1) benannten Peptid war bereits bekannt, dass es in Fischen paralytische und damit toxische Effekte auslöst. Meine Beobachtungen lassen vermuten, dass es sich bei OCLP 1 um ein Peptidtoxin mit antimikrobiellen Eigenschaften und damit um eine neue Klasse von AMPs handelt. Die allgemeine humorale Immunkompetenz scheint während der gesamten Lebensspanne adulter Drohnen (~ 7 Wochen) konstant zu bleiben, wie durch die gleichbleibende antimikrobielle Aktivität im Hemmhoftest gezeigt wurde. Junge Drohnen reagieren auf eine E.coli Infektion mit der Bildung zahlreicher Noduli (~1000 Noduli/Drohn), die vor allem entlang des Herzschlauches zu finden sind. Diese zelluläre Immunantwort nimmt mit dem Alter der Drohnen ab, so dass bei 18 d alten Drohnen nur noch rund 10 Noduli/Drohn gefunden werden. Auf der anderen Seite nimmt die phagozytotische Aktivität bei älteren Drohnen scheinbar zu. In einer Reihe von parallel laufenden Versuchsreihen konnte ich eindrucksvoll zeigen, dass zelluläre Immunreaktionen wie Phagozytose und Nodulation unmittelbar nach bakterieller Infektion einsetzen. Hierbei erreicht die Nodulibildung 8-10 h p.i. eine Plateauphase, wohingegen die humorale Immunantwort erst 6 h p.i. schwach einsetzt, danach stetig zunimmt und noch 72 h p.i. nachweisbar ist. Es ist mir gelungen, eine Methode zur künstlichen Aufzucht von Drohnenlarven zu etablieren. Diese ermöglichte konstante und sterile Versuchsbedingungen zur Untersuchung der Immunreaktionen von Larven. Nach Infektion mit E.coli reagieren Drohnenlarven mit einer starken Aktivierung ihrer humoralen Immunantwort durch die Expression von AMPs, jedoch werden keine hochmolekularen IRPs wie in adulten Drohnen hochreguliert. Zudem ist die Nodulibildung in Larven nur schwach ausgeprägt. Völlig unerwartete Beobachtungen wurden beim Studium der Immunkompetenz von Drohnenpuppen gemacht. Nach Injektion lebender E.coli Zellen in Drohnenpuppen stellte ich eine dramatische Veränderung im Aussehen der Puppen fest. Die Puppen verfärbten sich gräulich schwarz. Genauere Untersuchungen haben dann gezeigt, dass die Drohnenpuppen, wie auch die der Arbeiterinnen, offensichtlich keine zelluläre Abwehrreaktion aktivieren können und die humorale Immunantwort nur sehr schwach ausfällt und viel zu spät einsetzt.