Differential Gene Expression Associated with Honey Bee Grooming Behavior in Response to Varroa Mites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honey bee (Apis mellifera) grooming behavior is an important mechanism of resistance against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. This research was conducted to study associations between grooming behavior and the expression of selected immune, neural, detoxification, developmental and health-related genes. Individual bees tested in a laboratory assay for various levels of grooming behavior in response to V. destructor were also analyzed for gene expression. Intense groomers (IG) were most efficient in that they needed significantly less time to start grooming and fewer grooming attempts to successfully remove mites from their bodies than did light groomers (LG). In addition, the relative abundance of the neurexin-1 mRNA, was significantly higher in IG than in LG, no groomers (NG) or control (bees without mite). The abundance of poly U binding factor kd 68 and cytochrome p450 mRNAs were significantly higher in IG than in control bees. The abundance of hymenoptaecin mRNA was significantly higher in IG than in NG, but it was not different from that of control bees. The abundance of vitellogenin mRNA was not changed by grooming activity. However, the abundance of blue cheese mRNA was significantly reduced in IG compared to LG or NG, but not to control bees. Efficient removal of mites by IG correlated with different gene expression patterns in bees. These results suggest that the level of grooming behavior may be related to the expression pattern of vital honey bee genes. Neurexin-1, in particular, might be useful as a bio-marker for behavioral traits in bees.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it