The gut microbiome differs between hygiene-performing and non-hygiene-performing worker honey bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gut microbiomes play a significant role in the health, development, and behavior of numerous species, including honey bees ( Apis mellifera ). Worker honey bees exhibit varying degrees of hygienic behavior, which involves the removal of unhealthy brood to mitigate disease within their colony. However, the potential relationship between hygienic behavior and the honey bee gut microbiome has not been previously investigated. In this study, we compared gut microbiota in honey bees engaged in hygienic behavior (hygiene performers) versus those not exhibiting this behavior (non-hygiene performers) using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria were identified as the predominant phyla. Notably, three bacterial species ( Apilactobacillus kunkeei , Bartonella apis, and Frischella perrara ) were found to be more abundant in hygiene performer bees compared to non-hygiene performer bees. Additionally, hygiene performer bees showed a higher diversity of amplicon sequence variants, with Apibacter mensalis being exclusively present in hygiene performer bees and absent in non-hygiene performer bees. These findings reveal an association between gut microbiota composition and hygienic behavior in honey bees, which may provide a foundation for future research exploring probiotic development and other strategies to enhance honey bee health.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".