# dsRNA ingested by bees is transferred to the Varroa mite and from mite on to a parasi



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

Bidirectional Transfer of RNAi between Honey Bee and Varroa destructor: Varroa Gene Silencing Reduces Varroa Population
We previously reported that honey bees fed on double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) with a sequence homologous to that of the Israeli acute paralysis virus are protected from the viral disease. Here we show that dsRNA ingested by bees is transferred to the Varroa mite and from mite on to a parasitized bee. This cross-species, reciprocal exchange of dsRNA between bee and Varroa engendered targeted gene silencing in the latter, and resulted in an over 60% decrease in the mite population. 
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003035


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

60% decrease huh, better read this one. thanks again ab.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

from the hebrew university of jerusalem i see.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

almost sounds too good to be true. where is wlc when you need him?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

from the paper:

"Funding: This work was supported in part by in-house funds of the B. Triwaks Bee Research Center, by Beeologics LLC, by USAID-MERC (grant no. TAMOU-08-
M29-076) and by the Clore Israel Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing Interests: Patent pending: The authors assigned their rights to Yissum research development company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem LTD,
which together with Beeologics LLC submitted a patent application entitled ‘‘Compositions for controlling Varroa mites in bees’’ (Serial No. 61/251,339) on
October 14, 2009. IS was the Chief Scientist of Beeologics. EM was an employee and consultant of Beeologics. This does not alter our adherence to all PLoS
Pathogens policies on sharing data and materials."


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i.e. patent pending for beeologics llc, (now owned by monsanto)


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Interesting study, I wonder why they only got 60% control though, that's not very good when using that kind of an approach.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

it was a bit of a 'petri dish' experiment.

the colonies were started with approx. 250 bees and a queen, which only built up to about a thousand bees by the end of the experiment. (mini hives)

60% reduction meant the difference of a 4% average infestation rate in the nontreated group, as compared to a 1.5% infestation rate in the better of the two treated groups.

3% infestation is used by some (see beeinformed.org) as a threshold beyond which varoasis is more likely.

my guess is that field studies will be forthcoming.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I sat in on his talk a few years back, have they gotten the treatment down to an affordable commercial dose? Deformed Wing Virus was also brought up. This work is huge. If proven to become commercially successful, it will help bring back certainty in measuring varroa mite populations in regards to hive injury and allow more accurate monitoring thresholds. Now we are all over the map and dont know what to expect.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

That's true Ian, I know putting oligos together isn't cheap but supposedly the technology is out there to make it affordable.


----------



## rniles (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm a dummy - so please pardon the question, I've just seen thing like this in other "products".

If this modified version of the dsRNA with Varroa Gene Silencing gets into the honeybee and is spread by breeding bees having this modification do the offspring contain the modified dsRNA? And what are the implications if this modification is patented?

Or am I just not understanding?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

the gene is fed to the bee and gets into the bees system, the mite sucks the gene in when it is drinking the bee's hemolymph, it gets in the mites dna, the mother mite passes it on to her progeny, it results a birth defect that kills baby mites.

i'm not sure how much of it stays in the bee and/or affects bee genetics.

this is a different use of transcript rna than was used for giving the bees resistance to viruses.

the real unkown is what effect or not does introducing genetic traits to a parasite of the bee have on the bee? and whether or not there may be effects beyond the bee and the mites?

sounds pretty good in theory though....


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

read some of randy oliver articles to see how it works

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-4-immune-response-to-viruses/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

yep, that work involved introducing genes in the bees food that ended up in the bee genome, and resulted in an artificially aquired immuntity to certain viruses.

this newer work is introducing genes targeting the mite genome that result in mortality to the mite.

(after a more careful second reading of the new paper, i learned that the mites can also get the gene by simply coming in contact with it in the hive. also, once in the mites, the genes can be transferred to the bees by the mites).

on the question of what effect if any might the introduced gene have on the bee and beyond, the authors write:

"To prevent off-target human or bee gene silencing, these sequences did not correspond to any A. mellifera or human genes".


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

best i can tell, monsanto is at the stage of seeking patent protection for these genes

to the first product 'remebee', (now remebeepro), the last word on the following link is:

"Beeologics has begun efficacy testing in controlled environments in its laboratories in Israel."

http://www.beeologics.com/products/remebeepro/

i didn't see a name given for this new one targeting the mites.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

It's not really a gene. The dsRNA silences targetted sequences and does not self replicate. It essentially silences the selected mite genes it's sequence is based off of. To take it one step further, you could genetically modify bees to naturally express the sequences but a topical would be much easier to approve and avoid all the GMO debates. Another option could have a plant express it and supply the pollen/nectar to the bees. Still, I'd like to see better efficacy before I would try it.


----------



## rniles (Oct 10, 2012)

So if this rsDNA is patented, and this rsDNA is in the bee - who gets to have or sell the bee that has this rsDNA?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Depends on the language of the patent, currently no bees have the gene as there isn't one. The dsRNA is put together synthetically but can be expensive depending on the size of the oligos. To put the gene in the bee would be very expensive and then the deregulation costs and arguments about honey made by a GMO organism will ensue. A topical treatment of the oligos avoids those discussions for now. If it came down to modifying the bee, I would imagine the patent would not allow knowingly propagating the line unless you had a license to do so, just like all patent protected species (trees/plants/etc...)


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

exciting stuff !


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I'm just glad I have an isolated bee population with virtually no varroa mites for the last year, and no commercial beeks nearby, and no monsanto corn or soybeans nearby. Cattle don't carry gmo genes yet...

I will watch.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

I am curious. How do you check for mites? ether, alcohol or sugar shake?


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Sugar shake and pulling drone brood. SBB's when I have time to clean the sticky board. But the inspector and I went through 5 hives and pulled every drone brood larva and found ONE mite. I think one turned up in the sugar shake. My population is isolated, and I had an accidental brood break of about 3 weeks on the cutout hive before my nucs came, had about 5 weeks brood break on the hot hive after I killed the queen and before they requeened. My nucs were vsh bees. They've done well, bought 2, have basically 4 hives of them now. (one is at my neighbor's)


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Hopefully they can keep their genes from infecting the rest of the bee population. Until we really know what else it does.

And if it really works we can all buy our bees from monsanto for 5X the price.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Flower, it's a topical treatment or in this case, it was fed to the bees, has nothing to do with genetic modification of the bee. There is no gene expression either, the rna does not replicate.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

That's good


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Yes this is real good...Monsanto applying for a patent...We'll see how much bees cost when your queen mates with a drone with this newly acquired Monsanto DNA and your making splits and nucs for sale. Hope you have deep pockets. For all those hoping for a godsend this is not it. You will have to pay Monsanto to raise bees and if not pay heavy fines..can you control your drone yard? Good luck!


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Spark, has nothing to do with genetically altered bees or patenting bees. The patent is for the sequence(s) of dsRNA's used which target mite genes, nothing to do with bees. The bees were just a vector of the dsRNA.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

JRG13, probably should say it again.
Im wondering if it has sunk in yet, 

As soon as the word Monsanto is mentioned, the same old opinions creep up. 

I love the development that are being made here. Finally RnD money spent on the bee industry ! THATS A GOOD THING


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

I don't see it quite so easy as you do Ian. If you believe that Monsanto is going develop this product and give it away for free well...erm ah ... anyways hope they do. 

JRG the primer is the bee it would be the easiest source to use to infect the mite with.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

It has to be commercially available for any profits to be made on it. It has to be economically feasible for a commercial out fit otherwise it will not be bought. 
If you would like to compare it to other types of poducts they sell, 
those products were developed and brought to the market. Economics dictated the price point and the quality of the product dictated the popularity of its use


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Ian I know all about making money, I am a business owner, but thanks for the insight into how money is made. I will also base my judgement of Monsanto on it's business practices aside from their making money schemes to determine where their heart really is.

We can agree on how to make money but never on business practices that border on criminal. Anyone for some E. Coli DNA spliced salad?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3.
Bad bad Monsanto 

With a little RnD now being focused on the honeybee industry, we may just see some of the same advances as we have elsewhere in agriculture in relation to disease control. RnD is what the industry has been screaming for over 10 years now.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Most folks opposed to modern farming practices and products have never been exposed to the farming practices which were common back in the 50's and 60's. The norm back then was disk, plow, disk, plant, rotary hoe, and cultivate as many as three times. Chemicals back then? Oh yeah, lots of them and usually broad spectrum pesticides that fried everything out there. Lots and lots of herbicide that washed down out of the fields when the inevitable erosion occurred from the tillage practices. The amount of fuel used per acre was incredible but in those days ag fuel was probably around .10 per gallon. Today we usually see a single no till planting pass and a couple of passes with large spraying equipment. Residue from the previous crop are allowed (in most cases) to rot into the soil. The ground is disturbed very little. Newer hybrid seed has increased yields dramatically. Argue all you want about the ethics of big business but don't deny that without the technological advances in agriculture there is no way we could produce the food needed to feed 7 billion people.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

the advances over the last 50-100 years are quite amazing.

you should see how we worked GSP into equipment


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

the advances over the last 50-100 years are quite amazing.

you should see how we worked GSP into equipment


----------



## rniles (Oct 10, 2012)

Ian said:


> I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3.
> Bad bad Monsanto


OK, some people have a beef with that - I don't 

...the complaint I have - and a lot of others have, is when other people are trying to grow something different and Big Ag's pollen gets on other people's crops and other people have to shut down or get assimilated because their crops now have Big Ag's genes.

That's a hostile act by the Big Ag companies - and it is wrong. Big Ag took away someone else's rights just to protect their money.

Improve things ...no problem ...but don't stomp on what others want to do or want to grow.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

but you want to take away my rights to use Big Ags crops on my land to protect your interests? Dont forget the rights of the land owners. Beekeepers dont own the rights to the use of others land. Beekeepers earn the privilege to collect the bounty from others land.


----------



## rniles (Oct 10, 2012)

Ian said:


> but you want to take away my rights to use Big Ags crops on my land to protect your interests? Dont forget the rights of the land owners. Beekeepers dont own the rights to the use of others land. Beekeepers earn the privilege to collect the bounty from others land.


Keep your pollen within your property boundaries and off other people's crops and we'll be in agreement. You don't own the right to force others to grow your crops or to force them out of business.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Ian if you feel that big AG's GMO crops are for you great but, you need to keep your open pollinated crops from transferring that DNA to others properties. 

As far as the beekeepers earning any privilege ... well, erm ... just WOW what can I say, your a beekeeper right?


----------



## nada (Nov 26, 2012)

beekeepers bees going on your property is a right, not a privelage. otherwise it would be an incredible abuse of the concept of property rights. you might as well say someone else looking at your property is a privelage, not a right


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

nope, property rights is a real thing. Beekeepers cant tell property owners what to grow and not to grow. 
Government on the other hand can, as the government holds all property. 
So if something happening on that property is a violation of government law, then that property owner is liable
beekeepers hold no right over property owners.

ever wonder why beekeepers cant claim liability for pesticide kills?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Spark said:


> As far as the beekeepers earning any privilege ... well, erm ... just WOW what can I say, your a beekeeper right?


I hope you get permission to place bees on properties . I run 30 yards, many yards on my own land. The rest of the yards I get access to the property. And for the rest of the property around me I work with the farmers to prevent any pesticide damages from occurring. My hives are foraging on their land.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

nada said:


> beekeepers bees going on your property is a right, not a privelage. otherwise it would be an incredible abuse of the concept of property rights. you might as well say someone else looking at your property is a privelage, not a right


so if I were to put up a 12 foot fence to stop people from looking at what was on my property, could those people claim a right to view my property and have the fence taken down? . . .


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

I sure hope this works out for beekeepers around the world! 



Ian said:


> I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3...snip...


I use Monsanto (M.) products and have no problem with my concience using them. I think what Spark is concerned about (and I share that concern) is the way M. has sued and bankrupted farmers with crops adjacent to Monsanto GMO soybean crops. Pollen from GMO crops has drifted to adjacent plots and produced seed stocks containing Geneticall Modified Genes (in fields not using M's seeds)....M. sent their goons to sample and then sue the poor farmers who did not buy the GMO seeds but had the pollen blow into their fields. M. acted like a giant bully in those cases. What is to keep them from bullying you when they find the patented dsRNA in your beeyard? M. has shown a pattern of action. That is his concern, and mine too.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I know of one case M has sued a farmer for infringement, and the farmer lost
funny how the farmer was using the technology of the plant, but did not know it was in his field , wink wink


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Lee the concern about wind drift is a legitimate one. The concern about getting sued by Monsanto for such wind drifted seed production is not. The Percy Schmeister case is the only one I have ever heard of where wind blown pollen was claimed to be the source of replanted seed. All courts ruled thatMr. Schmeister's claims were not believable. Genetically modified seeds are patented. You may not save seed and replant it. The only other cases that I am aware of were cases where it was proven that the farmers did exactly that and they were all decided by the courts in favor of Monsanto. I understand how Monsanto controls much of the seed business in the US and I would agree that it isn't an ideal situation to say the least but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Ian said:


> Dont forget the rights of the land owners. Beekeepers dont own the rights to the use of others land. Beekeepers earn the privilege to collect the bounty from others land.


perfectly said


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

jim lyon said:


> but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.


then could we please send this information to our reps and do away with the farm subsidies, so we can pay what the crops are really worth:thumbsup: then maybe our bees would be able to work something other than corn and soybeans. had to get bees in there somewhere else I would be moved to tailgater


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

isnt that the truth. but that is a more complicated issue than it appears,...


----------



## johng (Nov 24, 2009)

How far out do you think a product like this is?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

when I sat in on a meeting a couple or few years back, they were still in the development stage, 
They said at that point of time, the cost per treatment was $1000 per dose.
They said the next step was to develop the facility to bring the costs down to a feasible cost for commercial use
I would think that is where Monsanto come in to play


----------



## Scott Klein (Sep 13, 2012)

"Argue all you want about the ethics of big business but don't deny that without the technological advances in agriculture there is no way we could produce the food needed to feed 7 billion people."

Jim, you say that, but I hear this... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/15/us-mcdonalds-china-idUSTRE6BE0VJ20101215

Do you think that 7 billion people are adequately fed? Americans placed something like 14th in health of rich countries, while dietary related diseases and poor nutrition remains a persistent problem in many parts of the world. If enough nutritious food is being produced, why all the health issues?

Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?

In my opinion, this statement ignores the innovation that could have occurred in localized, small scale agriculture as opposed to large scale monoculture production and as such, I don't think it's a good argument to follow it with "I used less gas, made more money and worked less". These values of the past were enabled by commercialized sense that cheap, easy and disposable is good. - "I do not prize the word cheap. It is not a word of inspiration. It is the badge of poverty, the signal of distress. Cheap merchandise means cheap men and cheap men mean a cheap country."
-William McKinley

Trespass issues were created to keep humans from entering or destroying property, not all genetic material. A whole new framework of what trespass is should have been developed before novel genetic material was released (obviously didn't happen). To me, the concept of 'genetic property' is flawed... like you taxing your children (via. chores) and expecting that the family he or she marries into is then also in debt to you and that they are obligated legally to perform tasks or pay you for your (drifting) genetic property (i.e dowery?). Also, I appreciate ownership of private property, but not at the expense of those who will use it after (you know, you lease from your children...). To believe that you OWN land and can destroy it or any organism on it that you choose is simply selfish. It is clear to me that we are in debt to those that follow, not just those that come before.

The tides are turning though, people don't want to settle for cheap when it's no longer inexpensive, convenient, healthy, tasty and natural, all of which you can attain in your own back yard or with a CSA to a much greater degree than we have in the past 50 years. Bees, chickens and produce are all back on the backyard menu and people feel great about local, heirloom, non-industrialized foods. Growing even a few basic green and roots can transform us in huge ways. Not only is the exercise healthy, but growing food puts us back in touch with nature and our connection to the soil, while reducing pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, transportation fuel, packaging, rot and unhealthy, flavorless foods,... or supporting companies we don't trust for whatever reason.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I think we should go free market. No more farm subsidies. I am WILLING to pay $8 a gallon for milk, especially since I own my own milk goat, and I think that our farm subsidies are making Monsanto richer and meaner. But that's just my uninformed opinion.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Wow! 

Regarding post #52, I eat as much as I can out of my garden. But no garden or even a "typical" CSA is capable of producing some common foods within reasonable effort. Anyone who has tried to consistently bake bread or other flour-based baked goods knows that while you might be able to _grow _grains, harvesting grains by hand is *very *difficult, hence very costly.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I've got Hopi Amaranth seeds on order. I eat very few grains, although I'd be hard-pressed to grow oatmeal or rice. I do like Quinoa but it won't grow here. I do need enough grain to feed my chickens, so I guess I will be planting non-monsanto corn. 

I probably don't eat 3 lbs worth of wheat flour a year, but then my weight is normal for a 20 year old, as is my BP, etc. My sugar bill for bee-feeding is exhorbitant though, or has been, with the drought..


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

What about the BEE.

I applaud the efforts of all the bee breeders who work to develop bees that can deal with or handle mites on their own, this technology is just another stop gap measure that kicks the can further down the road and will continue to weaken our bees.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Scott Klein said:


> Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?


Yes! we are getting better at controling disease, and when we can fully protect our crops from disease we will have higher predictable yields. Quality is a big concern, as alot of food gets down graded from disease damages and can not be consumed by humans, to which is salvaged into livestock feed. 
Utilization of our lands are becoming more efficient, turning sour land or wet lands into productive agricultural land. 

As in regards to beekeeping,
If we can integrate a disease control method to eliminate diseases like nosema, our bees will be healthier and much better off. practicing disease control measures without treating with pesticides and antibiotics


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

To bring this thread back to the topic of the original post, the research makes me wonder if/how such a technology would be profitable for a company. Every thing I've heard about bees suggests that bees and mites drift pretty freely under a number of circumstances. That means, I think, that a small initial inoculation with a dsRNA product would quickly spread from bee to bee and from hive to hive.

It's one thing when a biotech company sells hybrid seed for crops with specific genetic traits, and another entirely when they sell a replicating gene for use in living organisms. Most growers do not produce their own hybrid seed for growing crops, and the technology is comparatively protected. If a transgenic trait against aphids, for example, was also being vectored from plant to plant by the aphids, such a "product" would tend to escape into the general landscape pretty quickly.

This research does make you wonder how many bits of DNA and RNA are being moved from bee to bee through parasitism by mites without humans noticing, doesn't it?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

yes, and the technology requires feeding the bees, which isn't always necessary or desirable, (and would be even less useful if the effect is transient).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Initially, the technology is administered to the bees by feeding, but then it can be spread from one bee to another through _Varroa_ mites feeding on the bees. I suppose it could go something like this:

One bees eats feed containing dsRNA for a particular effect. A mite feeds on that bee, then moves to another bee. The second bee now has the gene. Mite 2 feeds on bee 2, and then moves to bee 3. Bee 3 drifts to another hive, and picks up mite 3. Mite 3 moves to bee 4, and mite 4 feeds on bee 4. Mite 4 ends up on bee 5, and so on.

Of course, I'd be interested to know if the dsRNA traits are passed from mother to daughter directly (no mite vector) in bees, and if the dsRNA is passed from mother mite to her offspring. If so, such dsRNA technology could spread like wildfire through bees.

Pretty hard to convince people to buy such a thing if they're likely to get it without purchasing it anyway, I think.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

this was pulled from a conversation Randy Oliver is having on Bee-L

>>RNAi treatment for viruses is much like getting a
vaccination. For varroa or nosema, perhaps more like a systemic dog
treatment to kill fleas, but without any toxins involved.<<


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

yes and no, you would need it refreshed often unless you're producing the RNAi fragments yourself. I do not know how quickly it's degraded once ingested.


----------



## deejaycee (Apr 30, 2008)

Kieck said:


> Pretty hard to convince people to buy such a thing if they're likely to get it without purchasing it anyway, I think.



From what little I understand at this point, I think you've got the principals of spread about right, though I don't know how persistent the 'treatment' would be... whether there is a certain required 'density' of RNA that might need topping up to continue to be effective... or indeed what the mode of action in the mite would be, and how persistent that might be. 

In terms of what it's going to be worth.. this technology is absolutely invaluable in all sorts of fields - think human medicine - and I'm darn sure Monsanto or any other party would have that in their minds as well. But it's going to take a pretty strong proof of concept and safety, etc, to ever get close to that field. Bees could be a valuable testing ground. Not saying you're going to get the tech for free, but there could be a strong incentive in terms of the larger market to get this working in our market.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I don't think this is an instance of kicking the can further down the road either. If the efficacy was higher I'd be more excited, but 60% effectiveness is really lack luster to me for this kind of technology. If it were in the high 90's I'd be more excited, just think, you could treat with capped brood and still get good kill. There's other applications for this approach as well.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

As of now the price is really high, because producing the RNA is not cheap.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

would the rna get incorporated in the bee genome and be transmitted to bee offspring? my take from the paper was that it is _mite rna_, that the bee eats, and then the mite takes it in when it sucks on the bee. once in the mite, it gets incorporated into the mite genome, and the next generation of mite dies of a serious birth defect. 

i'm thinking that if the birth defect kills the mite offspring, that birth defect would not be transmitted to any future generations of mites. if so, the only way for the mites to get the killer rna in the first place would be if it was always available in the bees. if newly emerging bees weren't getting it in the food supply, and the bees that had eaten the killer rna are lost by attrition, the killer rna wouldn't be in the new bees for the mites to suck out.

that would suggest that the rna would have to avaible in the bee food at least for every turnover of the bee colonies' population.

the 'trick' is that the bees are vectoring the killer mite rna to the mites, i don't believe it is intended to change the bee's genetics. (altough some have suggested in could, and in unpredictable ways.....)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The paper cited is clear that dsRNA taken up in feed by bees can be passed by mites into other bees. Just how far that cycle can go, I'm not sure. However, the paper seems to me as if the genes coded in the dsRNA are being transferred into the bees' genomes.

In short, it seems as if these are transgenic (or GMO) bees.

The simplest explanation I can think of for how a mite picks up genes feed to a bee involves incorporation of those genes into the bee's cells. After all, the mites are not tapping into the gut contents of the bees. Mites feed on haemolymph, not fluids in the digestive tract. So the dsRNA has to somehow cross barriers to get out of the digestive system.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Kieck said:


> In short, it seems as if these are transgenic (or GMO) bees.


your calling these bees GMO bees ?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

kieck, yes once the mite contracts the rna sequence by sucking the hemolymph from a bee that has eaten the sequence, (the sequence could be thought of as a synthetic 'virus' deadly to mites but not bees), it indeed can be transferred to other bees via the mites. hence the title 'bidirectional transfer'.

the study shows that the sequence is transferred from the bee gut to its hemolymph.

i am going to reread the paper, but i'm still thinking the bee genome is not being targeted.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

the rna sequence also ended up in brood that were feed by nurse bees who had eaten the sequence, and transferred to mites via sucking on brood.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

after rereading, i'm convinced the bee genome is not the target for the rna sequence. (with the disclaimor that my background is neurophysiology and not genetics).

affecting the bee genome, or the physiology of the bee in any way, would be considered an 'off target effect', and the authors claim they did not observe any.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

for what it's worth, randy oliver responded about this technology on another forum, and his take was that these findings are very preliminary, and suggested no one hold their breath waiting to see this hit the market. apparantly there are a lot of regulatory hurdles to overcome before anything like this can be made available to the public.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Simple version of a viral infection: a virus inserts its genetic material into a cell, and the cell produces proteins and genetic molecules (DNA or RNA) bases on the genes of the virus.

"Transgenic" involves transfer of genes from one organism to another.

Seems to me that putting genes into an organism via a virus qualifies as transgenic. Some of the genes moved from one organism into a crop by humans were (and may still be at times) transferred by using a virus. These organisms are termed "GMOs" by many folks.

I'm not seeing where the distinction lies.

The authors of the paper cited in this thread imply that the dsRNA is analogous to a human-created virus.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

There's no gene transfer. GMO bees would have to have the sequence inserted and then could produce the dsRna's themselves w/o being fed. It's a little similar to virus, but not quite. The Rna simply shuts down expression of targeted genes, in this case a gene the mite needs to survive. The Rna does not self replicate as virus either, once it binds to the analogous rna of the expressing gene, it's essentially used up.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

That was well said JRG13

I have been reading some of Randy Oliver's posts to this same topic on another forum 
He is actively involved with one of the groups developing this technology 
Got a long way to go before anythought of providing it for commercial use


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Ian said:


> Got a long way to go before anythought of providing it for commercial use


 My understanding is that some FIELD testing has all ready been done in Fl before Monsanto bought out Beelogic or what ever the developing companies name was. Jerry Hays was involved with these tests and is one of the reasons he now works at Monsanto. He was chief Bee inspector here in Fl. If the rna can be passed on into the bee dna it’s all ready out in the bee population.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

its got to go through the regulatory processes ,
that is where the big tickets come into play, very expensive


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> The Rna does not self replicate as virus either, once it binds to the analogous rna of the expressing gene, it's essentially used up. -JRG13


After studying up on exactly how dsRNA works and is used in this sort of application, I think JRG13's post is clear and accurate, and squarepeg was right on target, too. I let my ignorance show pretty clearly. The dsRNA is not replicated by any of the organisms, and it apparently degrades quite quickly even outside cells. It seems that it might only be intact for a few days after it has been created and fed to bees.


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

Kieck said:


> ...snip...The dsRNA is not replicated by any of the organisms, and it apparently degrades quite quickly even outside cells. It seems that it might only be intact for a few days after it has been created and fed to bees.


That takes care of my concern expressed early in this thread.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Good work by all who posted on a subject that is difficult for many of us to grasp. This is Beesource at its best. Incredibly it almost seems as though a consensus has been reached and all of this without any guidance from New York City.


----------



## bend or (Aug 5, 2009)

Mites are related to spiders, so could this defect affect a spider that happened to catch a bee in its web? Then a possible reduction in the populations of beneficial spiders.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

see the second half of post # 78


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

jim lyon said:


> Incredibly it almost seems as though a consensus has been reached and all of this without any guidance from New York City.


I suppose those rooftop hives in NYC are being tested for dsRNA?


----------

