MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Honeybee glands as possible infection reservoirs of Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis in naturally infected forager bees

2011· article· en· W1552138549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanya Copley, Suha Jabaji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersApplied Materials
KeywordsNosema ceranaeNosemaBiologyZoologySporeMicrosporidiaMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To determine whether Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis are present in different gland tissues of honeybee, Apis mellifera L. and to monitor spore presence and quantity in these glands in naturally infected hives from July 2009 to July 2010 in Quebec, Canada. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nosema spp. were quantified using duplex quantitative real-time PCR in the thoracic salivary, hypopharyngeal, mandibular glands, and venom sac and glands of A. mellifera over a period of 8 months. Both Nosema species were present in all the glands as single or mixed species; however, N. apis was not present as single-species detections in the salivary glands (see Table 2). Nosema ceranae was more prevalent throughout the 8 months. Significant correlative relationships were established for N. ceranae and N. apis levels in the honeybee glands and those found within the intestines of forager honeybees. Overall, the seasonality of N. ceranae and N. apis in the different glands tightly followed the seasonal patterns in the honeybee guts. CONCLUSIONS: Nosema ceranae and N. apis are not tissue specific, and honeybee glands have potential to become a useful indicator of the extent of disease in the colony and may represent a potential infection reservoir. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: First report of spore load quantification of Nosema spp. in different honeybee glands.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207