Microfungal flora of Apis mellifera anatoliaca (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) from the Eastern Black Sea Region and fungal vector capacity in honey bee colonies
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Honey bees have a great economic importance both in Turkey and in the world due to the products they produce and their contribution to pollination. For this reason, many microflora and microbiota studies have been conducted on bees. While these research were primarily focused on pathogen isolation, the ecological roles of non-pathogenic flora members and how they may be used are now being studied more extensively. Considering the importance of pathogens, the number of studies is expected to continue to increase. This study was carried out to determine the microfungal flora of the body surfaces and digestive tracts of dead honey bee ( Apis mellifera anatoliaca ) and Varroa destructor samples taken from different apiaries in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey (Gümüşhane, Trabzon, Artvin and Ordu) in 2022. As a result of the study, a total of 11 different fungal species belonging to the genera Penicillium , Alternaria , Mucor , Trichoderma , Fusarium , Aspergillus and Verticillium were identified and the relationships of these fungi with bees were discussed based on the literature.
Article activity feed
-
This manuscript has improved over two rounds of review. I have reservations about the quality of scientific language used but after critical reading, I believe it is sufficient to allow understanding and accurate interpretation of your work.
-
-
-
The language used is poor, which can cause ambiguity at times. Please carefully rewrite it. We offer a discounted translation service, Editage (https://www.editage.com/; see https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/prepare-an-article#13 for more information). The paper is poorly structured and written, which has prevented a proper assessment of the research done. You have not addressed the reviewers’ comments sufficiently after revision. Overall, I think you’ve improved the manuscript drastically from the first version. However, there are some aspect of the manuscript that can use improvement. This is largely the language used on the manuscript itself. Here are some resources that can help with your scientific writing https://lijunsun.github.io/files/ScientificWritingV39.pdf
The language used is poor, which can cause ambiguity at times. Please carefully rewrite it. We offer a discounted translation service, Editage (https://www.editage.com/; see https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/prepare-an-article#13 for more information). The paper is poorly structured and written, which has prevented a proper assessment of the research done. You have not addressed the reviewers’ comments sufficiently after revision. Overall, I think you’ve improved the manuscript drastically from the first version. However, there are some aspect of the manuscript that can use improvement. This is largely the language used on the manuscript itself. Here are some resources that can help with your scientific writing https://lijunsun.github.io/files/ScientificWritingV39.pdf https://scitechedit.com/18-tips-to-improve-your-science-writing/ https://www.annaclemens.com/blog/4-ways-improve-your-scientific-academic-writing There are some sentences that are too long and redundant. An example would be a sentence you wrote in the introduction. While bees produce products such as honey, beeswax, royal jelly, royal jelly, bee venom and propolis and offer them to mankind, more importantly, they pollinate cultivated plants that need allogamy (counter-pollination) together with wild bees and ensure that the product is superior in terms of quantity and quality (Crane and Walker, 1984; Free, 1970; McGregor, 1976). This can be simplify to Bees contribute significantly to apicultural products such as honey, beeswax, royal jelly, bee venom, and propolis. Moreover, their crucial role in the pollination process, particularly for plants requiring allogamy, in collaboration with wild bees, enhances both the quantity and quality of crop yields (Crane and Walker, 1984; Free, 1970; McGregor, 1976). Another example is within the conclusion where you stated below. Among the fungi isolated in this study; is Aspergillus sp. which causes stone disease in bees. There are no bee-pathogenic fungi, except for the species. Therefore, the bee-fungus relationship has been tried to be evaluated in terms of other aspects apart from the concept of pathogenicity. There is a need for studies to reveal many more microorganisms that do not cause any harm to bees but are thought to have not been detected yet. For this reason, it has been tried to make a contribution to the determination of the mycoflora of bees belonging to the Eastern Black Sea Region, which is an important honey source in Turkey. Future work spurs us to explore the potential of Varroa as a fungal vector and isolate additional fungal isolates that may be important for both Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera. This can be summarised to the following In this study, one of the isolated fungi is Aspergillus sp., known for causing stone disease in bees. Aside from this particular species, no fungi harmful to bees were identified. Consequently, the evaluation of the bee-fungus relationship extends beyond pathogenicity considerations. There is a pressing need for further research to uncover additional microorganisms that do not harm bees but may have remained undetected. Our contribution aims to enrich the understanding of the mycoflora specific to bees in the Eastern Black Sea Region, a crucial honey source in Turkey. Subsequent research endeavors will focus on exploring the potential of Varroa as a fungal vector and isolating additional fungal strains important for both Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera. Of course, I am not saying that my phrasing is the best but merely to point out that there is room for improvement.
-
-
The reviewers have highlighted some concerns regarding your work. Overall, both reviewers think your work is interesting. However, in the current format, they think it hinders the scientific message. I do emplore you to have collegues to help you overcome the language aspect of the paper. Please address their concerns and suggestions on how to improve your manuscript. I believe it will greatly help your publication.
-
Comments to Author
MS ID: ACMI-D-23-00089 L12-13, in fact, it's not true. Most recent studies have been focused on whole microbiota including pathogens. So L12-14 should be rewritten in the revised script. L17, some technical strategies should be presented in the revised script. L44, lost citation for Benjamin et al For introduction, you might read and cite some other studies such as: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72758-1 https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/99/8/fiad077/7221646 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00503-21 Even, the mentioned references were already old-fashioned. Should be updated with recent studies and scientific results. For M&M, this part should be particularly clarity. L101, why the author focused on the already dead bees? L106, physiological water? How could you prepare it? …
Comments to Author
MS ID: ACMI-D-23-00089 L12-13, in fact, it's not true. Most recent studies have been focused on whole microbiota including pathogens. So L12-14 should be rewritten in the revised script. L17, some technical strategies should be presented in the revised script. L44, lost citation for Benjamin et al For introduction, you might read and cite some other studies such as: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72758-1 https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/99/8/fiad077/7221646 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00503-21 Even, the mentioned references were already old-fashioned. Should be updated with recent studies and scientific results. For M&M, this part should be particularly clarity. L101, why the author focused on the already dead bees? L106, physiological water? How could you prepare it? We don't need to worry about any cross contamination? L107, Aronstein and Murry, 200??? L110, why did you incubate petri dish? Figure1. the resolution of the phylogenetic tree should be increased. In addition, there were extremely few reference sequences for phylogeney. For R&D and conclusion. In this study, the author attempted to isolate several fungi using cultivate-approach from dead bee and Varroa mite. However, there is no more information for the relationship between bee and Varroa. To increase the scientific interesting, this study should need more detailed.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Not at all
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Dear Author, Your work is interesting, but your findings needs to be described with a lot of improvements. Globally, the context and aim of your work is not clearly introduced in the text. The introduction is not clear and not structured, from line 34, the text is very difficult to understand ( the syntax and sentence flow should be improved) 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data > informations are missing for an appropriate reproduction of the methodology. Should be more detailed. 2. Presentation of results > The results are presented, but in a very unstructured way. The figure 1, showing a phylogeny is not mentioned in the results text. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings > The aim of the work is not …
Comments to Author
Dear Author, Your work is interesting, but your findings needs to be described with a lot of improvements. Globally, the context and aim of your work is not clearly introduced in the text. The introduction is not clear and not structured, from line 34, the text is very difficult to understand ( the syntax and sentence flow should be improved) 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data > informations are missing for an appropriate reproduction of the methodology. Should be more detailed. 2. Presentation of results > The results are presented, but in a very unstructured way. The figure 1, showing a phylogeny is not mentioned in the results text. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings > The aim of the work is not clearly mentioned. The context behind is not stated. Why would it be important to know more fungal species from bees (surface and gut) and varroa? This should be better introduced. The fungal species isolated from bees and varroa destructor are listed, but there is no discussion about what such isolation would bring as new knowledge. Please rework this to make it clear and to show the importance of such isolation. 4. Literature analysis or discussion More actual references are needed in the article introduction and discussion. 5. Any other relevant comments Please rewrite the article in a more scientific way.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Not at all
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-