Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30134827›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Transcriptional response of honey bee (Apis mellifera) to differential nutritional status and Nosema infection.

Farida Azzouz-Olden, Arthur Hunt, Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evidence for vitellogenin DNA-binding in honey bees.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Climate change-induced stress in the honey beeFrontiers in physiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The Intestinal Immune Defense System in Insects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Role ofVeterinary sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Improving bee health through genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Farida Azzouz-OldenKentucky State University, 400 East Main Street, Frankfort, KY, 40601, USA. farida.olden@kysu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-1992
Arthur HuntDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546, USA.
Gloria DeGrandi-HoffmanUSDA, ARS, Bee Research Center, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center · USKentucky State University · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

National Science Foundation EPS-0814194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBees are confronting several environmental challenges, including the intermingled effects of malnutrition and disease. Intuitively, pollen is the healthiest nutritional choice, however, commercial substitutes, such as Bee-Pro and MegaBee, are widely used. Herein we examined how feeding natural and artificial diets shapes transcription in the abdomen of the honey bee, and how transcription shifts in combination with Nosema parasitism.

resultsGene ontology enrichment revealed that, compared with poor diet (carbohydrates [C]), bees fed pollen (P > C), Bee-Pro (B > C), and MegaBee (M > C) showed a broad upregulation of metabolic processes, especially lipids; however, pollen feeding promoted more functions, and superior proteolysis. The superiority of the pollen diet was also evident through the remarkable overexpression of vitellogenin in bees fed pollen instead of MegaBee or Bee-Pro. Upregulation of bioprocesses under carbohydrates feeding compared to pollen (C > P) provided a clear poor nutritional status, uncovering stark expression changes that were slight or absent relatively to Bee-Pro (C > B) or MegaBee (C > M). Poor diet feeding (C > P) induced starvation response genes and hippo signaling pathway, while it repressed growth through different mechanisms. Carbohydrate feeding (C > P) also elicited 'adult behavior', and developmental processes suggesting transition to foraging. Finally, it altered the 'circadian rhythm', reflecting the role of this mechanism in the adaptation to nutritional stress in mammals. Nosema-infected bees fed pollen compared to carbohydrates (PN > CN) upheld certain bioprocesses of uninfected bees (P > C). Poor nutritional status was more apparent against pollen (CN > PN) than Bee-Pro (CN > BN) or MegaBee (CN > MN). Nosema accentuated the effects of malnutrition since more starvation-response genes and stress response mechanisms were upregulated in CN > PN compared to C > P. The bioprocess 'Macromolecular complex assembly' was also enriched in CN > PN, and involved genes associated with human HIV and/or influenza, thus providing potential candidates for bee-Nosema interactions. Finally, the enzyme Duox emerged as essential for guts defense in bees, similarly to Drosophila.

conclusionsThese results provide evidence of the superior nutritional status of bees fed pollen instead of artificial substitutes in terms of overall health, even in the presence of a pathogen.

Indexed as

NosemaAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsBeesDietHost-Pathogen InteractionsMicrosporidiosisPollenTranscriptomeHoney beeImmunityNosemaNutritionRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID30134827
PMCPMC6106827
OpenAlexW2888654727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.