Nectar distribution and its relation to food quality in honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies

In honeybees (Apis niellifera), the process of nectar collection is considered a straightforward example of task partitioning with two subtasks or two intersecting cycles of activity: (1) foraging and (2) storing of nectar, linked via its transfer between foragers and food processors. Many observations suggest, however, that nectar colleclion and processing in honeybees is a complex process, involving workers of other sub-castes and depending on variables such as resource profitability or the amount of stored honey. It has been observed that food processor bees often distribute food to other hive bees after receiving it from incoming foragers, instead of storing it immediately in honey cells. While there is little information about the sub-caste affiliation and the behaviour of these second-order receivers, this stage may be important for the rapid distribution of nutrients and related information. To investigate the identity of these second-order receivers, we quantified behaviours following nectar transfer and compared these behaviours with the behaviour of average worker hive-bees. Furthermore, we tested whether food quality (sugar concentration) affects the behaviour of the second-order receivers. Of all identified second-order receivers, 59.3% performed nurse duties, 18.5% performed food-processor duties and 22.2% performed forager duties. After food intake, these bees were more active, had more trophallaxes (especially offering contacts) compared to average workers and they were found mainly in the brood area, independent of food quality. Our results show that the liquid food can be distributed rapidly among many bees of the three main worker sub-castes, without being stored in honey cells first. Furthermore, the results suggest that the rapid distribution of food partly depends on the high activity of second-order receivers.

Action of food preservatives on 14-days dental biofilm formation, biofilm vitality and biofilm-derived enamel demineralisation in situ

AIMS The aims of this double-blind, controlled, crossover study were to assess the influence of food preservatives on in situ dental biofilm growth and vitality, and to evaluate their influence on the ability of dental biofilm to demineralize underlying enamel over a period of 14 days. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty volunteers wore appliances with six specimens each of bovine enamel to build up intra-oral biofilms. During four test cycles of 14 days, the subjects had to place the appliance in one of the assigned controls or active solutions twice a day for a minute: negative control 0.9 % saline, 0.1 % benzoate (BA), 0.1 % sorbate (SA) and 0.2 % chlorhexidine (CHX positive control). After 14 days, the biofilms on two of the slabs were stained to visualize vital and dead bacteria to assess biofilm thickness (BT) and bacterial vitality (BV). Further, slabs were taken to determine mineral loss (ML), by quantitative light-induced laser fluorescence (QLF) and transversal microradiography (TMR), moreover the lesion depths (LD). RESULTS Nineteen subjects completed all test cycles. Use of SA, BA and CHX resulted in a significantly reduced BV compared to NaCl (p < 0.001). Only CHX exerted a statistically significant retardation in BT as compared to saline. Differences between SA and BA were not significant (p > 0.05) for both parameters. TMR analysis revealed the highest LD values in the NaCl group (43.6 ± 44.2 μm) and the lowest with CHX (11.7 ± 39.4 μm), while SA (22.9 ± 45.2 μm) and BA (21.4 ± 38.5 μm) lay in between. Similarly for ML, the highest mean values of 128.1 ± 207.3 vol% μm were assessed for NaCl, the lowest for CHX (-16.8 ± 284.2 vol% μm), while SA and BA led to values of 83.2 ± 150.9 and 98.4 ± 191.2 vol% μm, respectively. With QLF for both controls, NaCl (-33.8 ± 101.3 mm(2) %) and CHX (-16.9 ± 69.9 mm(2) %), negative values were recorded reflecting a diminution of fluorescence, while positive values were found with SA (33.9 ± 158.2 mm(2) %) and BA (24.8 ± 118.0 mm(2) %) depicting a fluorescence gain. These differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION The biofilm model permited the assessment of undisturbed oral biofilm formation influenced by antibacterial components under clinical conditions for a period of 14 days. An effect of BA and SA on the demineralization of enamel could be demonstrated by TMR and QLF, but these new findings have to be seen as a trend. As part of our daily diet, these preservatives exert an impact on the metabolism of the dental biofilm, and therefore may even influence demineralization processes of the underlying dental enamel in situ.