Heritability of Apis mellifera recapping behavior and suppressed mite reproduction as resistance traits towards Varroa destructor

Mite non-reproduction is not a consequence of the brood removal behavior of varroa sensitive hygiene honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera)

A sustainable solution to the global threat of the Varroa destructor mite is the selection of varroa-resistant honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Both "mite non-reproduction" (MNR) and "varroa sensitive hygiene" (VSH) appear to be promising selection traits for achieving the goal of a resistant honey bee. MNR describes colonies that have a high number of non-reproductive mites (no offspring, no males, or delayed development of mite offspring). High numbers of non-reproductive mites have been observed in selected colonies, but the mechanism behind this trait has not yet been identified. The specialized hygienic behavior of selected honey bees, called VSH, is the removal of varroa-infested brood. These traits were thought to be linked by VSH bees preferentially removing reproductive varroa females leaving only non-reproductive mites behind in cells and thus creating colonies with high levels of MNR. To further investigate this link, we used an experimental setup and data sets from a four-year selection project designed to breed for MNR and VSH colonies. In addition, we sought to answer the question of whether non-reproductive mites are a direct consequence of worker removal behavior. To test this, we artificially induced removal behavior, and after providing the mite with enough time to re-enter another cell, we opened all capped cells, relocated the mites, and evaluated their reproduction. As shown in previous studies and in this study, VSH had no effect on MNR levels. Also, the induced removal behavior did not lead to non-reproduction in the subsequent reproductive cycle post interruption. We thus concluded that breeding for non-reproductive mites does not automatically breed for VSH behavior and worker removal behavior does not cause subsequent reproductive failure of the mites forced to flee and find a new cell for reproduction.

Comprehensive Approach to Phenotype Varroa destructor Reproduction in Honey Bee Drone Brood and Its Correlation with Decreased Mite Reproduction (DMR)

The mechanisms of action behind decreased mite reproduction (DMR) are still unknown, but current hypotheses state that DMR is the result of brood-intrinsic and/or external disturbances in the V. destructor-honey bee pupa signal interactions. For accurate and precise DMR phenotyping, sufficient single infested honey bee brood cells are required (e.g., 35), which requires extensive labor and time and may exclude many samples not reaching the threshold. We defined a new comprehensive trait called the 'mean V. destructor reproduction rate' (mVR), which describes the mean number of offspring mites per infested cell in the sample while compensating for the reduced number of offspring with increasing multiple infested cells. We found a significant correlation between mVR and DMR, allowing for an estimation of DMR based on the mVR only. When the mVR was calculated with 10 infested cells, we found an average variation in mVR of 16.8%. For the same variation in DMR determination, 40 single infested cells are required. This broader look at V. destructor resistance phenotyping can improve the applicability and effectiveness of traits related to V. destructor reproduction in honey bee breeding programs.

Population-wide modelling reveals prospects of marker-assisted selection for parasitic mite resistance in honey bees

In 2019, a joint eight-variant model was published in which eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in seven Apis mellifera genes were associated with Varroa destructor drone brood resistance (DBR, i.e. mite non-reproduction in drone brood). As this model was derived from only one Darwinian Black Bee Box colony, it could not directly be applied on a population-overarching scale in the northern part of Belgium (Flanders), where beekeepers prefer the carnica subspecies. To determine whether these eight SNPs remained associated with the DBR trait on a Flemish colony-broad scope, we performed population-wide modelling through sampling of various A. mellifera carnica colonies, DBR scoring of Varroa-infested drone brood and variant genotyping. Novel eight-variant modelling was performed and the classification performance of the eight SNPs was evaluated. Besides, we built a reduced three-variant model retaining only three genetic variants and found that this model classified 76% of the phenotyped drones correctly. To examine the spread of beneficial alleles and predict the DBR probability distribution in Flanders, we determined the allelic frequencies of the three variants in 292 A. mellifera carnica queens. As such, this research reveals prospects of marker-assisted selection for Varroa drone brood resistance in honeybees.

Reproduction of Varroa destructor depends on well-timed host cell recapping and seasonal patterns

Resistance traits of honeybees (Apis mellifera) against their major parasite Varroa destructor have fascinated scientists and breeders for long. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying resistance are still largely unknown. The same applies to possible interactions between host behaviours, mite reproduction and seasonal differences. Two resistance traits, reproductive failure of mites and recapping of brood cells, are of particular interest. High rates of recapping at the colony level were found to correspond with low reproductive success of mites. However, the direct effect of recapping on mite reproduction is still controversial and both traits seem to be very variable in their expression. Thus, a deeper knowledge of both, the effect of recapping on mite reproduction and the seasonal differences in the expression of these traits is urgently needed. To shed light on this host-parasite interaction, we investigated recapping and mite reproduction in full-grown colonies naturally infested with V. destructor. Measurements were repeated five times per year over the course of 3 years. The reproductive success of mites as well as the recapping frequency clearly followed seasonal patterns. Thereby, reproductive failure of mites at the cell level was constantly increased in case of recapping. Interestingly, this did not apply to the occurrence of infertile mites. In line with this, recapping activity in fertile cells was most frequent in brood ages in which mite offspring would be expected. Our results suggest that mite offspring is the main target of recapping. This, in turn, leads to a significantly reduced reproductive success of the parasite.