A Queen is born

[HillBilly2]

Kinda interesting, but a little over my head.

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/royal-jelly-isnt-makes-queen-bee-queen-bee/

[BeeMaster2]

Hillbilly
I read this last week in an email that I received.
What it is saying is the old idea was that it was the ingredients in royal jelly that enabled a bee larvae to turn into a queen. What they have found is that it is not what is in the royal jelly but what is not it it. I think it was certain proteins that are found in pollen bread that the queen larvae are not getting that allows them to develope into a queen bee.
Hope that helps.
Jim

[Dallasbeek]

I think this is a matter of interpretation, maybe.  Either way, when the bees keep larvae they intend to be queens in a sea of royal jelly throughout development, it results in a queen.  If the beebread and other stuff inhibits development of ovaries, then the royal jelly is doing the job intended.  It's puzzled me why a queen matures faster than a worker, but is developing more "parts" than a worker.  I think this has to be the royal jelly's effect.

Interesting article, though, and a good picture of queen cell larvae.

[Michael Bush]

The point of the article is that it is what is NOT in royal jelly that makes a queen out of a worker egg.  It is what is in normal worker brood food that suppresses them so they don't become a queen.  While that may not seem that significant of a difference, it is pretty significant if you're looking for something that isn't there...

[iddee]

One article versus 100 years of research. I don't think I will jump on that bandwagon until I see more.

[Dallasbeek]

Okay, but what about laying workers?  If the suppression isn't continuous (suppression by pheromones, that is), the worker's ovaries develop or whatever and she starts laying.  It's only the fact she hasn't bred that keeps her from being a true queen???

Michael, I see the difference the article is pointing out, but the fact remains that the bees keep intended queens in royal jelly throughout development, but only for 3 days for workers.  The denial of other nutrients to queens is significant, but it looks like this is only the first step in the research.  It will be interesting to see what else comes of this. 

Iddee, it's 100 years of research that has backed up this latest research, but like you I still am not convinced about the conclusion. I'd like to see how other bee scientists respond to this article.  By the way, I subscribe to Wired, but it's hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  They publish some interesting articles but it's a popular magazine.

[little john]

The abstract reads:

In the eusocial honey bee Apis mellifera, with reproductive queens and sterile workers, a female larva?s developmental fate depends on its diet; nurse bees feed queen-destined larvae exclusively royal jelly, a glandular secretion, but worker-destined larvae receive royal jelly for 3 days and subsequently jelly to which honey and beebread are added. RNA-Seq analysis demonstrated that p-coumaric acid, which is ubiquitous in honey and beebread, differentially regulates genes involved in caste determination. Rearing larvae in vitro on a royal jelly diet to which p-coumaric acid has been added produces adults with reduced ovary development. Thus, consuming royal jelly exclusively not only enriches the diet of queen-destined larvae but also may protect them from inhibitory effects of phytochemicals present in the honey and beebread fed to worker-destined larvae.

A dietary phytochemical alters caste-associated gene expression in honey bees. Mao, Schuler, Berenbaum, Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1500795 28 August 2015

As I read the above - nothing has changed - only the interpretation. It's what the queen isn't getting which is important - ok - but she doesn't get that (the p-coumaric acid from honey and pollen) because she's fed royal jelly.

I really don't see what the big deal is here ...

LJ

[Dallasbeek]

Good post LJ.

[Michael Bush]

It's not the "what" that is being questioned, it's the "why".

[little john]

It's not the "what" that is being questioned, it's the "why".

But surely the two are related ?  Evolution has selected that an exclusive diet of Royal Jelly produces a fully-formed female.
But this study has shown that if, in the later stages of development, a female is instead given food which contains a somewhat 'toxic' (within the context of larval development) substance, then it's ovaries will be reduced in size or malformed. That is what has been demonstrated.

With the benefit of hindsight, their study makes complete sense of course, as inhibition of an existing metabolic pathway is much simpler to command by one single biochemical acting (or not) upon just one early step within that pathway (which then results in multiple physiological consequences), than stimulation of an otherwise seldom used pathway, which may involve numerous biochemical steps and require multiple biochemicals for it's full activation.

Now that's interesting enough for developmental scientists, but from a beekeeping perspective, not even one iota has changed: 6 days of Royal Jelly produces a Queen, 3 days produces a Worker. And presumably any excess Royal Jelly remaining in the cells of a few developing workers will result in their partial ovary development, such that - in extremis - those partially developed ovaries may be induced to function, but of course without that sperm necessary to lay fertilised eggs.

But in the final analysis, there's nothing whatsoever that we - as beekeepers - can do with this information, as interesting as it might happen to be.

LJ

[chux]

We can teach more accurately. I have told several people that the reason a queen is a queen is because she was fed more of the good stuff. The worker could have been a queen had she gotten the full dose. Looks like I may need to refine a bit. Perhaps the queen is raised because she is not fed certain ingredients. Hmmm

[BeeMaster2]

Chux,
Well said. That is what they are trying to say.
Nim