In a recently published paper, Leonard et al. (2020) described a genetically modified gut bacterium for the delivery of dsRNA to adult honey bees. Furthermore, by engineering the symbiont to interfere with the expression of some Varroa genes, the authors showed the potential of this method for the control of the most important threat to honey bees: the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. The paper, beyond presenting a powerful, novel tool for the study of functional genomics in bees, rekindled hopes that an effective method to control the Varroa mite could be developed (Paxton, 2020). However, a careful evaluation of the proposed method in light of ecological and evolutionary principles reveals that it may be less promising than hoped.
The need to consider honey bee diseases in the framework of ecological and evolutionary principles has been recognized (Brosi et al., 2017); however, some peculiar features of the biological cycle of V. destructor, have been overlooked so far. Importantly, little attention has been paid to the possible adaptation of the mite (Eliash and Mikheyev, 2020).
The Varroa mite, together with the pathogenic deformed wing virus, causes huge losses of honey bee colonies in the northern hemisphere (Carreck and Neumann, 2010), threatening the pollination service provided by Apis mellifera (Potts et al., 2010). The mite's life cycle includes a phoretic phase, on adult bees, and a reproductive phase, within the brood cells (Nazzi and Le Conte, 2016). Only mites entering a brood cell before sealing can reproduce while phoretic mites are exposed to high mortality, including that caused by control methods applied by beekeepers. In fact, most available chemical control methods for the mite, including both synthetic chemicals (e.g., the pyrethroid Tau-fluvalinate), essential oil components (e.g., Thymol), and widely used organic acids (e.g., Oxalic acid), act only upon phoretic mites (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Actually, even the possible novel methods based upon engineered symbionts (Leonard et al., 2020), would act primarily upon phoretic mites; in fact, differently from adult bees, the preimaginal stages, where mite reproduction takes place, are colonized only by an erratic gut community (Kwong and Moran, 2016) and may therefore be not suited for a method based on an engineered gut bacterium.
Therefore, we can conclude that the majority of control methods, by impacting the parasites on adult bees, likely select for mite strains with a reduced phoretic phase, resulting in a high proportion of mites in brood, and an accelerated population growth.
Any possible hereditary trait influencing mite's cell invasion, such as, for example, a differential response to semiochemicals from brood cells (Nazzi et al., 2004), would determine the proportion of mites in brood and thus reproduction. Therefore, such traits play a critical role in the development of infestation and are likely under intense selective pressure. However, some interventions can influence the mortality of mites within brood cells, thus attenuating that pressure (Figure 1). These methods include the selection of hygienic bees that recognize and remove infested brood, biotechnical control methods based upon brood removal and possible chemicals capable of crossing the cell sealing (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). As shown in figure legend, these latter control methods could balance the increase in the mite's invasion rate caused by the repeated use of currently available control methods; this, in turn, may have an important impact on the growth of the mite population. In fact, a selection program based on brood removal actually lead to the selection of an hypo-virulent mite strain (Milani et al., 1999).
Figure 1
Clearly, mite transfer between hives could hinder the development of such hypo-virulent mite populations and care should be taken to minimize this risk, for example by preventing robbing which represents a common cause of mite importation from collapsing hives into colonies with limited mite infestation (Greatti et al., 1992).
Indeed reinfestation, through which mites leading bee colonies to collapse can escape this dead end and get transferred to a new healtier colony, represents a critical point to be carefully considered under the evolutionary perspective outlined here.
Only sustainable beekeeping based upon an efficient control of Varroa mite, grounded on the evolutionary interpretation of this host-parasite interaction, will guarantee pollination continuity in a changing world.
Statements
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge Robert J. Paxton for the constructive discussion.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
BrosiB. J.DelaplaneK. S.BootsM.de RoodeJ. C. (2017). Ecological and evolutionary approaches to managing honeybee disease. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1250–1262. 10.1038/s41559-017-0246-z
2
CarreckN.NeumannP. (2010). Honey bee colony losses. J. Apic. Res. 49, 1. 10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.01
3
EliashN.MikheyevA. (2020). Varroa mite evolution: a neglected aspect of worldwide bee collapses?Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 39, 21–26. 10.1016/j.cois.2019.11.004
4
GreattiM.MilaniN.NazziF. (1992). Reinfestation of an acaricide-treated apiary by Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 16, 279–286. 10.1007/BF01218569
5
KwongW. K.MoranN. A. (2016). Gut microbial communities of social bees. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 374–384. 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.43
6
LeonardS. P.PowellJ. E.PerutkaJ.GengP.HeckmannL. C.HorakR. D.et al. (2020). Engineered symbionts activate honey bee immunity and limit pathogens. Science367, 573–576. 10.1126/science.aax9039
7
MilaniN.PechhackerH.Della VedovaG. (1999). Reduced fertility in a European population of Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans. Apidologie30, 435–436. 10.1051/apido:19990211
8
NazziF.Le ConteY. (2016). Ecology of Varroa destructor, the major ectoparasite of the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 61, 417–432. 10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023731
9
NazziF.MilaniN.Della VedovaG. (2004). A semiochemical from larval food influences the entrance of Varroa destructor into brood cells. Apidologie35, 403–410. 10.1051/apido:2004023
10
PaxtonR. J. (2020). A microbiome silver bullet for honey bees. Science367, 504–506. 10.1126/science.aba6135
11
PottsS. G.BiesmeijerJ. C.KremenC.NeumannP. (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353. 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
12
RosenkranzP.AumeierP.ZiegelmannB. (2010). Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 103Suppl 1, S96–119. 10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.016
Summary
Keywords
Varroa destructor, control, evolution, honey bee (Apis mellifera L.), virulence
Citation
Nazzi F (2020) Commentary: Engineered symbionts activate honey bee immunity and limit pathogens. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8:538520. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.538520
Received
28 February 2020
Accepted
21 August 2020
Published
22 September 2020
Volume
8 - 2020
Edited by
David Baltrus, University of Arizona, United States
Reviewed by
Samuel Ramsey, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Nazzi.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Francesco Nazzi francesco.nazzi@uniud.it
This article was submitted to Coevolution, a section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.