Insights Into the Defence of Honey Bees, Apis Mellifera L., Against Insecticides
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Insights into the defence of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., against insecticides Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Selcan Gurkan April 2015 i DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being currently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed ........................................................................................(Candidate) Date ........................................................................................... Statement 1 This thesis is the result if my own investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged and bibliography is appended. Signed ........................................................................................(Candidate) Date ........................................................................................... ii DEDICATION This thesis heartily dedicated to my mom, dad, sister and husband for their constant support and unconditional love. I love you all. iii ABSTRACT There are some contradictory theories on how tolerant honey bees are of pesticides. Since the honey bee genome has been published (Honey bee Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2006), more is known about their metabolic systems, especially the detoxification pathways for potential xenobiotics. Bioassay and biochemical data from various studies have shown that both P450s and carboxylesterases are responsible for pesticide metabolism in honey bees. Here, those metabolic enzymes that confer primary defence to different classes of insecticides (mainly neonicotinoid, thiacloprid) in honey bee were validated. Metabolic enzymes are characterised regarding their ability to interact with the insecticide. Synergist bioassay results with PBO and EN 16/5-1 suggest that detoxification mechanism(s) play an important role in protecting honey bees from tau-fluvalinate and thiacloprid toxicity. No binding was found between honey bee esterases and tested insecticides (thiacloprid and tau- fluvalinate), whilst inhibition of P450 activity sensitised the honey bees to these chemicals. Metabolism of tau-fluvalinate and thiacloprid in honey bees is due to P450 activity, but this metabolism may not be the only reason for the relatively benign action of this insecticide on bees. Honey bees are less sensitive to neonicotinoids containing a cyanoimino pharmacophore than to those with a nitroimino group, however the specific enzymes involved in detoxification remain to be characterised. In this work, pre-treatment of honey bees with a sub-lethal dose of thiacloprid induced protection to the same compound immediately following thiacloprid feeding. Transcriptome profiling, using microarrays, identified a number of genes encoding detoxification enzymes that were overexpressed significantly in insecticide-treated bees compared to untreated controls. These included five P450s, CYP6BE1, CYP305D1, CYP6AS5, CYP301A1, CYP315A1 and an esterase CCE8. iv The four P450s and cytochrome b5 were functionally expressed in E. coli and their ability to metabolise thiacloprid examined by LC-MS analysis. There was no obvious metabolism of thiacloprid, thus their role in the metabolism and disposition of thiacloprid is still unclear. Race-based and caste-based bioassay studies were carried out to investigate the differential sensitivity. Honey bee caste-based synergism studies revealed that nurse bees (younger) may tolerate thiacloprid toxicity more than forager bees (older) by means of esterase-based metabolism/sequestration. In addition to the metabolic differences, race-based studies also suggested that target-site insensitivity of nAChRs may enhance thiacloprid tolerance in honey bees. However, screening of nAChRs of A. m. caucasica and A. m. buckfast did not identify polymorphism variants except several splice variants of subunits. As the integrity of the sample material was compromised this mechanism has not been confirmed. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At the very beginning, I would like to thank to my all supervisors Dr Graham Moores, Dr Chris Bass, Dr Mark Paine and Prof Lin Field who believed on me from the beginning of my research; their guidance and support helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. My special thanks to, Dr Graham Moores for his patience, understanding, encouragement and caring and also for sharing his scientific knowledge which played an important role in my development; Dr Chris Bass for sharing his scientific vision, offered training, providing new approaches and guidance throughout my studies; Dr Mark Paine for his academic guidance, scientific advices, and stimulating discussions on scientific thinking; Prof Lin Field for giving me this opportunity to be a member of her team in Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection at Rothamsted Research. I would also like to share my appreciation to the members of Insect Molecular Biology group in recognition to our great days in labs and their support. Thanks to AgroEcology group of Rothamsted Research and Prof Vasfi Gencer and Prof M. Oktay Gurkan from Ankara University facilitating my studies by providing us with all the necessary equipment, honey bee sources, accepting me to work in their laboratories; Suzanne Clark from Applied Statistics group of Rothamsted for her support in my statistical analyses; Miriam Daniels from Sygenta Crop Protection for conducting the LC-MS analysis. Thanks to my sponsors HGCA and Sygenta, for funding this research and my studies in UK. Last but not least, thanks to my family and friends for their support, encouragement during my long years away from home. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. xv 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 Honey Bees ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Biology and life cycle of honey bee ........................................................................ 1 1.1.2 Economic importance of honey bees and concerns on negative impacts of pesticides .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Pyrethroids ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Neonicotinoids ..................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Insecticide Synergists ............................................................................................ 8 1.5 Insecticide Resistance ........................................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Behavioural resistance .......................................................................................... 11 1.5.2 Reduced penetration .............................................................................................. 12 1.5.3 Metabolic resistance .............................................................................................. 12 1.5.4 Target-site resistance............................................................................................. 15 1.6 Sensitivity of honey bees to pesticides................................................................. 16 1.7 Background of research ....................................................................................... 18 1.8 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................ 18 2. GENERAL MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................... 21 2.1 Oligonucleotide Primers ...................................................................................... 21 2.2 Plasmid Vectors .................................................................................................. 21 2.3 Bacterial Strain ................................................................................................... 21 2.4 Honey Bee Strains ............................................................................................... 21 2.5 Insect Bioassays .................................................................................................. 22 2.5.1 Full dose contact toxicity bioassays ...................................................................... 22 2.5.2 Full dose oral response bioassays ......................................................................... 23 2.5.3 Statistical Analysis ...............................................................................................