Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38295039›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Thinking inside the box: Restoring the propolis envelope facilitates honey bee social immunity.

Maggie Shanahan, Michael Simone-Finstrom, Philip Tokarz, Frank Rinkevich, Quentin D Read, Marla Spivak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maggie ShanahanDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8190-6573
Michael Simone-FinstromHoney Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Research Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2938-9788
Philip TokarzHoney Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Research Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.
Frank RinkevichHoney Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Research Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.
Quentin D ReadUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Southeast Area, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4315-5582
Marla SpivakDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Agricultural Research Service · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUnited States Department of Agriculture · US

Funding

Project Apis m.United States Department of Agriculture
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When wild honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) nest in hollow tree cavities, they coat the rough cavity walls with a continuous layer of propolis, a substance comprised primarily of plant resins. Studies have shown that the resulting "propolis envelope" leads to both individual- and colony-level health benefits. Unfortunately, the smooth wooden boxes most commonly used in beekeeping do little to stimulate propolis collection. As a result, most managed bees live in hives that are propolis-poor. In this study, we assessed different surface texture treatments (rough wood boxes, boxes outfitted with propolis traps, and standard, smooth wood boxes) in terms of their ability to stimulate propolis collection, and we examined the effect of propolis on colony health, pathogen loads, immune gene expression, bacterial gene expression, survivorship, and honey production in both stationary and migratory beekeeping contexts. We found that rough wood boxes are the most effective box type for stimulating propolis deposition. Although the use of rough wood boxes did not improve colony survivorship overall, Melissococcus plutonius detections via gene expression were significantly lower in rough wood boxes, and viral loads for multiple viruses tended to decrease as propolis deposition increased. By the end of year one, honey bee populations in migratory rough box colonies were also significantly larger than those in migratory control colonies. The use of rough wood boxes did correspond with decreased honey production in year one migratory colonies but had no effect during year two. Finally, in both stationary and migratory operations, propolis deposition was correlated with a seasonal decrease and/or stabilization in the expression of multiple immune and bacterial genes, suggesting that propolis-rich environments contribute to hive homeostasis. These findings provide support for the practical implementation of rough box hives as a means to enhance propolis collection and colony health in multiple beekeeping contexts.

Indexed as

AscomycotaHoneyPropolisUrticariaAnimalsBeekeepingBeesPropolis

Identifiers

PMID38295039
PMCPMC10830010
OpenAlexW4391382856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.