Diversity of Potential Resistance Mechanisms in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Selected for Low Population Growth of the Parasitic Mite, Varroa destructor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honey bees (Apis mellifera) bred for resistance to the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, were examined for potential Varroa resistance mechanisms following bidirectional selection for low (resistant) or high (susceptible) Varroa population growth (LVG and HVG, respectively) based on mite fall in colonies at two different time points. Hygienic and grooming behavior rates in LVG colonies were significantly higher than those in HVG colonies for two out of three generations of selection, indicating that behavioral resistance to the mite increased. For the third generation, grooming start time was significantly shorter, and grooming intensity more frequent in LVG bees than in HVG bees. Cellular immunity was increased as well, based on significantly higher haemocyte concentrations in non-parasitized and Varroa-parasitized LVG bees. Humoral immunity was increased with Varroa-parasitized LVG bees, which had significantly higher expression of the antimicrobial peptide gene, hymenoptaecin 2. In addition, antiviral resistance may be involved as there were significantly lower levels of deformed wing virus (DWV) in Varroa-parasitized LVG bees. While selection for LVG and HVG bees was solely based on Varroa population growth, it appears that behavioral, cellular, and humoral mechanisms were all selected along with this resistance. Thus, LVG resistance appears to be a multi-gene trait, involving multiple resistance mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".