↓ Skip to main content

Bacterial community associated with worker honeybees (Apis mellifera) affected by European foulbrood

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bacterial community associated with worker honeybees (Apis mellifera) affected by European foulbrood
Published in
PeerJ, September 2017
DOI 10.7717/peerj.3816
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas Erban, Ondrej Ledvinka, Martin Kamler, Bronislava Hortova, Marta Nesvorna, Jan Tyl, Dalibor Titera, Martin Markovic, Jan Hubert

Abstract

Melissococcus plutonius is an entomopathogenic bacterium that causes European foulbrood (EFB), a honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) disease that necessitates quarantine in some countries. In Czechia, positive evidence of EFB was absent for almost 40 years, until an outbreak in the Krkonose Mountains National Park in 2015. This occurrence of EFB gave us the opportunity to study the epizootiology of EFB by focusing on the microbiome of honeybee workers, which act as vectors of honeybee diseases within and between colonies. The study included worker bees collected from brood combs of colonies (i) with no signs of EFB (EFB0), (ii) without clinical symptoms but located at an apiary showing clinical signs of EFB (EFB1), and (iii) with clinical symptoms of EFB (EFB2). In total, 49 samples from 27 honeybee colonies were included in the dataset evaluated in this study. Each biological sample consisted of 10 surface-sterilized worker bees processed for DNA extraction. All subjects were analyzed using conventional PCR and by metabarcoding analysis based on the 16S rRNA gene V1-V3 region, as performed through Illumina MiSeq amplicon sequencing. The bees from EFB2 colonies with clinical symptoms exhibited a 75-fold-higher incidence of M. plutonius than those from EFB1 asymptomatic colonies. Melissococcus plutonius was identified in all EFB1 colonies as well as in some of the control colonies. The proportions of Fructobacillus fructosus, Lactobacillus kunkeei, Gilliamella apicola, Frischella perrara, and Bifidobacterium coryneforme were higher in EFB2 than in EFB1, whereas Lactobacillus mellis was significantly higher in EFB2 than in EFB0. Snodgrassella alvi and L. melliventris, L. helsingborgensis and, L. kullabergensis exhibited higher proportion in EFB1 than in EFB2 and EFB0. The occurrence of Bartonella apis and Commensalibacter intestini were higher in EFB0 than in EFB2 and EFB1. Enterococcus faecalis incidence was highest in EFB2. High-throughput Illumina sequencing permitted a semi-quantitative analysis of the presence of M. plutonius within the honeybee worker microbiome. The results of this study indicate that worker bees from EFB-diseased colonies are capable of transmitting M. plutonius due to the greatly increased incidence of the pathogen. The presence of M. plutonius sequences in control colonies supports the hypothesis that this pathogen exists in an enzootic state. The bacterial groups synergic to both the colonies with clinical signs of EFB and the EFB-asymptomatic colonies could be candidates for probiotics. This study confirms that E. faecalis is a secondary invader to M. plutonius; however, other putative secondary invaders were not identified in this study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Unspecified 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,881,730
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#3,135
of 13,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,057
of 320,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#100
of 371 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 371 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.