The ectoparasitic mite Tropilaelaps mercedesae (Acari, Laelapidae) as a vector of honeybee viruses

Dainat, Benjamin; Ken, T.; Berthoud, Hélène; Neumann, Peter

doi:10.1007/s00040-008-1030-5

Cited by 66 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This reproductive fecundity of T. mercedesae may contribute to their higher prevalence, an indication of increased virulence of this mite species for A. mellifera colonies in Thailand. Also, possible infections f r o m o t h e r p a t h o g e n s v e c t o r e d b y Tropilaelap s, e.g., DWV virus (Dainat et al 2009;Khongphinitbunjong et al 2015), that can have synergistic effects on the overall health of infested colonies should be of consideration for further studies.…”

Section: Reproductive Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and reproduction of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested Apis mellifera colonies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The prevalence of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested A. mellifera colonies in Thailand was monitored. We also assessed the fecundity of T. mercedesae and V. destructor in naturally infested brood and in brood cells deliberately infested with both mite genera. Results showed that the natural co-infestation of an individual brood cell by both mite genera was rare (<0.1 %). Overall, T. mercedesae was the more dominant brood parasite of A. mellifera than V. destructor. In naturally infested brood, the proportion of nonreproductive Tropilaelaps (29.8±3.9 %) was lower than that of Varroa (49.6±5.9 %). Both mites produced similar numbers of progeny (T. mercedesae =1.48±0.05; V. destructor =1.69±0.14). The two mite genera also reproduced normally when they were deliberately introduced into the same brood cells. In two separate assessments, the average worker brood infestations of T. mercedesae (19.9 %) were significantly higher than that of V. destructor (0.7 %). Our results on the higher prevalence and reproductive ability of T. mercedesae in concurrently infested colonies reaffirm Tropilaelaps ' competitive advantage over V. destructor and their reported negative impact to A. mellifera colonies.Apis mellifera / Tropilaelaps mercedesae / Varroa destructor / concurrent infestation / seasonal abundance

show abstract

Section: Reproductive Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and reproduction of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested Apis mellifera colonies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DWV can be transmitted horizontally among adult bees through trophallaxis and from adult bees to larvae through glandular food secretions (Nordström 2000;Chen et al 2005;Iqbal and Mueller 2007). It can also be vectored between adult bees, and from adults to developing pupae, by parasitic mites (Bowen-Walker et al 1999;Genersch 2005, Forsgren et al 2009;Dainat et al 2009), representing a different form of horizontal transmission. DWV can also be transmitted venereally, by artificial insemination of queens with DWV contaminated sperm, and subsequently transovarially, from queens to their offspring (Yue et al 2007;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deformed wing virus and drone mating flights in the honey bee (Apis mellifera): implications for sexual transmission of a major honey bee virus

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Deformed wing virus (DWV) represents an ideal model to study the interaction between mode of transmission and virulence in honey bees since it exhibits both horizontal and vertical transmissions. However, it is not yet clear if venereal-vertical transmission represents a regular mode of transmission for this virus in natural honey bee populations. Here, we provide clear evidence for the occurrence of high DWV titres in the endophallus of sexually mature drones collected from drone congregation areas (DCAs). Furthermore, the endophallus DWV titres of drones collected at their maternal hives were no different from drones collected at nearby DCAs, suggesting that high-titre DWV infection of the endophallus does not hinder the ability of drones to reach the mating area. The results are discussed within the context of the dispersal of DWV between colonies and the definition of DWV virulence with respect to the transmission route and the types of tissues infected.honey bee / DWV / drone congregation areas / vertical transmission

show abstract

“…Bee viruses have 81 also been detected in non-Hymenopteran hosts associated with honeybees (Celle et 82 al., 2008;Dainat et al, 2009;Eyer et al, 2008;Gisder et al, 2009) coupled with the increasing pathogen prevalence and loads in honeybee colonies, due 92 to a variety of biological and environmental stressors (Genersch et al, 2010a; 93 vanEngelsdorp and Meixner, 2010), could therefore have potentially serious 94 consequences for local wild bee populations (Fürst et al, 2014; McCallum and 95 Dobson, 1995; Meeus et al, 2011). 96 However, the above mentioned arguments have so far been largely speculative.…”

Section: Most Of 70mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of oral infection with Kashmir bee virus and Israeli acute paralysis virus on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) reproductive success

Meeus

Miranda

Graaf

et al. 2014

Journal of Invertebrate Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to the published version may require journal subscription. Published with permission from: Elsevier. was established by analysis of the bumblebees after the impact studies: 50 days after 32 infection. Doses of 0.5 x 10 7 and 1 x 10 7 virus particles per bee were infectious over 33 this period, for IAPV and KBV respectively, while a dose of 0.5 x 10 6 IAPV particles 34 per bee was not infectious. The impact of virus infection was studied in micro-35 colonies consisting of 5 bumblebees, one of which becomes a pseudo-queen which 36 proceeds to lay unfertilized (drone) eggs. The impact parameters studied were: the 37 establishment of a laying pseudo-queen, the timing of egg-laying, the number of 38 drones produced, the weight of these drones and worker mortality. In this setup KBV 39 infection resulted in a significant slower colony startup and offspring production, 40 while only the latter can be reported for IAPV. Neither virus increased worker 41 mortality, at the oral doses used. We recommend further studies on how these viruses 42 transmit between different pollinator species. It is also vital to understand how viral 43 prevalence can affect wild bee populations because disturbance of the natural host-44 virus association may deteriorate the already critically endangered status of many 45 bumblebee species. Introduction 51The Apoidea, encompassing different families of bees, perform a valuable pollination 52 service (Garibaldi et al., 2013). With up to 80% of the plant species being dependent 53 on insect pollination, in particular by bees (Potts et al., 2010). This results in an 54 estimated value of 9.5% of the total economic value of crops that are directly used for 55 human food (Gallai et al., 2009; Potts et al., 2010). Because of a lack of 56 abundance/presence of wild bees, managed bees are used to pollinate crops (Allsopp 57 et al., 2008). 58Because different bee species have a similar foraging behavior (gathering pollen and 59 nectar), with overlapping flower networks, sympatric distributions and direct 60 interactions between species or their stored resources, it is very likely that they are 61 exposed to each other's parasites and pathogens. Indeed, parasite networks between 62 bee species are complex and comprise a mixture of multi-host parasites (e.g. Apicystis 63bombi (Maharramov et al., 2013), Nosema ceranae (Graystock et al., 2013a), 64 deformed wing virus (DWV) (Fürst et al., 2014)), as well as multi-parasite hosts 65 (Rigaud et al., 2010). However, with the exception of honeybees (Apis spp.), little is 66 known about the parasites and pathogens of pollinators, even less about the extent to 67 which they cross-infect different pollinators, and almost nothing about the damage of 68 such cross-infections to different hosts. 69Here we focus on the effects of interspecific transmission of bee viruses. Most of 70what is known about bee viruses relates to the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) 71 and its sister species (primarily the Asian hive bee; A. cerana), largely through the 72 pione...

show abstract

The ectoparasitic mite Tropilaelaps mercedesae (Acari, Laelapidae) as a vector of honeybee viruses

Cited by 66 publications

References 19 publications

Prevalence and reproduction of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested Apis mellifera colonies

Prevalence and reproduction of Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor in concurrently infested Apis mellifera colonies

Deformed wing virus and drone mating flights in the honey bee (Apis mellifera): implications for sexual transmission of a major honey bee virus

Effect of oral infection with Kashmir bee virus and Israeli acute paralysis virus on bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) reproductive success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About