Defense Response in Brazilian Honey Bees (Apis mellifera scutellata × spp.) Is Underpinned by Complex Patterns of Admixture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1957, an invasive and highly defensive honey bee began to spread across Brazil. In the previous year, Brazilian researchers hoped to produce a subtropical-adapted honey bee by crossing local commercial honey bees (of European origin) with a South African honey bee subspecies (Apis mellifera scutellata; an A-lineage honey bee subspecies). The resulting cross-African hybrid honey bees (AHBs)-escaped from their enclosure and spread through the Americas. Today, AHB is the most common honey bee from Northern Argentina to the Southern United States. AHBs are much more likely to sting nest intruders than managed European-derived honey bee colonies. Previous studies have explored how genetic variation contributes to differences in defense response between European-derived honey bee and AHB. Although this work demonstrated very strong genetic effects on defense response, they have yet to pinpoint which genes influence variation in defense response within AHBs, specifically. We quantified defense response for 116 colonies in Brazil and performed pooled sequencing on the most phenotypically divergent samples. We identified 65 loci containing 322 genes that were significantly associated with defense response. Loci were strongly associated with metabolic function, consistent with previous functional genomic analyses of this phenotype. Additionally, defense-associated loci had nonrandom and unexpected patterns of admixture. Defense response was not simply the product of more A-lineage honey bee ancestry as previously assumed, but rather an interaction between A-lineage and European alleles. Our results suggest that a combination of A-lineage and European alleles play roles in defensive behavior in AHBs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".