Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35055848›Full record

ArticleInsects2021

In Vitro Rearing Changes Social Task Performance and Physiology in Honeybees.

Felix Schilcher, Lioba Hilsmann, Lisa Rauscher, Laura Değirmenci, Markus Krischke, Beate Krischke, Markus Ankenbrand, Benjamin Rutschmann, Martin J Mueller, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. BalancingInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felix SchilcherBiocentre, Department of Behavioural Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Lioba HilsmannBiocentre, Department of Behavioural Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Lisa RauscherBiocentre, Department of Behavioural Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Laura DeğirmenciBiocentre, Department of Behavioural Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Markus KrischkeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Julius-von-Sachs-Platz 2, 97082 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2738-0053
Beate KrischkeBiocentre, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Markus AnkenbrandCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology (CCTB), Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Klara-Oppenheimer-Weg 32, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6620-807X
Benjamin RutschmannBiocentre, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6589-6408
Martin J MuellerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Julius-von-Sachs-Platz 2, 97082 Würzburg, Germany.
Ingolf Steffan-DewenterBiocentre, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1359-3944
Ricarda ScheinerBiocentre, Department of Behavioural Physiology and Sociobiology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7515-4253
University of Würzburg · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HA 5324/2-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SCHE 1573/9-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro rearing of honeybee larvae is an established method that enables exact control and monitoring of developmental factors and allows controlled application of pesticides or pathogens. However, only a few studies have investigated how the rearing method itself affects the behavior of the resulting adult honeybees. We raised honeybees in vitro according to a standardized protocol: marking the emerging honeybees individually and inserting them into established colonies. Subsequently, we investigated the behavioral performance of nurse bees and foragers and quantified the physiological factors underlying the social organization. Adult honeybees raised in vitro differed from naturally reared honeybees in their probability of performing social tasks. Further, in vitro-reared bees foraged for a shorter duration in their life and performed fewer foraging trips. Nursing behavior appeared to be unaffected by rearing condition. Weight was also unaffected by rearing condition. Interestingly, juvenile hormone titers, which normally increase strongly around the time when a honeybee becomes a forager, were significantly lower in three- and four-week-old in vitro bees. The effects of the rearing environment on individual sucrose responsiveness and lipid levels were rather minor. These data suggest that larval rearing conditions can affect the task performance and physiology of adult bees despite equal weight, pointing to an important role of the colony environment for these factors. Our observations of behavior and metabolic pathways offer important novel insight into how the rearing environment affects adult honeybees.

Indexed as

artificial rearingbehaviorforaginghoneybeein vitrojuvenile hormonenursingPERtriglycerides

Identifiers

PMID35055848
PMCPMC8779213
OpenAlexW4200093695

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.