Hi All
 
Stumbled accross the following in the J. Applied and Environ.
Microbiology, June 1994, p. 2164-2167
 
Bacillus DNA in fossil bees: an ancient symbiosis
 
Raul Cano, Monica Borucki, Mary Higby Schweitzer, Hendrik Poinar,
George Poinar, Kerri Pollard.
 
Abstract: (note - translated afterwards)
 
We report here the isolation of DNA from abdominal tissue of four
extinct stingless bees in dominican amber, PCR amplification of a 564
bp fragment of the 16s rRNA gene from the Bacillus spp. and the
corresponding nucleotide sequences. These sequences were used in
basic local alignment search tool searches of non redundant nucleic
acid data bases, and the highest scores were obtained with 16s rRNA
sequences from bacillus spp. Phylogenetic inference analysis by the
maximum likelihood method revealed close phylogenetic relationships
of the four presumed ancient bacillus sequences with B.pumilus,
firmus, subtilus and cirulans. These four extant Bacillus spp. are
commonly isolated from abdominal tissue of stingless bees. The close
phylogenetic association of the extracted DNA sequences with these
bee colonizers suggest that a similar bee-bacillus association
existed in the extinct species P.dominicana.
 
 
 
In plain english what this says is they got a fossil stingless bee,
took the DNA out Jurassic park style, used a special but routine
enzyme technique to amplify the DNA so they had enough to work with.
They then plonked it into a machine that told them the DNA sequence.
They found a peice that codes for the ribosome - the thing that
tranlates information into protein. If this mutates much it results
in loss of the ability to make protein - hence it mutates very
slowly.( As humans, despite the variation in us our ribosomal RNA is
pretty much the same). So 16sRNA is important for identifying and
they were able to show that this ancient bacteria is similar to the
ones that live in our bee guts now by comparing the sequences for
percentage difference.
 
Legally I cannot reproduce the rest of the text, so I will summarize
it.(it would also take ages to type)
 
They mention that most bees have symbiotic relationships with
Bacillus species(bacteria). These are reported to help with digestion
and fermentation of pollen and food provisions, protection of food
storages from microbial degradation, production of antibiotcs!!, and
disease prevention. The bacteria reside in the abdomen of the
workers.
 
Apparently in 338 honeybees examined 110 Bacillus isolates were
obtained belonging to 13 species. (I predict these were alcohol
preserved as when I have streaked out bee guts I got more than 110
isolates from one little piece of bee gut).
 
The bacteria quoted in the abstract were dominant.
 
It is also mentioned that the bacteria were found in the haemolymph,
trachea, and digestive tracts of the workers (healthy workers).
 
The amber samples were 40 million years old.
 
 
So, my question is, given that bees have had these symbioses for at
least 40 million years, and that the bacterial species involved are
pretty much the same animals now as they were then, are we being
really stupid feeding an antibiotic that kills Bacillus spp. to our
bees as a prophylactic treatment when it is not always neccessary?
Could the North American problem with nosema be because the natural
defence ecosystem in the guts of the bees has been denuded by years
of bacterial decimation? Could the success of the tracheal mites and
varroa bee because these defensless bees were so 'tasty' as they had
none of the bacillus species in them any more??
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Antibiotics always remind me of using a herbicide - if you spray a
herbicide on a forest it kills everything - but only the weeds grow
back.
 
Keep well
 
Garth
 
Garth Cambray           Camdini Apiaries
15 Park Road
Grahamstown             Apis mellifera capensis
6139
South Africa
 
Time = Honey
 
If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space!!