# The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Martin



## texanbelchers (Aug 4, 2014)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

But, if you say it often enough and loud enough, doesn't it become the truth??? :lookout:


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

He was looking mostly at variants within type A within colonies. It doesn't discount the earlier work.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

I'm not sure that a "conclusion" is reached. I plan on watching the movie though.

Also clipped from the reference;

DWV is a quickly evolving group of closely related viruses 
Further experimental manipulations have shown that this reduction in variant diversity occurs within the bee, not the mite.
Since a particular DWV variant that is able to reproduce rapidly in both mites and bee pupae may exist within the quasispecies infecting deformed bees, whereas a different variant could dominate in asymptomatic bees.

Personally I believe the chances of a mite free bee based on genetics is about the same as a mosquito free human based on our genetics. No matter how hard we groom. Similar to the flu in humans the impact is based on strains, count and background health which includes a whole lot of diversity in biology.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



lharder said:


> He was looking mostly at variants within type A within colonies. It doesn't discount the earlier work.


correct, and in the bees sampled no particular variants could be associated with bees having deformed wings vs. 'asymptomatic' bees without deformed wings. that's all the authors were looking at here.

super-infection exclusion theory isn't even mentioned although the paper is cited. to claim a contradiction is presented is about as partisan as it gets.

for insight into whether ron hoskin's survivors are benefiting from super-infection exclusion or not, we'll have to wait for dr. martin et. al. to publish the results of their dwv a vs. b study comparing treatment free survivors to treated colonies, for which i provided tf samples last winter.

those of us with open minds are withholding judgement until these results are published.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

This is most interesting, thanks, JWC.



> So currently, the only consistent factor associated with deformed wings is the high DWV load, but it remains unclear if the high load causes deformity or results from another factor that initially causes the deformity.


SP, please update.


> for insight into whether ron hoskin's survivors are benefiting from super-infection exclusion or not, we'll have to wait for dr. martin et. al. to publish the results of their dwv a vs. b study comparing treatment free survivors to treated colonies, for which i provided tf samples last winter.


Practical observations show that colonies often show no symptoms throughout the year but die in winter in spite of this and defect bees are in the deadout to be seen.
- food situation ( only stores distributed)
- longer lives ( virus accumulation)
- climate impact (weakening)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Something of an aside, but I am sure the viruses are changing. When mites first came to my country and began infecting bees with high DWV levels, badly infected hives had large numbers of bees showing deformed wings. This has gradually lessened over the years, and now badly infected hives can have very few bees showing deformed wings, with damage being mostly done to the brood.

Or I should say, damage was always done to the brood, but the proportion of bees with deformed wings is much less now relative to the damage to the brood.

Don't have a study on it, just my own observation.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



Oldtimer said:


> Something of an aside, but I am sure the viruses are changing.
> 
> Or I should say, damage was always done to the brood, but the proportion of bees with deformed wings is much less now relative to the damage to the brood.


I don´t think so. This differs here from apiary to apiary. It´s totally local expressed. Some colonies show DWV, some Paralyze, some just die in winter or do what´s called CCD, absconding.

OT, please explain what you mean about the difference of damage to bees or damage to brood. Do you mean that the damage now is done in an earlier stadium with more dead pupa?
Is there a higher amount of dead brood?
That would mean to me the bees are getting weaker.

Or do you mean the bees are getting more immune, pupa infestations and amount of dead pupa the same but less DWV seen?
That would mean progress.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



SiWolKe said:


> I don´t think so. This differs here from apiary to apiary. It´s totally local expressed. Some colonies show DWV, some Paralyze, some just die in winter or do what´s called CCD, absconding.


I guess you must look at more apiaries than I do.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



Oldtimer said:


> I guess you must look at more apiaries than I do.


Apologies.
I meant the situation in my area mostly.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Apologies? No need at all, always interested in your opinions, plus I have no idea about the disease & CCD situation in Germany. I was commenting on my own observations in my own country.



SiWolKe said:


> OT, please explain what you mean about the difference of damage to bees or damage to brood. Do you mean that the damage now is done in an earlier stadium with more dead pupa?


No



SiWolKe said:


> Is there a higher amount of dead brood?


No, gets to about the same stage then the hive dies



SiWolKe said:


> That would mean to me the bees are getting weaker.


 likely more about viral change.



SiWolKe said:


> Or do you mean the bees are getting more immune


No



SiWolKe said:


> pupa infestations and amount of dead pupa the same but less DWV seen?


Yes



SiWolKe said:


> That would mean progress.


Nice thought, but again I think it's about viral change, not necessarily for better or for worse.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

"Further experimental manipulations have shown that this reduction in variant diversity occurs within the bee, not the mite."

Not much conclusion but many questions here. Is it the bees immune system controlling some variants or simply the virus controlling other variants within the bee ? Are the variants gaining dominance good or bad ? Is it the same virus variant becoming dominant or does that vary from hive or by bee variant?

JWC, good article; Progress = finding out how much you do not know.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Thanks, OT.

The old time beekeepers here ( before varroa, over 30 years back) observed defect wings, too, so I´m with Saltybee, many questions.

What changed was the beekeeping methods. Swarm prevention versus swarm multiplying, for example.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

DWV was identified back in the 1970s.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

It has probably co existed with bees and ants for far longer than 40 years, and like most things over thousands of years would have been slowly changing. Just, when varroa infected EHB's it changed the balances.

Before varroa I saw an occasional bee with deformed wings as would have most beekeepers, or the ones working a large number of hives anyway.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

There is currently an interesting discussion about DWV on our local NZ forum, here are 2 posts from today which share some useful information.



Dave Black said:


> RNA viruses (of which DWV is one) replicate rapidly and produce a large heterogeneous population of variants. Some of the new variants are relatively stable, and some disappear as quickly as they arise. The stable variants (master variants) can also produce their own ‘cloud’ of related variants. Through this sheer dumb luck they improve their ability to occupy new hosts by having a handy collection of possible residents already waiting. The host always picks up a lolly mix of related virus particles, not one kind.
> 
> We can’t understand how such a viral infection works without knowing about these variants as a single amino acid substitution can alter the way (or if) the virus replicates inside the cells or how the virus might be recognised by the cell surface. Than mean it might now infect different cells, even though its ‘ancestry’ may be exactly the same.
> 
> ...





JohnF said:


> I think the research topics are being intermingled - the levels of virus do not mean the 'immunisation' with strain B of DWV (earlier research by Steve Martin) is invalid.
> 
> We use the same qPCR techniques in our lab to observe viral levels - collapsing hives certainly have higher levels of DWV as you would expect. But usually the bees look fine. Hence my mention at conference that perhaps we're better to think of this virus as HK1 ("Hive Killer 1").
> 
> Nice summary @Dave Black. One of those who are building their grenade launcher is based in Dunedin now - Graham Wood is building software to pull out and separate the seagulls from the whole flock sequencing (deep or next-generation sequencing as it's termed)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

interesting comments ot, thanks for sharing them here.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Thanks SP, viruses are a fascinating subject and seems like the more one knows, the more there is to know!


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

In 2012, Dr. Martin authored the paper, *Global honey bee viral landscape altered by a parasitic mite.*
A nicely annotated version of this paper is available at: http://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/research-papers/bee-mite-and-virus

This paper (and replicated studies on the "Varroa invasion front" in Scotland and New Zealand) established that varroa very efficiently selects and amplifies the occurrence of select hyper-virulent strains of DWV. DWV otherwise is a highly diverse quasi-species that has variants in many insects -- great paper out of NZ on DWV in ants. 

A central question for TF keepers is the converse: if Varroa selects for hyper-virulence on the invasion front, does Varroa shift and select for hypo-virulence within an established Varroa zone ???

There is a lot of Aristotelian posturing, "Of course, Varroa selects for weakened, benign strains, how can it be otherwise". Except of course, in humans, where virulent parasites are well-studied, and the trajectory towards virulence is well understood.

The balance of evidence is towards maintenance of virulence -- virulence is to the survival advantage of the virus and the mite. Collapsing hives are critical to the ecosystem of infection.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



JWChesnut said:


> Collapsing hives are critical to the ecosystem of infection.


intuitively yes when there is an inexhaustible supply of new colonies to move on to such as is the case in crowded apiaries.

intuitively no when colony density is low enough to make horizontal transmission less likely thereby resulting in a dead end to the virulent strain.

such a dynamic may in part explain the myriad of mite resistant meta populations that have been documented thus far. 

saltybee, your comment about knowing what we don't know is apropos.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

A 2016 paper, co-authored by Dr. Martin, Moku virus; a new Iflavirus found in wasps, honey bees and Varroa 
Open access at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34983

This paper main subject is the identification of a virus related to Slow Bee Paralysis Virus. but found mainly on invasive yellow jacket wasps recently colonizing Hawaii.

The paper discusses competition for replication of the virus within its host, which may explain why the "Moku Virus" dominates over DWV variant A and variant B in the yellow jackets. Yellow jackets are presented as a reservior of infection towards honeybees of both DWV and the other cross infections.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Yet cowpox prevents small pox. Bubonic plague no longer sweeps across the world. Having a willingness to believe TF is not the equivalent of of waiting for the ship to come in. May require a bit of that but a chemical scorched earth is also a bit of a "so far so good".

I do like an ant analogy; I have read that ants do not really hunt for food, more of a mass wandering until they bump into some and then many others join in.

Go TF ants!


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



Oldtimer said:


> Thanks SP, viruses are a fascinating subject and seems like the more one knows, the more there is to know!


Absolutely. Good info OT.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

You also need to look at when mites can acquire and become infectious with DWV. Does the virus use the mite to replicate as well? I guess I could do some reading on it, but viral interactions with their vectors can be quite complex at times or simple, not sure where Varroa and DWV fall in line. For instance, when you look at Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which is thrips transmitted. Thrips can only acquire and become infectious carriers around second or third instar nymphs/larva. Adults do not pick up the virus and become carriers if feeding on infected plants. The virus migrates to their salivary glands and replicates there but can only do so during that specific window of development. It may do the same in later stages, but is unable to replicate so those thrips generally cannot transmit.

Just wondering how varroa pass the virus to each other now, does the foundress infect the pupa during initial feeding and the offspring pick it up then? Or does she pass it on via egg? Or do mites pick it up later after feeding on other infected bees.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

Yes DWV plus a bunch of other viruses do indeed replicate in varroa mites. There are a bunch of studies on this here is one

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141457

I don't know if virus infection or replication is limited to any particular instar stage, or if any of these infections actually make the mites sick. Be an interesting google, but I've not heard of any work being done specifically on that. From the mites perspective, these viruses are probably a bad thing, in that they kill the varroa mites host, something the varroas would be better without.


----------



## antonioh (Oct 15, 2014)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

There is an interesting german publication about bee pathology released this year that stands for three ways of transmission : vertical, horizontal and vectorial. The vectorial pathway woud be by varroa mite and the one that would lead to the morfological alterations . The vertical and horizontal pathways would lead to functional (disturbance in muscular function by alterations in lacking muscular insertions in the exoskeleton produced during the development of pupa) and histological alterations, namely in the central nervous system, where vírus is identified and produce desorientation and behaviour changes. These colonies with infection in the CNS usualy die in winter, although varroa may not be present .


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



antonioh said:


> These colonies with infection in the CNS usualy die in winter, although varroa may not be present .


Very interesting. There has been heated discussion in Finland about hives dying to viruses with (practically) no mites. Some claim that is not possible some say it is.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

A few comments, with no definite conclusions implied.

Publishing a paper does not in itself "prove" new science. Science is a process. You publish a paper, and you should expect challenges and questions and critique of your methods, data, and conclusions. If these fail to be produced, your paper was too unimportant to warrant the response, probably because you played it safe and just did research on what is already known. Before anything can be called proven, you have to stand up to peer scrutiny and someone has to confirm the results. The problem is, if eager amateurs latch onto one study without waiting for scientific rigor. However, careful science-minded amateurs _can_ participate in the process, if they have this mindset of careful and unbiased attempts to perform experiments to confirm or contradict the original.

The history of medicine shows a very long chain of crazy experiments, most of which were duds, but a few of which have made stunning changes in human health. This includes vaccines ... deliberate exposure to small amounts of pathogens, perhaps in weakened form, or closely related species. The first experiments with smallpox vaccinations were clearly nuts. But smallpox is now eliminated worldwide except for a few frozen samples.

The idea of a super-infection is interesting. Maybe a little nuts. Maybe the right strain could be found. I think it more likely that a healthy microbiome will be the answer for bees, as it is doubtful they have much of an immune system. But we could be overlooking something.

Both of these approaches are using scientific tools that were a dream 20 years ago, and pure SF when I was a kid. The structure of DNA was worked out when I was in diapers. The utilization of these tools is spreading, and as new fields start to use them, you can expect some fumbling with the wrench. A very small team applying them for the first few times will probably make some mistakes, and if their work is important enough that anybody pays any attention to it, they may be scolded for errors. If they are any good, the next paper will be better. 

Bees are economically important enough that I expect the body of knowledge and the skills with these tools will advance significantly over the next decade or so. Don't just jump on the first promising paper, but I expect good things if we let science play out.

It would be a big help if we support efforts to find funding for more quality research.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

retag after deleting in error.
cat on keyboard


----------



## e3eridani (Aug 1, 2015)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*

"bee pathology released this year*"
Why did they release it? The mite was not enough?


----------



## antonioh (Oct 15, 2014)

*Re: The "super-infection" exclusion theory contradicted by further research of Dr. Ma*



e3eridani said:


> "bee pathology released this year*"
> Why did they release it? The mite was not enough?


 No. Two years ago they send us SHB. Promised to erradicate it but until now , still going on


----------

