Bees to scientists: 'We're more complicated than you think'

Bees to scientists: 'We're more complicated than you think'
The researchers maintained their bumblebee colonies in nest boxes in the laboratory. They supplied the insects with a sugar solution and fresh pollen collected from honey bee colonies. Credit: Mario Padilla, Penn State

Chemical signaling among social insects, such as bees, ants and wasps, is more complex than previously thought, according to researchers at Penn State and Tel Aviv University, whose results refute the idea that a single group of chemicals controls reproduction across numerous species.

"While the hypothesis that many social insect lineages all use the same chemical signals—known as pheromones—was fascinating, we were skeptical that such complex behaviors could be regulated by a simple, common mechanism across such very different species," said Etya Amsalem, postdoctoral fellow in entomology, Penn State. "It seems more likely that pheromones evolved uniquely in different species, as these species experienced different environments and different social pressures."

The results appear in today's (Oct 21) issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

According to Amsalem, in January 2014, a study was published suggesting that the chemical signals produced by queens from a variety of species, including bumblebees, ants and wasps, are very similar. The paper posited that this common group of chemicals is responsible for inhibiting reproduction in workers across these different species.

"One of the most fascinating behaviors in social insects is that most of the females in a colony (the workers) do not lay their own , and instead help rear the eggs produced by their mother (the queen)," said Amsalem. "In some species, it is known that the queen produces pheromones, to inhibit the workers from reproducing."

The previous study examined the ovaries of worker bumblebees in the presence of putative queen pheromones to see if they were active—producing eggs—inactive, or regressed. Regressed ovaries are those in which the developing eggs have absorbed back into the tissue.

Bees to scientists: 'We're more complicated than you think'
The researchers demonstrated that social insects, including bees, ants and wasps, are more complex than previously was thought. Credit: Nick Sloff, Penn State

The researchers found that exposure to a putative queen pheromone, c25, caused increased levels of ovary regression, but had no other effects," said Amsalem.

Amsalem and her colleagues—which include Christina Grozinger, professor and director of the Center for Pollinator Research, Penn State—decided to conduct their own study to see if c25 and two closely related chemicals, c23 and c27, inhibit worker reproduction using a North American species of bumblebee—Bombus impatiens. They examined the workers' ovaries, evaluated the size of the developing eggs in the ovaries to determine if they were mature and ready to lay, and monitored the numbers of eggs laid by the workers and how long it took for workers to lay eggs.

"We found no effect of exposure to any of the chemicals on the size of the developing eggs, the number of eggs laid or how long it took for the bees to lay eggs," Grozinger said. "Interestingly, we did find that all three chemicals increased the rates of ovary regression. However, ovary regression was positively correlated with time to egg laying. The earlier the workers laid eggs, the more bees showed ovary regression by the end of the experiment. We conclude that ovary regression is likely more a measure of active egg production than evidence for inhibition of egg production." According to Grozinger, overall the results demonstrate that these chemi cals do not inhibit ovarian activation in workers.

The researchers said that their team's study contributes to a larger debate concerning how pheromonal signals might evolve and how social behavior is maintained. It also contributes to the debate about which measures should be used to investigate queen bee effects on worker reproduction.

"We have learned that pheromone biology is not as simple as was once believed," Grozinger said. "It is not accurate to conclude that worker reproduction is regulated by a simple, common mechanism across different species. Instead, these pheromones likely evolved uniquely in different species. Beyond these chemicals, there may be many more complex and -specific signals being used by that are yet to be discovered."


Explore further

Single class of queen pheromones stops worker reproduction in ants, bees and wasps

More information: A conserved class of queen pheromones? Re-evaluating the evidence in bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) , Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, rspb.royalsocietypublishing.or … .1098/rspb.2015.1800
Citation: Bees to scientists: 'We're more complicated than you think' (2015, October 21) retrieved 17 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-10-bees-scientists-complicated.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
303 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 21, 2015
"these pheromones likely evolved uniquely in different species. Beyond these chemicals, there may be many more complex and species-specific signals being used by social insects that are yet to be discovered."

Hear that noise? It's JVK's head exploding.

JVK
Oct 21, 2015
Thanks.

They are supporting the claim that a single nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution differentiates the cell types of different castes and of different species via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.

This is another refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense that clearly shows the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of cell type differentiation links ecological variation to ecological adaptation.

They have not linked mutations to evolution, and neither has anyone else who is a serious scientist. Only biologically uninformed population geneticists have done that. Their heads are empty, so there is no danger of heads exploding via whatever knowledge of biologically-based cause and effect somehow slips into their empty heads.

2013 http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
1996 http://www.hawaii...ion.html

JVK
Oct 21, 2015
A conserved class of queen pheromones? Re-evaluating the evidence in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) http://rspb.royal...20151800

Conclusion: "....we recommend consideration of the ample evidence suggesting reproduction is monopolized through a combination of chemical and behavioural means and depends upon worker density rather than depend solely on pheromones [27,39]."

This is consistent with the representations of quorum sensing pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in bacteria.

Bacterial Quorum-Sensing Network Architectures http://dx.doi.org...8-134304

Oct 21, 2015
Thanks.

They are supporting the claim that a single nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution differentiates the cell types of different castes and of different species via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.

This is another refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense that clearly shows the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of cell type differentiation links ecological variation to ecological adaptation.

Your apophenia is on display again.

"Apophenia: In psychology, the perception of connections and meaningfulness in unrelated things. Apophenia can be a normal phenomenon or an abnormal one, as in paranoid schizophrenia when the patient sees ominous patterns where there are none."
http://www.medici...ey=39714


Oct 21, 2015
Thanks.

2013 http://www.ncbi.n...24693353


"Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model"
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

"Based on his writings, both published and unpublished, James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."

Oct 21, 2015
epic stupidity again, jk? as Vietvet notes: "Your apophenia is on display again"
They have not linked mutations to evolution, and neither has anyone else who is a serious scientist
and apparently you have completely forgot about Lenski, Extavour and many others
again

the scientific Theory of Evolution is based upon FACTS and EVIDENCE, of which the topics and certain aspects of your model are already included within.

You cannot replace a THEORY with an incomplete model that contains unproven claims, and you cannot substantiate the claim that life is "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled" when you cannot prove human pheromones with robust evidence to the scientific community
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

calling all scientists who don't accept your creationist views is PSEUDOSCIENCE and TROLLING
reported

JVK
Oct 21, 2015
Here's another example of how to look at pattern recognition from atoms to ecosystems across all living genera in the context of the nutrient-dependent energy that fuels their physiology of reproduction, which is perturbed by viruses.

Nano power grids between bacteria http://www.scienc...5630.htm

It is long past time for even the most ignorant of all evolutionary theorists to stop touting their neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense and examine how ecological variation is linked from nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to organism level thermoregulation and ecological adaptations in species from microbes to humans.

The neo-Darwinian nonsense has been replaced by what is known about energy-dependent base pairing in the context of healthy longevity and virus perturbed pathology.

See: https://www.youtu...9VeFgh8E All serious scientists are laughing at all theorists.

Oct 21, 2015
Here's another example of how to look at pattern recognition from atoms to ecosystems across all living genera
Hey Vietvet! pegged it right on the nose! https://en.wikipe...pophenia

All serious scientists are
you mean, like microbiologist and diagnosticians?

you do realise that lying simply undermines your credibility, right?
It is long past time for even the most ignorant of all evolutionary theorists
here is how the scientific method works (since you obviously don't know): https://en.wikipe...c_method

all you have to do is provide empirical evidence that is then validated by external means (not of you or paid by you, etc)

then you will be in business of ACTUAL SCIENCE, not PSEUDOSCIENCE like you post
thanks

Oct 21, 2015
POST SCRIPT
See: https://www.youtu...9VeFgh8E
you do know that, according to the rules of evidence, youtube is NOT a reliable source of valid scientific information, right?

for valid science, you need a reputable peer reviewed journal with validated studies and experiments which demonstrate not only the repeatable aspect of the experiment but that the information is also correct, through various means.

since you promote pseudoscience and religion over science, you are unaware of this

it is the ONLY way you can refute a known Theory (like Evolution)
you cant arbitrarily redefine words that are used in the field unless you can provide ample and evidenciary reason for said redefinition, and then it must be accepted and used, like the current definition of the word MUTATION.

epic failure for jk

JVK
Oct 21, 2015
Everything I have ever claimed about cell type differentiation is supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems and microbes to man via epigenetically-effected metabolic and genetic networks in the honeybee model organism.

Phys.org has not removed this comment from the discussion at:
http://phys.org/n...uch.html
"JVK's bio and details have been published in the comments here before. He's a convicted paedophile, ferchrisake."

It exemplifies what they will allow for comparison to the experimental evidence I have included.

Simply put, they allowed a totally unfounded libelous personal accusation, but have removed any of my links to creationist literature, which refutes all their mainstream pseudoscience.

Their overwhelming support for that pseudoscientific nonsense is ending only after their attempts to limit my participation. But it's ending quickly.

Oct 21, 2015
Simply put, they allowed a totally unfounded libelous personal accusation, but have removed any of my links to creationist literature, which refutes all their mainstream pseudoscience
@jk
1- considering you are continually posting libelous remarks towards actual science as well as reputable scientists, then i think it only fair it remains
quit crying- if you litigate, you must also answer for your OWN libel

2- creationist literature is NOT SCIENCE: this is a proven fact, and upheld by the US Supreme Court- that is not debate, speculation or conjecture, it is proven validated fact
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

3- you can't produce "valid experimental evidence" proving human pheromones, but you want us to accept your word on the results of your science?
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

the only one posting PSEUDOSCIENCE is YOU
especially when you ADMIT to linking creationist stupidity!
epic fail

Oct 22, 2015
@jk cont'd
Phys.org has not removed this comment from the discussion at
and i left you a message on that thread you should seriously consider

just remember: i can produce evidence of your libel etc in your own words posted from your own profile on PO and elsewhere. it is not a matter of "making it up"
all my evidence is timestamped, screencapped, tracked and logged in the servers and on my ISP as well as saved to the cloud

i really hope you do open up litigation to PO (PO is Science X -a wholly owned by Omicron Technology Limited, headquartered in Douglas, Isle Of Man, United Kingdom)
https://sciencex....bout-us/

libel and internet fraud is considered a serious crime and will cost you far more than you could possibly win against PO

keep me posted. this should be fun!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more