4.4 Article

Nutrigenetic comparison of two Varroa-resistant honey bee stocks fed pollen and spirulina microalgae

期刊

APIDOLOGIE
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 873-886

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s13592-021-00877-3

关键词

Apis mellifera; nutritional genetics; breeding; lipids; vitellogenin

资金

  1. USDA-ARS research plan [501-2022-050 017]
  2. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2021-67013-33556]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variation influences responses to natural and artificial diets in Varroa-resistant Pol-line and Russian honey bee stocks. Different diet types have strong effects on sugar intake, body weight, fat body lipid content, and vitellogenin expression. Bee stock and colony significantly impact nutritional response.
We tested the influence of genetic variation on responses to natural and artificial diets in Varroa-resistant Pol-line and Russian honey bee stocks. Newly emerged workers from six colonies per stock were fed pollen, spirulina (blue-green microalgae), and sucrose-only diets in 144 total cages. Diet type had a strong effect on sugar intake, body weight, fat body lipid content, and vitellogenin (vg) expression. Spirulina consumption was approximately half that of pollen, but led to higher head weights, equivalent thorax weights and vg levels, and marginally reduced fat body lipids. Bee stock and colony had a significant impact on nutritional response. Despite equivalent diet intakes, Pol-line bees accumulated higher lipid levels and consumed less sugar overall than Russian bees. Furthermore, pollen-fed bees sourced from Pol-line colonies had significantly higher vg levels. These differences in nutrient and energy allocation may reflect life history-related physiological tradeoffs. Our results suggest that genotype-dependent nutritional responses are present in honey bees, with promising implications for breeding efforts and tailored approaches to diet and health in a changing global climate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据