Integrated Virus Detection System  (IVDS) 
Bee-L Members 
I’ve been deliberately staying out of the  IAPV discussions, but given some 
recent statements to the list, I see a need to  clarify some points.  The 
authors of the Science paper published their  preliminary results and presented 
their conclusions.  Unfortunately, we  question the association between IAPV and 
CCD,  and we disagree with  comments implying a link to Australian imports.  
Any talk of banning  imports from Australia seems  premature. 
As noted by Erik  Stokstad, who wrote an overview article that was published 
in  the same issue of Science, our data (Bee Alert, BVS, working with the ARMY 
ECBC  laboratory in Aberdeen, MD) does not implicate any one virus as being 
associated  with CCD, not even as a biomarker. 
We have looked at bee samples from across  the county.  In these samples, we 
have detected more than a dozen different  viruses with as many as 4-6 new, 
heretofore unclassified and unnamed  viruses.   
In every bee operation, we see  combinations of viruses, usually 2-3.  But, 
we have not found a common  virus or assemblage of viruses among and across CCD 
operations, regardless of  the origin of the bees (i.e., U.S., Australian, 
intermixed).    
We have looked at some Australian imports,  and we did find viruses, but 
again, the data does not support a link between a  virus in Australian bees and 
CCD colonies.  In one Australian sample, we  found yet another unknown virus, 
maybe even two, but these did not show up in  any CCD colonies. 
If CCD is associated with a virus, we  would expect to see the same virus 
showing up in a consistent manner and to see  a pattern to emerge, as projected 
for IAPV by the Science article.   However, as stated, our data does not 
corroborate this  finding. 
To sort all of this out is going to take a  better sampling strategy and more 
samples than the limited sampling being done  (by all parties combined). We 
have been advocating that many samples from many  beekeepers and from many 
different areas need to be screened for a common  connection.  We have proposed to 
USDA a national survey and CCD screening  program.  
The Army has provided methods development  and initial Integrated Virus 
Detection System (IVDS)  screening.  However, the Army does not have unlimited 
resources  and can not continue to provide this as a free service to every 
beekeeper (as  implied by a previous post to Bee-L).   
The Army has indicated to us a  willingness to continue to assist, especially 
with respect to the issue of risk  from imported bees and emergent cases of 
CCD.  But large scale sampling and  analysis, in a production mode and on a 
national scale, is beyond their  capability and is not part of their mission. 
We (Bee Alert and BVS) have proposed  placing a priority on obtaining samples 
from Australia, taken  according to a rigorous sampling scheme, and sent 
directly to the Army lab for  screening.  That step needs to be done before any 
decisions are made  regarding restricting bee imports from Australia. 
We (Bee Alert and BVS) also have  recommended that funds be made available to 
purchase 1-3 IVDS instruments that  could be used to screen bees from CCD 
colonies, from nutrition experiments,  entering the country, etc. for viruses.  
Initially, screening would be  provided to beekeepers as a free service in 
exchange for samples and survey data  from the beekeepers themselves.   
In 12-24 months, assuming that this  approach proves out to be useful to bee 
management, we recommend that virus  screening be provided as a fee-based 
service (less than $50 per sample).  We  see this becoming a service, much like a 
veterinarian provides lab services for  disease diagnosis.  In that way, virus 
screening would no longer  depend on public funds. 
Finally, mention has been made in this  post and others about the IVDS 
technology (Integrated Virus Detection  System).  IVDS was developed by the Army for 
inexpensive and rapid  screening of viruses, especially new and unknown 
viruses.  It is a unique  and relatively recent technology.  It does not name 
viruses, like PCR, but  it separates them out by physical size.  It also provides 
the titer or  concentration of each virus in a sample.   
Sample  processing consists of blending bees in sterile water, centrifuging 
and  filtering, and then introducing the sample into a column using an 
electro-spray  system.  A laser sizes and counts all virus sized particles in each  
sample.  Instrument time is less than 5 minutes.  From start to  finish, a 
sample can be prepped and analyzed in about 2  hours. 
IVDS  can separate viruses by a 4 nm difference.  The viruses we have 
detected  range from 20 nm to 39 nm in size.  Some of the bee virus literature reads  
that all the bee viruses are 30 nm in size, an out-dated concept based on 
IVDS  technology.  
Finally, although IVDS does not identify  specific viruses, IVDS can be used 
in conjunction with sequencing and protenomic  GC/MS data to put a name on 
each virus detected by its size.  Of course, if  a detected virus is unknown, 
that will take additional work.  But if it has  been characterized (sequenced), 
we can look for it with  IVDS. 
So,  IVDS provides a way of looking at all viruses, regardless of whether they
’ve  ever been seen before, and does so at a fraction of the cost and time of 
more  traditional approaches such as sequencing.  In addition, the 
instruments  and sample processing equipment are small enough that they could be put 
into a  van.  We'd like to see transportable labs that could be driven to  where 
ever these are most needed (e.g., CCD outbreak, backup to a research  project 
such as evaluating diets, meet imported bees at the dock, screen queens  and 
bees for breeders, etc.). 
Our  proposal to USDA was that the initial screening would be provided to  
beekeepers as a free service in exchange for samples and survey data from the  
beekeepers themselves.  Obviously, our ability to provide a free service  
depends on on obtaining external funding.  Funding is needed to acquire an  
instrument for production scale testing, whether the funds come from  USDA, from 
beekeepers, from growers, from foundations, or even public interest  groups.  
If  this is the direction that the beekeepers want to go, we could 
immediately start  providing services through Bee Alert and BVS using the IVDS 
technology, but we  would need to charge for the services (in the absence of any 
external funds such  as a grant from USDA).   
Our  services would provide a screening for all viruses in the samples and 
would be  coordinated with the national effort, when and if it ever  happens.   
We  think that virus screening is needed and overdue, but if we wait for 
federal  funding, we may very well be waiting a long time.  Give us your feedback  
and suggestions.  We’d like to get started.  Perhaps it is time for a  new 
research arrangement – one in which the bee industry plays a more direct  role 
in research, both in its direction and funding.  We'd envision a close  
partnership with the bee industry and the grower community, possibly as a  research 
consortium? 
Thank  you for your assistance. 
Jerry  J. Bromenshenk, CEO 
Bee  Alert Technology, Inc. 
406-541-3160 
Dave  Wick, CEO 
BVS,  Inc. (Biological Virus Screening) 
406-369-4214 
Disclaimer:  The opinions stated in  this correspondence are those of the 
stated authors.  Although we work  closely with the Army laboratory, we can not 
speak for  them. 






************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************