ArticleThe ISME journal2026
Host and microbial factors influence bacterial colonization of the honey bee gut.
Article in The ISME journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The guts of many animals are colonized by host-specific microbes, yet how host filtering (host-derived constraints) shapes microbial colonization and host specificity remains poorly understood. Here, we used gnotobiotic honey bees (Apis mellifera) as a model system to systematically assess colonization potential of a phylogenetically and ecologically diverse panel of 56 bacterial strains, spanning native symbionts, opportunistic bee-associated taxa, gut microbes from other bee species, and non-bee environmental isolates. Bacterial load and colonization frequency were quantified by strain-specific qPCR seven days post-inoculation, in monocolonization and with a synthetic community of native honeybee core bacteria. Bacterial load was highest for native strains and declined with increasing phylogenetic distance from native symbionts. Co-colonization with the synthetic community reduced bacterial load across all groups, but native strains were least affected. Across strains, KEGG pathway completeness correlated with bacterial load in some ecological groups; however, metabolic capacity did not fully explain colonization patterns, either in monocolonization or under competitive conditions. A key finding was that in vitro sensitivity to antimicrobial peptides (AMPs; apidaecin, abaecin, defensins, and hymenoptaecin) varied widely among strains and was highest in closely related bee-associated bacteria. Even highly successful colonizers such as Gilliamella and Snodgrassella were AMP-sensitive. AMP sensitivity showed a negative correlation with bacterial load, but not with the frequency of host colonization. These findings suggest that AMPs modulate symbiont abundance rather than acting as strict barriers to colonization. Overall, our results reveal that host filtering in the bee gut is multifaceted, integrating immune-mediated barriers, microbial traits, and competitive interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.