Candidate stress biomarkers for queen failure diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Queen failure is a persistent problem in beekeeping operations, but in the absence of overt symptoms it is often difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the root cause. Stressors like heat-shock, cold-shock, and sublethal pesticide exposure can reduce stored sperm viability and lead to cryptic queen failure. Previously, we suggested candidate protein markers indicating heat-shock in queens. Here, we further investigate these heat-shock markers and test new stressors to identify additional candidate protein markers. RESULTS: We found that heat-shocking queens for upwards of 1 h at 40 °C was necessary to induce significant changes in the two strongest candidate heat-shock markers, and that relative humidity significantly influenced the degree of activation. In blind heat-shock experiments, we tested the efficiency of these markers at assigning queens to their respective treatment groups and found that one marker was sufficient to correctly assign queens 75% of the time. Finally, we compared cold-shocked queens at 4 °C and pesticide-exposed queens to controls to identify candidate markers for these additional stressors, and compared relative abundances of all markers to queens designated as 'healthy' and 'failing' by beekeepers. Queens that failed in the field had higher expression of both heat-shock and pesticide protein markers, but not cold-shock markers. CONCLUSIONS: This work offers some of the first steps towards developing molecular diagnostic tools to aid in determining cryptic causes of queen failure. Further work will be necessary to determine how long after the stress event a marker's expression remains elevated, and how accurate these markers will be for field diagnoses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".