# Symbionts



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Peter, thanks, this is interesting...but not as interesting as reading the whole article:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v104/n3/full/hdy2009144a.html

On my first skim through, my main observation is that they are looking at single bacterial strains in relation to the host. Without a doubt, the relationships are much more complex than that, as there are doubtless multiple bacterial strains in relation with the host and with one another. ...think more like a classroom dynamic (where the students interact with one another and the teacher...the teacher interacts with each of the students indiviudally, in groups, and as a whole. The way these relationships are described in the article it is more like a teacher working with a single student.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

also see:


> Although the organism is a concerted cluster of adaptations, nearly all directed toward the same end, some conflict may remain. To understand such conflict, we extend Leigh’s metaphor of the parliament of genes to include parties with different interests and committees that work on particular tasks.


THE SOCIAL ORGANISM: CONGRESSES, PARTIES, AND COMMITTEES
Joan E. Strassmann and David C. Queller
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

You might enjoy reading about these two reports:

The Light-Organ Symbiosis of Vibrio fischeri and the Hawaiian squid, Euprymna scolopes
http://web.uconn.edu/mcbstaff/graf/Sym.html

The Nutritional Symbiosis of Buchnera and Aphids
http://web.uconn.edu/mcbstaff/graf/BuAp/Baphidsym.htm
Now you know how aphid get their amino acid

Ernie


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Bringing things back to bees (and away from simply quoting studies), I offer the following (which was part of a post I made in a different thread).

http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=503589

"i see the microbial culture of the hive (made up of at least 8000 species before dna tests were available...these were all microbes that were able to be cultured), like a rubber ball. the relationships between the varying species that live in varying niches within varying physical areas of the hive and of the bees are complex, and not simply one on one.

if you are familliar with the term "complex adapative systems"...this is what we are talking about. the example we used in our book is the island of manhattan. there are a small number of bridges, tunnels, and ports where goods, people, and waste can enter and leave the island. to regulate this by actually running it (scheduling what had to come in and out when. balancing input and output, deciding minute by minute priorities of what was needed) would be a major headache...impossible. but it runs itself pretty well. if the summer gets hot, more soda finds its way onto the island and into the vending carts in central park. if traffic getting off the island for the weekend is too crazy, those with the highest priority of actually getting off the island on schedule will take alternate transportaion or leave early. it's endless, and it works.

in any case, the microbial culture is akin to that. one population increases in response to a certain nectar, thousands respond towards (probably never reaching) equilibrim...some with their populations exploding, some dwindling....some even changing their tactics (going into defense mode, going into attack mode, going into a dormant mode). as homework, read:
Carl Zimmer: E. coli and the new science of life
...once you realize the complexity of behavior of a single microbe is so amazing, and you consider a society of sorts comprising 10,000 or more species living in concert with the bees...feeding them, acting as their immune system, etc.....well, the best i can put is:

be humble before the microbes!

so, this "rubber ball" of interrelated microbes bounces. a nectar source chages, it's winter, the air is more moist, pollen source changes, drifting bees, hive invaders, robbed out stores, etc. some populations may disappear, some explode...but:

over time, these in hive microbes (including most bee diseases) have been selected for and shown the ability to co-exist without wiping out their host population. this means they have a tendancy to not to take too much advantage of a situation and wipe out their host. if they do kill the host, they have a successful way to drift to other colonies, and somehow not wipe out the entire population. the most efficent way to do this is to exist in low levels...be ubiquitous but not harmful over time.

i'm not a sports guy, but growing up, my uncle had seasons celtics tickets. most years my father and i would get a chance to go. i really hated sports, but the celtics of this era (larry bird, robert parrish, danny ange, kevin mchale, etc) didn't play like other sports teams...they played like a team all the time. never did someone showboat when they could pass to an open man. even in his fame, larry bird always played the team, and the team played the team. it was really fun to watch, and i'll never forget it. when players work for their own stats so they can be superstars and get more for their endorsements and egos it stops being poetry, and stops being beautiful (to me). this is how the microbes in the hive (which have intense antagonistic relationships with one another) function. as a team.

it's not an artifical (or irrelevant) distinction between "man made substances causing disruptions" and "natural substances causing disruptions"....and to be clear, i put refined sugar, essential oils, and refined cane or beet sugar as "man made".

the "man made" hive inputs are a problem. the hundreds of millions of years of evolution, selection, and refining of these microbial populations (which doubtlessly are preserved and transmitted from hive to hive in several ways) never encountered anything like table sugar, essential oils, or organic acids. essential oils are (essentially) pesticides produced by the plant. the bees and the microbes would never encounter these things in anything close to this concentration. since bees communicate by scent, the strong scents of essential oils and organic acids have to effect things...and i can't believe that the result "just happens to be positive in all respects".

it's like putting a rubber ball in a canon, the properties that led one to buy a ball for the playground are different than the ones needed to withstand gunpowder.

imho, mother nature has done a good job of selecting the right rubber ball for the job. i don't know if we can expect it to perform if we expose it to substances (and concentrations of substances) it was not "designed" for."


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Are you sorry you started this yet, Peter?


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Probiotics.

Some beekeepers are adding probiotics to the feeding constituent of bees to improve their health.
Ernie


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Her's some additional information:
M. Kačániová1 , R. Chlebo2, M. Kopernický2 and A. Trakovická3

(1) Department of Microbiology, Slovak Agricultural University, Nitra, Slovakia 
(2) Department of Poultry Science and Small Animal Husbandry, Slovak Agricultural University, Nitra, Slovakia 
(3) Department of Genetics and Breeding Biology, Slovak Agricultural University, Nitra, Slovakia 

Received: 20 October 2003 Revised: 18 December 2003 

Abstract Microorganisms in the midgut and rectum of the honeybee were enumerated and characterized. Counts of aerobic microorganisms were distinctly lower than counts of anaerobes (105–106 viable cells per g of intestinal contentvs. 108–109 per g). Total numbers of anaerobic microorganisms were almost identical with the count of anaerobic Gram-positive acid resistant rods. A higher number of coliform bacteria andBacillus spp. was detected in the rectum (105 per g). Anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms, coliforms, enterococci,Bacillus spp.,Pseudomonas spp. and yeasts were found in all bees; lactobacilli, staphylococci and moulds were not found. 
This work was supported by project no. 20-006102 of theAgency for Support of Science and Techniques (Slovakia).

Ernie


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Some beekeepers are adding probiotics to the feeding constituent of bees to improve their health.

I've heard that, too. It seems like a good idea -- perhaps, but wonder: What specific organisms? And how is it known that this is beneficial?

After all, without any evidence, the practice could as easily be harmful, or useless.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Allen asks:



> Are you sorry you started this yet, Peter?


dean writes:



> the "man made" hive inputs are a problem. the hundreds of millions of years of evolution, selection, and refining of these microbial populations (which doubtlessly are preserved and transmitted from hive to hive in several ways) never encountered anything like table sugar, essential oils, or organic acids.


Actually, what got me reinterested in this was WLC's level headed approach to the question of inoculation, and maternal imprinting (pay it forward). The problem with Dean's way is that he always ready to_ leap forward_ to his _a priori_ assumption that "manmade=bad". 

That sort of approach in inimical to scientific understanding. To say that bees never encountered "anything like table sugar, essential oils, or organic acids" is patently absurd. They encounter toxic sugars, plant oils and organic acids _ALL THE TIME_ in nature. 

Further, to make any statements about what has been going on for "hundreds of millions of years" is ridiculous. How do you know what has been going on for hundreds of millions of years?

Dean, if you want to discuss this in a level headed way, I would like that.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Yes, this could be a good topic. There are certainly many unknowns and recent discoveries which shed new light on old problems.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

If you continue the passage of my post you quoted, you find:



> essential oils are (essentially) pesticides produced by the plant. the bees and the microbes would never encounter these things in anything close to this concentration.


it's all about concentration.

doubtless there are some small amounts of essential oils in plant nectar, and even in bruised fruit, honeydew, and sweet sap that the bees might forage on sometimes. but where do the bees encounter anything close to essential oil concentration? to 65% organic acid concentration? to near 100% pure sucrose?

i can't think of a harmless or essential substance that isn't lethal in high concentrations...from water to oxygen.

the problem with "man made" inputs isn't that they are man made, it is that they are in very high concentrations...so high that it is rare (if ever) that such concentrations are achieved in nature.....and never in the beehive.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

http://antbase.org/ants/publications/10543/10543.pdf

a _recent_ paper on the fungus growing ants.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/termites/2



> One morning when I met Hugenholtz and Warnecke at a coffee shop, they began to riff on how the gut might work. “You get the feeling the microorganisms are more dominant than the termite. They must have a way to control the insect,” Warnecke said. Hugenholtz interrupted, quoting a colleague: “Maybe the termite is just a fancy delivery system for the creatures in the gut.” We tend to assume that the larger organism in a symbiotic relationship is in charge, but relationships like the one between the termite and the microbes involve constant two-way chemical communications. Even human beings, Hugenholtz said, are subconsciously eavesdropping on chemical conversations between the inhabitants of our guts; this leads us to crave, say, potato chips when our microbes want salt. His eyes fell warily on his coffee. “Do you think our stomach bacteria have trained us?”


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Allen Dick said:


> After all, without any evidence, the practice [of feeding probiotics] could as easily be harmful, or useless.


imho, probiotics are the opposite side of the coin as antibiotics...both seek to micromanage the microbial culture (either by "addition" or "subtraction").

in speaking to our county club last year, jeff pettis reported that in caged bee studies, the feeding of probiotics (he didn't specify what) showed noticeable positive effect. when, however, the same probiotics were tried with free flying colonies, there was no noticeable advantage.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter says, "Actually, what got me reinterested in this was WLC's level headed approach to the question of inoculation, and maternal imprinting (pay it forward)." 

What got me started was the whole natural cell thread and in particular how some posts indicated that the source of the queen wasn't critical.

I then found a paper describing how enterobacteria from the bee's gut had antibiotic properties against AFB, and I also made a connection with management practices (which after all, could increase survival).

What I haven't figured out yet is how to 'slip a mickey' to the no-treatment study so that some combination of categories could indicate that a symbiont, rather than management, is involved with hive health and productivity.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1471774

I had posted the above link in the natural cell thread.

It's interesting in many ways. It also has some embedded links that make it fun to move around.

What if... 

beekeepers could take DNA barcodes of their hives?

This particular study used 16s RNA primers for bacteria.

Other DNA barcode methods that are more general use Cytochrome C Oxidase if my memory serves me.

Cytochrome c oxidase primers would barcode the presence of other organisms besides bacteria, like fungi, creepey crawlies, etc. .

That would be something, beekeepers figuring out what is going on in their hive (both good and bad) by DNA technology.

Of course, they would need some special equipment and reagents, but the technology has advanced quite a bit in the last decade.

I wonder what the cost per 'hive barcode' would be? :scratch:


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

WLC said:


> What I haven't figured out yet is how to 'slip a mickey' to the no-treatment study so that some combination of categories could indicate that a symbiont, rather than management, is involved with hive health and productivity.


Walt, are you talking about a mickey for the beek, or the bees?? :lpf: 
Now, if you have an idea, and a possibility, let me know, but I sure don't know how we'd do it.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Beeks don't need a mickey from me! :doh:

'The Mickey" is really just a matter of the null hypothesis.

For instance, if it turned out that there was no significance or correlation for management methods, and the health and productivity of untreated hives (in my survey proposal)...

that's a stunner. 

I wonder what it would take to do something similar for symbionts and no-treatment hives using a survey. What should we ask?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Are treatments themselves not in a sense each a mask?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You mean do they mask out the impact that other factors might have on the health and productivity of a hive?

I would have to do a survey on that.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, if you look at it as being a question of what factors are at play and the results of their presence, and assume that the function of treatments is to neutralize some specific sets of them, and also have collateral effects on others, then it would follow that by adding and removing each mask over the data matrix, that some patterns might appear.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

ergo, hippo fatso...

treatments might mask out the effects of symbionts on the health and productivity of hives.

But...

You still have to design a study to demonstrate that. You know... show significance (that it's not random), test hypotheses.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I had thought that the various treatments might turn on an off the symbionts. (As yet unidentified and categorized) and if there is a data collection with appropriate categories that some patterns might emerge and then the causes could be investigated.

This discussion seems to be getting more and more vague. Some people are going to do something fairly specific. Others question whether it matters and is the best course of action.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Allen:

There are different experimental designs to consider.

For instance, you can see if any symbionts are eliminated by the treatment while measuring for health/productivity. You can target the symbionts and compare results while using other treatments. You can also use more than one factor as in the contingency table (2x2) design...

That being said, when you really don't have alot of resources available to you, it's often best to come up with something that's 'elegant'.

How do you know that a research design is elegant? It's usually somehow related to an historical experiment that was known to be 'elegant'.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Elegant is not necessarily complicated. For example, catching mice with a hammer is not elegant. But the original mouse trap which has not really been improved upon is an elegant design. Simple, fulfills its purpose, conceptually easy to understand. That's why nobody has been able to build a better mousetrap. 

Although, you might consider the Havahart type to be better, since it doesn't kill the mouse. But that simply creates another problem of what to do with it.

An elegant study most definitely will "trap" the information you are looking for in an unambiguous way. That is why so much thought goes into the preparation of studies, or surveys, or animal traps. You have to really KNOW your subject, and your objective. 

If trapping the mouse alive is the objective, the first two methods are complete failures; only the Havahart trap succeeds on that count.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Back to symbionts:

> The health of animals, including humans, is dependent on their resident microbiota, but the complexity of the microbial communities makes these associations difficult to study in most animals. Exceptionally, the microbiology of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum is dominated by a single bacterium Buchnera aphidicola (B. aphidicola). A 1H NMR-based metabonomic strategy was applied to investigate metabolic profiles of aphids fed on a low essential amino acid diet and treated by antibiotic to eliminate B. aphidicola. In addition, differential gel electrophoresis (DIGE) with mass spectrometry was utilized to determine the alterations of proteins induced by these treatments. We found that these perturbations resulted in significant changes to the abundance of 15 metabolites and 238 proteins.

Integrated Metabonomic-Proteomic Analysis of an Insect-Bacterial Symbiotic System -- Journal of Proteome Research


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Parallel metabonomic and proteomic analysis has provided an excellent demonstration of the central role of amino acid metabolism in the aphid symbiosis with B. aphidicola and identified several key proteins and processes (e.g., CTLD protein, regucalcin) with candidate role in the function and persistence of the symbiosis. These have potential as targets for novel insect pest control strategies. More generally, this investigation of an insect association with a single microbial taxon demonstrates the value of combined proteomic and metabonomic analysis for the study of interactions between animals and their resident microbiota.

-- ibid


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Not all gut symbionts are beneficial to the host: Wasp carries son-killing bacteria in gut



> Four percent of female Nasonia vitripennis carry the son-killer bacterium Arsenophonus nasoniae, a microbe with notably different biology from other inherited parasites and symbionts.
> 
> Galan & Bliska (1996) described the relationship between bacteria and host as a complex cross talk.
> 
> ...


The draft genome sequence of Arsenophonus nasoniae, son-killer bacterium of Nasonia vitripennis, reveals genes associated with virulence and symbiosis -- Insect Molecular Biology (2010)


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Not all gut symbionts are beneficial to the host: Wasp carries son-killing bacteria in gut)


i don't have access to this paper, but in this particular case, i expect there are some "benefits" based on:

1. the title of the paper, which includes, "reveals genes associated with virulence *and symbiosis*"

2. the text from the abstract that peter pasted includes, "notably different biology from *other* inherited parasites *and symbionts*."

in both cases, the inclusion of the word "symbiont" and "symbiosis" indicate that this is a mutually beneficial relationship, at least in some regards.

i think that if they were not beneficial, the authors would have described the bacteria as a disease/infection or perhaps a parasite. for instance, do we consider nosema a symbiont?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The definition of symbiosis is in flux, and the term has been applied to a wide range of biological interactions. The symbiotic relationship may be categorized as mutualistic, commensal, or _parasitic_ in nature. Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism.
> 
> Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or zooxanthelles in corals).
> 
> ...


----------



## Ardilla (Jul 17, 2006)

Allen Dick said:


> > Some beekeepers are adding probiotics to the feeding constituent of bees to improve their health.
> 
> I've heard that, too. It seems like a good idea -- perhaps,  but wonder: What specific organisms? And how is it known that this is beneficial?
> 
> After all, without any evidence, the practice could as easily be harmful, or useless.


My thoughts exacly. The most common pro-biotics taken by humans (and sold in health food stores) are various species of lactobacilli. The post above yours quoting the Slovakian study of bees gut fauna didn't find any lactobacilli in the bees...

I guess you could wipe out most of the gut fauna with antibiotics then reintroduce various bacteria in combination and see what happens to the colony health. To do it right it would be an involved study that would last years.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I submit that if using antibiotics is a bad idea (I'm not saying it is) the same would apply to so called probiotics. We have no clear idea on what the gut flora of bees is supposed to look like, but it appears not to be seriously affected by TM. Now tylosin may be another matter. Clearly the affect of antibiotics on bees is a subject rife with speculation. Without any clear evidence I would not go dumping MORE things into hives. Especially bacteria. It's illegal anyway. Only a few things are really approved for in hive use. Some of them shouldn't be, I know, but I would stick to approved and safe. Avoid unapproved and/or unsafe.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The microbiota associated to the honey bee Apis mellifera mellifera L. is complex and far from being fully understood, or even known.
> 
> The scientific works where the presence of lactic acid bacteria associated to honey bee-gut is reported are limited.
> 
> ...


from "Properties of different lactic acid bacteria isolated from Apis mellifera L. bee-gut" Microbiological Research (in press)
M. CarinaAudisio


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...if true, then the work tobias and alejandra have done must show some mechanism of inhibition other than pH?

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sorry, the thing you posted is in the bee's gut, tobias and alejandra were looking at the bacteria in the honey stomach.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> In this study, effects of the Bt-toxin Cry1Ab and a soybean trypsin inhibitor (SBTI) on intestinal bacterial communities of adult honeybees (Apis mellifera) were investigated. It was hypothesised that changes in intestinal bacterial communities of honeybees may represent a sensitive indicator for altered intestinal physiology.
> 
> Neither Bt-maize pollen nor high concentrations of Cry1Ab significantly affected bacterial communities in honeybee intestines. Only the high concentration of SBTI significantly reduced the number of T-RFs detected in honeybee midguts, a concentration that also increases bee mortality. Therefore, total bacterial community structures may not be a sensitive indicator providing evidence for impact of insecticidal proteins on honeybees already at sub-lethal levels.


"Bacterial community structures in honeybee intestines and their response to two insecticidal proteins"
Dirk Babendreier, David Joller, Jörg Romeis, Franz Bigler and Franco Widmer
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstr. 191, 8046 Zürich, Switzerland


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> To date little attention has been paid to the possible contribution of the microflora associated with the pollen grains to the overall allergenic effect of pollen.
> 
> Colldahl and Carlsson demonstrated in 1968 that patients allergic to pollens reacted to specific pollen extracts, as well as to extracts prepared from microorganisms (a fungus Cryptococcus luteolus and a Gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas maltophilia) cultured from samples of these pollens.
> 
> ...


BACTERIAL ENDOTOXIN ASSOCIATED WITH POLLEN AS A POTENTIAL FACTOR AGGRAVATING POLLINOSIS
Department of Aerobiology and Allergology, Institute of Agricultural Medicine, Lublin, Poland


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Current theory suggests that mutualisms are best viewed as reciprocal exploitations that nonetheless provide net benefits to each partner. This view stresses the disruptive potential of conflicts of interests among the erstwhile partners. Consequently, identifying factors that influence the costs and benefits to each partner and quantifying their influence constitute primary research objectives. In particular, inquiry centers on the description of conflicts of interest between partners and the attempt to understand what mediates them10.
> 
> Ultimately, we cannot begin to determine whether there are any general principles or consistent patterns that characterize mutualisms if we misunderstand individual case studies. Ideally, for a number of cases, we need to identify and quantify the costs and benefits to each party, and to understand what factors influence variation in those costs and benefits. Importantly, we need to understand conflicts of interest and attempt to identify what factors maintain the alignment of interests. If there is nonalignment, what prevents the system from breaking down? To do this, it is crucial that we identify the mutualists, and understand their diversity, patterns of transmission and structuring at several spatial, temporal and evolutionary scales.


The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation
E.A. Herre, N. Knowlton, U.G. Mueller and S.A. Rehner
TREE vol. 14, no. 2 February 1999


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> One of the most distinctive features of many symbiotic and pathogenic genomes, extremely small size, does not appear to be an adaptation for living within hosts but a neutral or even deleterious consequence of long-term evolution under the conditions imposed by these life-styles. One consequence of genome reduction is that specialized symbionts and pathogens are unable to reacquire the multitude of eliminated genes and thus cannot revert to a life-style independent from hosts.
> 
> This irreversibility is supported by the phylogenetic distribution of small-genome organisms, which occur in clades that are uniformly symbiotic or parasitic. Although pathogens and symbionts show clear parallels in their genetic responses to living within hosts, they differ in some aspects of their genome contents. Specialized mutualistic symbionts, often in cooperation with their hosts, are able to circumvent host defenses through mechanisms such as sequestration within specialized host tissues or cells that function as refuges


Genes Lost and Genes Found: Evolution of Bacterial Pathogenesis and Symbiosis 
Howard Ochman and Nancy A. Moran
2001 VOL 292	SCIENCE	www.sciencemag.org


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> Some beekeepers are adding probiotics to the feeding constituent of bees to improve their health.
>I've heard that, too. It seems like a good idea -- perhaps, but wonder: What specific organisms? And how is it known that this is beneficial?

I've wondered the same. It seems to me the only way to be reasonbly sure you are innoculating with good stuff is to take frames of pollen, bees, and brood from a really successful hive and put it in the hive that is struggling. That way IF the microorganisms are involved, it should be the right ones.

>After all, without any evidence, the practice could as easily be harmful, or useless. 

Exactly.

>I submit that if using antibiotics is a bad idea (I'm not saying it is) the same would apply to so called probiotics.

Agreed.

> We have no clear idea on what the gut flora of bees is supposed to look like

Exactly.

> but it appears not to be seriously affected by TM. 

I would agree that froma survival point of view the requisite (maybe not the optimum) bacteria seem to have built up resistance over the last several decades of TM use. That doesn't mean it isn't having an affect but it at least wasn't causing a collapse.

>Now tylosin may be another matter. 

Interesting that widespread tylosin use seems to coincide with the timing of colony collapses...


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Michael Bush said:


> >> Some beekeepers are adding probiotics to the feeding constituent of bees to improve their health.
> 
> Interesting that widespread tylosin use seems to coincide with the timing of colony collapses...


I would like to see proof of the correlation of tylosin and CCD.
Tylosin timing and CCD.
What's the timing? one month, two months or more.
I do not think that CCD is going to be tied in with a single factor like Tylosin.
Ernie


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I am merely offering "Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc" as a basis for a theory, not as proof of anything. I'm saying that Tylosin became widespread in the beekeeping world about the same time as CCD did. That is reason to be suspicious. That is not the basis for accepting it as a cause and effect fact. It is, the primary error in logic to do so. It is NOT an error, however to use "Post Hoc" as reason to suspect a cause and effect relationship.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> Tylosin became widespread in the beekeeping world about the same time as CCD did.


I would like to see evidence that "Tylosin became widespread" in 2006. Tylosin was only approved for TM resistant foulbrood. Working as a state inspector, I can tell you that TM resistant foulbrood is NOT widespread. And I don't believe tylosin use is "widespread" at all. But you could pick any number of events that occurred in 2005 or 2006 and draw conclusions. 

On the other hand, I know of only a few people that really started using Tylosin in a big way. A couple of key points: 1) the started using it well before the official approval, getting it from vet suppliers. 2) they successfully cleared up serious AFB outbreaks in their outfits with it. 3) the bees looked as good or better than averages during the 3 years I inspected them.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Margulis (1998) has claimed that symbiosis will be shown to be critical for the origins of variation and in the formation of new species. While the evidence presented here cannot go that far, we have tried to document several evolutionary ramifications of widespread symbiotic associations.
> 
> The webs of life are predicated on symbioses between plants and their rhizobacterial, endophytic and mycorrhizal symbionts. As developmental biologists begin appreciating how important symbionts are for animal development, evolutionary developmental biologists may find that some of the most important principles of evolution are in the interactions of insects and their Wolbachia, termites and their protists, and vertebrates whose guts teem with a consortium of microbes.


Symbiosis as a source of selectable epigenetic variation: taking the heat for the big guy 
Scott F. Gilbert, Emily McDonald, Nicole Boyle, Nicholas Buttino, Lin Gyi, Mark Mai, Neelakantan Prakash and James Robinson
Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 25, 2010


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

For anyone interested in genetics, epigenetics, and symbiosis, this is going to be a breakthrough, if the first month is any indication!



> Environmental insults, such as pollution, cause human (and non-human) diseases that may carry-over for a number of generations. For instance, early paternal smoking was associated with greater BMI [body mass index] at nine years of age in sons. Such carry-over effects may be uncovered by careful search for transgenerational effects. The ability to detect and quantify a preliminary rough measure of transgenerational, environmentally induced diseases could become part of epidemiological studies.
> 
> The model presented here provides an initial estimate of epigenetic transmissibility which can be the basis for further molecular studies. We are well aware that a complete analysis of the developmental, and possibly evolutionary, effects of epigenetic inheritance has to include both transmissibility and expressivity, and that QTL methodology is indispensable. However, a preliminary ability to empirically detect and quantify a rough measure of transgenerational epigenetic effects can give epidemiologically important information and assist in narrowing and directing the search domain for molecular epigenetic sequencing.


Epigenetic contribution to covariance between relatives 
Omri Tal, Eva Kisdi and Eva Jablonka
Genetics: Published Articles Ahead of Print, published on January 25, 2010


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Tylosin was only approved for TM resistant foulbrood. Working as a state inspector, I can tell you that TM resistant foulbrood is NOT widespread.


mmm, everywhere i go (and talk to beekeepers) people are talking about tylosin as an alternative to TM. The perception seems to be that it's "stronger" or "better" than TM. (i wasn't thrilled last year when i ordered some foundation and it was shipped in a tylan box). yes, i'm aware that it is _supposed_ to be for TM resistant foulbrood, but it would be interesting to see how much is sold via the bee supply houses.


> 1) they started using it well before the official approval, getting it from vet suppliers.


below you say you inspected these bees....i understand that as an inspector it's important to have the trust of beekeepers, but being aware of illegal antibiotic use in hives that are presumably producing honey for market?


> 2) they successfully cleared up serious AFB outbreaks in their outfits with it.


were these cases of TM resistant foulbrood?


> 3) the bees looked as good or better than averages during the 3 years I inspected them.


it's well known that short term, all kinds of animals "look better" with antibiotic use...it's the long term (and food contamination) i'd be more concerned about.

now, how is it exactly that we are going to keep tylosin resistant foulbrood from developing? read randy oliver's article that speaks of the persestance active tylosin in the hive, and how commercial beekeepers are using it propholactially, in syrup, and are banking on the fact that it stays active in the hive for a long time.
http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86


> OTC has the desirable characteristic of degrading fairly rapidly in moist environments (as in a bee hive). Therefore, it fit the bill of allowing refuges of susceptible bacteria (and beneficial competing bacteria) to survive.
> 
> Tylosin, on the other hand has a very long life in the hive—on the order of several months or years (Kochansky 2004). That is why it is currently such an effective antibiotic against AFB—it just keeps killing and killing the bacteria. This persistence was noted in the process of its registration for bee hive use, so the label specifically prohibits its use as a prophylactic measure, or its application in sugar syrup.
> 
> Of course, many commercial beekeepers now routinely (and illegally, at least in my state) feed tylosin in sugar syrup as a prophylactic measure against AFB! It is a “box movers’” dream—no need to inspect for foulbrood, nor loss of AFB-tainted equipment—just treat ‘em all with tylosin. I strongly question this practice! We do not know the long-term effects of a persistent antibiotic upon symbiotic honey bee gut flora or those in the bee bread. Of even more concern is the imprudence of such practice—tylosin is an incredibly effective tool for the control of AFB. The routine use of it will predictably soon render it ineffective as tylosin-resistant bacteria evolve. Those misusing the product will ruin it for the rest of us! This is not a matter of “laughing with the sinners or crying with the saints”—it is rather a shortsighted folly.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> you say you inspected these bees....i understand that as an inspector it's important to have the trust of beekeepers, but being aware of illegal antibiotic use in hives that are presumably producing honey for market?


Your point? The bee inspectors of NYS have no jurisdiction to intervene except in cases of AFB or AHB. As you said, there has to be trust.



> were these cases of TM resistant foulbrood?


 No


> now, how is it exactly that we are going to keep tylosin resistant foulbrood from developing? read randy oliver's article that speaks of the persestance (sic) active tylosin in the hive


You seem to think I am advocating antibiotic use. Nowhere in my writing have I ever advocated the use of any drug or poison. My chief aim has been to get away from such use. 

On the other hand, I _understand_ the need for producers to make a living, to protect their investment, etc. I talked to one dairy guy who told me without antibiotics he wouldn't have any cows left.

Organic farming enthusiasts seem to think that if everyone followed their lead, pests and diseases would be a thing of the past. This is hot air. We need to transition to a low chemical input future, but not cold turkey. 

IMHO, the only reason why organic farming works (and why some people get away without vaccinations) is because the rest of us are using "best standard practices".

And please don't start a flame war on this one. It's my opinion, I can back it up with facts, and not statements like 



> everywhere i go (and talk to beekeepers) people are talking about tylosin as an alternative to TM


I have no data on tylosin use, but there is ample evidence that TM resistant foulbrood is NOT widespread. People that are using tylosin for reasons other than controlling TM resistant bacteria, are foolish and they are in fact setting the stage for tylosin resistance,_ of course.
_


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

dean quotes Randy Oliver:



> We do not know the long-term effects of a persistent antibiotic upon symbiotic honey bee gut flora or those in the bee bread.


Perhaps to you guys this is some sort of proof, or wake up call, about antibiotics. To me, it simply says "we don't know". It is plausible there is an effect. It is also plausible and highly likely that beneficial bacteria are not affected by antibiotics. 

I have run bees with and without and see no appreciable difference (except the temporary boost you spoke of).


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Your point? The bee inspectors of NYS have no jurisdiction to intervene except in cases of AFB or AHB.


that's different than how things work here. i've been out with our inspector who left warnings 2 years in a row to a beekeeper who had 3 years of apistan strips in the hive (he had the bees for his blueberries, didn't extract honey). i was told that if the situation wasn't rectified that the state apiarist would intervene.


> You seem to think I am advocating antibiotic use.


1. that wasn't my point, my point was that tylosin use is not restricted to TM resistant AFB, it is not used only on active infections, and is fed in syrup.

2. unless you've changed your mind, you DO advocate antibiotic use...even for "chemical free beekeeping":
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...=-3&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4&P=24669


> I am slated to do a talk next month on the subject of *keeping bees
> without chemicals*, to the NY association....
> 
> This being said, *I would recommend using terramycin in the spring and
> ...





> I talked to one dairy guy who told me without antibiotics he wouldn't have any cows left.


i met a junkie who said he would die without heroine. i met an unemployed single parent on welfare who said he could not exist without cigarettes, cable tv, a large screen tv, an SUV and a cell phone.

i don't doubt that a system that is setup to rely on antibiotics requires antibiotics. i do doubt that it is the only way to run a dairy. the fact that there are productive cows that don't get routine antibiotic treatment is proof.



> Organic farming enthusiasts seem to think that if everyone followed their lead, pests and diseases would be a thing of the past. This is hot air. We need to transition to a low chemical input future, but not cold turkey.


...and we do that by introducing new antibiotics when we've used up the old one? if tylosin was only being used as approved, we would be better off. it isn't being used as approved, and we will quickly use it up as well...all the while contaminating our food supply with more persistent antibiotics.



> IMHO, the only reason why organic farming works (and why some people get away without vaccinations) is because the rest of us are using "best standard practices".


i've often discussed dee's approach to foulbrood...do you think that her low incidence is due to her neighbors using antibiotics? i think it's pretty clear that it is due to the fact that she DOESN'T use antibiotics.



> I have no data on tylosin use, but there is ample evidence that TM resistant foulbrood is NOT widespread....


but you just reported that the "early adopters" of tylosin that you know about were using to treat for non-resistant foulbrood.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

dean writes:



> i've often discussed dee's approach to foulbrood...do you think that her low incidence is due to her neighbors using antibiotics? i think it's pretty clear that it is due to the fact that she DOESN'T use antibiotics.


You know, this where I usually throw my hands up and say why bother. Low incidence is due to NOT using antibiotics? You mean, if she used them, she would have a higher incidence?

Give me a break. Do you think I don't know anything?! Foulbrood can be completely wiped out without using drugs. Everybody knows how. 

And when you quote what I said two years ago, _are you saying I am not allowed to change my mind? _ You left out this part:



> You can go 100% natural organic, but you will have to be ready to
> watch your bees dies off. This is easy enough to do! -- helps to rid
> us of susceptible bees, and perhaps they won't die in which case you
> will no doubt have good bees worth having.


You see Deano, I try to present all sides of the story. You and your pals are so convinced you are right, you just leave the rest out. And I would rather you didn't alter my writing with* BOLD FACE TYPE. It is UGLY *and unnecessary.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Perhaps to you guys this is some sort of proof, or wake up call, about antibiotics. To me, it simply says "we don't know". It is plausible there is an effect. It is also plausible and highly likely that beneficial bacteria are not affected by antibiotics. have run bees with and without and see no appreciable difference (except the temporary boost you spoke of).


There is simply no way to discuss these concepts intelligently when people generalize, extrapolate unconservatively, speculate and provide references out of context. 

To try to do so is to go mad. Thus the "ignore" option is there and works fine until someone rises to the bait and quotes or addresses the red herrings or straw men.



> I have no data on tylosin use, but there is ample evidence that TM resistant foulbrood is NOT widespread. People that are using tylosin for reasons other than controlling TM resistant bacteria, are foolish and they are in fact setting the stage for tylosin resistance,_ of course._


Tylosin apparently is far more effective in controlling any AFB than oxytet ever was and some use it somewhat routinely, not that I recommend it. 

Oxytet was always a borderline control for AFB, and never approached sulfathiazole and now Tylosin for effectiveness. 

*Wikipedia says, "Tylosin* is a macrolide-class antibiotic used in veterinary medicine. It has a broad spectrum of activity against gram positive organisms and a limited range of gram negative organisms.[1] It is found naturally as a fermentation product of _Streptomyces fradiae_.[2]
Tylosin is used in veterinary medicine to treat bacterial infections in a wide range of species and has a high margin of safety.[3] It has also been used as a growth promotant in some species, and as a treatment for colitis in companion animals.[2]"

There are problems beyond the obvious with Tylosin, though. Not only is Tylosin slow to break down, but the metabolites are powerful in their own right and even longer-lasting.

At any rate, as everyone knows, or should know, antibiotics vary in their specificity. They are largely modeled on the natural products of microorganisms themselves which are employed in the never-ending chemical warfare ongoing between the various tiny organisms competing for every conceivable niche.

These compounds may either be toxic, neutral, or even beneficial to any given organism. They are also ubiquitous, although not in the quantities and concentrations that man is able to deliver.

Most of us try to understand the specific nature of each compound and organism and the interactions. Others, though, class things as "natural" and "unnatural". They are hard-pressed to explain the exact difference in the scientific terms, however, since ther is seldom any such distinction.

Not only do many of these questions evade simplistic explanations, but additionally complicating the issues are the fact that there are unique instances and exceptions which may be apparent only occasionally and under specific conditions.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Sulfa
Sodium sulfathiazole
Do you remember why it's not regerstered for foulbrood?
Ernie


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Sulfa - Sodium sulfathiazole - Do you remember why it's not regerstered for foulbrood?


t:

Several reasons. 

1.) At the time it was used, one ppm was considered a high concentration, and sulfa was frequently found in honey in concentrations that high. In fact, truckloads of honey were dumped as the standards were tightened as science improved detection and new importance was placed on reducing antibiotivc levels in food. Today, those concentrations are unthinkable. Parts per billion are coming under scrutiny.

2.) Sulfa is very very slow to break down

3.) Some people are very sensitive to it and have bad reactions.

4.) Antibiotics generally are being held back for use in human disease situations.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Allen Dick said:


> 4.) Antibiotics generally are being held back for use in human disease situations.


This is a very important point. Eurythromycin would probably be an effective livestock drug, and it controls foulbrood diseases (AFB and EFB), but it is not used on livestock to protect its use in human diseases. 

Testers and regulators have paid special attention to avoiding widespread use of whole classes of antibiotics that work on human disease. Terramycin (oxytetracycline) is obviously one that is used for both, but tylosin isn't. 

Again, it must be made very clear that antibiotics are not bad, that they do not wipe out ALL bacteria and germs, that bacteria produce anti-biotic substances themselves to combat other bacteria and microorganisms.

To me it is about what works, and what doesn't. Obviously, if the cure is worse than the disease, we have a problem. Again, I am not advocating anything except open mindedness, scientific study, and common sense. 

When I see any of these violated, I cringe.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Response to several reasons"
Right
That's why I posted the idea.s why we lost the legal use of sulfa.
tylosin may go the same route as sulfa.
And. do you remember the news about the China honey source and it's high contamination.
Ernie


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

BEES4U said:


> Response to several reasons"
> Right
> That's why I posted the idea.s why we lost the legal use of sulfa.
> tylosin may go the same route as sulfa.
> ...


No, this is quite a different story. As I have pointed out, Tylosin was chosen because it is not used for people. Sulfathiazole is a very old fashioned antibiotic and has serious side effects in people. Same with chloramphenicol, which why that drug is illegal in the US and not permitted in honey. 

However, regulations are much more slack in some countries and much stricter in others. Many countries use the whole gamut of antibiotics, and there appears to be no impact on humans (of drugs in honey). The EU has a zero tolerance, however. 

The US takes a more pragmatic approach, by allowing antibiotics in livestock. I certainly agree with consumer's demand for pure food and the avoidance of drugs and pesticides is a worthy goal. However, I condemn superstition and scare tactics in place science. 

JMHO


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Symbionts: good, bad, and ugly



> Wolbachia represents the most prevalent endosymbiotic bacterial group, associated with over 60% of insect species. In infected insects, Wolbachia symbionts are localized in diverse cells and tissues and _usually affect host fitness negatively_, often manipulating host reproduction to enhance their own transmission.





> Spiroplasma melliferum is a helical wall-less bacterium, with a genome of approximately 1460 kbp. The organism was originally isolated from the honey-bee (Apis mellifera) in which it causes May disease. Previous in vitro studies have hypothesised the use of S. melliferum as a laboratory model for neurodegenerative disorders due to the ability of the organism to persist in mouse brain for up to nine months, and to cause vacuolar lesions resembling those seen in the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.


----------

