Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31800608›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

The effect of carbohydrate sources: Sucrose, invert sugar and components of mānuka honey, on core bacteria in the digestive tract of adult honey bees (Apis mellifera).

Michelle A Taylor, Alastair W Robertson, Patrick J Biggs, Kate K Richards, Daniel F Jones, Shanthi G Parkar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Frontiers in insect science · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Isolation and characterization ofSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  20. Comparison of gut bacterial communities ofBiodiversity data journal · 2023
    Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle A TaylorBee Biology & Productivity, Productive Biodiversity and Pollination, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Hamilton, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7768-8072
Alastair W RobertsonWildlife & Ecology, School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-6894-2158
Patrick J BiggsMolecular Epidemiology & Public Health Laboratory, Infectious Disease Research Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0285-4101
Kate K RichardsStatistical Science, Data Science, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
Daniel F JonesBioinformatics, Molecular & Digital Breeding, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
Shanthi G ParkarMicrobiome & Metabolism, Food Nutrition & Health, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Plant & Food Research · NZMassey University · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteria within the digestive tract of adult honey bees are likely to play a key role in the digestion of sugar-rich foods. However, the influence of diet on honey bee gut bacteria is not well understood. During periods of low floral abundance, beekeepers often supplement the natural sources of carbohydrate that honey bees collect, such as nectar, with various forms of carbohydrates such as sucrose (a disaccharide) and invert sugar (a mixture of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose). We compared the effect of these sugar supplements on the relative abundance of bacteria in the gut of bees by feeding bees from a single colony, two natural diets: mānuka honey, a monofloral honey with known antibacterial properties, and a hive diet; and artificial diets of invert sugar, sucrose solution, and sucrose solutions containing synthesised compounds associated with the antibacterial properties of mānuka honey. 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA)-based sequencing showed that dietary regimes containing mānuka honey, sucrose and invert sugar did not alter the relative abundance of dominant core bacteria after 6 days of being fed these diets. However, sucrose-rich diets increased the relative abundances of three sub-dominant core bacteria, Rhizobiaceae, Acetobacteraceae, and Lactobacillus kunkeei, and decreased the relative abundance of Frischella perrara, all which significantly altered the bacterial composition. Acetogenic bacteria from the Rhizobiaceae and Acetobacteraceae families increased two- to five-fold when bees were fed sucrose. These results suggest that sucrose fuels the proliferation of specific low abundance primary sucrose-feeders, which metabolise sugars into monosaccharides, and then to acetate.

Indexed as

BeesAnimalsBacteriaCarbohydratesGastrointestinal TractHoneyMicrobiotaNew ZealandPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSucroseCarbohydratesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSucrose

Identifiers

PMID31800608
PMCPMC6892475
OpenAlexW2993617796

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.