MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415446075 · doi:10.3390/pathogens14111077

Effect of Selection for Low and High Varroa destructor Population Growth Rates on the Honey Bee Transcriptome

2025· article· en· W4415446075 on OpenAlexafffund
Álvaro De la Mora, Paul H. Goodwin, Tatiana Petukhova, Ernesto Guzmán‐Novoa

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsVarroa destructorPopulationTranscriptomeHoney beeWorker beeGeneGenotypeVarroa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Varroa destructor is a major health problem for honey bees (Apis mellifera). Selective breeding of Varroa-resistant bees is a suitable long-term solution to Varroa parasitism. After three generations of selecting honey bees for lower (resistant) and higher (susceptible) V. destructor population growth (LVG and HVG, respectively), LVG bees showed increased behavioral, cellular, and humoral immunity against Varroa. To further analyze resistance, the transcriptomes of both bee genotypes were examined, revealing that parasitized LVG bees had fewer differentially expressed genes (DEGs) than parasitized HVG bees, indicating a reduced impact by Varroa with greater resistance. Annotations of the altered DEGs showed that both genotypes were affected with an increased demand for energy, protein, and repair during parasitism. However, there were also DEGs in LVG bees, possibly related to resistance, such as up-regulation of odorant binding protein genes and down-regulation of the corazonin receptor gene, whereas DEGs in the HVG bees may be more related to stress, such as up-regulation of ATP synthase and down-regulation of the transcription factor dorsal. Overall, this work shows that selection for LVG and HVG bees resulted in genotypes with widespread differences in gene expression during Varroa parasitism, which may be related to resistance and susceptibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogensSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207