A scientific note on DNA fragmentation rates in sperm collected from drones and spermathecae of queens of different age, with possible implications on the scattered brood phenomenon
- 617 Downloads
KeywordsDNA fragmentation scattered brood drone bee queen sperm semen quality chromatin dispersion
Social insects have developed a polyandrous mating system characterised by the highest level of organisation among bees (Cole 1983; Moritz 1983; Palmer and Oldroyd 2000; Kraus et al. 2004). The bee queen copulates with many drones (Tryasko 1951; Morizt et al. 1996; Neumann and Moritz 2000). During the mating flight, a comet of drones follows the queen and the drones compete to be able to copulate with her. However, queens are preferentially inseminated by drones of their own race (Kerr and Bueno 1970; Koeniger et al. 1989). A successful copulation depends on the queens because they make the choice, opening their sting chamber to allow a male to insert its genitalia (Winston 1991; Strassmann 2001).
After copulation, lateral oviducts contain from 10 to 150 million spermatozoa (Ruttner and Koeniger 1971). After 24 h, 3–7 million spermatozoa reach the spermatheca (Ruttner and Koeniger 1971). Sperm transport into the spermatheca is facilitated by spermatozoa movement (Bishop 1920), passive transport forced by ovarian and abdominal muscle contraction (Berlepsch 1873), spermathecal pump (Bresslau 1905), and a combination of sperm locomotion with passive transport by the reproductive system of the bee queen (Ruttner 1956).
The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of sperm DNA fragmentation in drone sperm and estimate the number of such cells in queen’s spermatheca.
Drone breeding was conducted in June 2017 using drones originating from five Apis mellifera carnica queens. To obtain drones of the same age, the queen was caged for 2 days on a single drone comb using a queen excluder. Then the queen was released, and the comb remained caged to protect it from further oviposition. On post-oviposition day 23, the comb was transferred to a 34 °C incubator to induce drone emergence. The emerging drones were individually marked using queen bee marking numbers. Then, 50 drones from 5 bee queens were placed in 5 separate colonies. The outlets were barred with queen excluders to prevent the drones from leaving the colonies. On day 14 after emergence, the drones were captured and their semen was collected using a 1-μL calibrated micropipette. Semen samples were used for DNA fragmentation analysis.
One-, two-, three- and four-year-old naturally inseminated A. m. carnica queens were chose in September 2017 from bee colonies kept in the apiary of the University of Life Sciences in Lublin (51° 13′ N, 22° 38′ E). Ten honeybee queens were chose in each age group. They were anaesthetised with CO2, the spermathecae were dissected, and sperm was sampled for DNA fragmentation analysis.
To quantify the sperm DNA fragmentation, we used the Sperm DNA Fragmentation (SDF) test from Halosperm® (Halotech DNA SL, ISO 13485). This assay is based on sperm chromatin dispersion. The sperm samples were diluted with a 400× PBS solution and microscopic slide were prepared and stained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
We prepared ten sperm samples from drones originating from five colonies. In total, 50 samples were collected from the drones. Ten sperm samples were collected from the 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year-old queens, i.e. in total, 40 samples were collected from all queens.
Then we counted the sperm cells in five fields of vision from each sample using a Nikon Eclipse Ni bright-field microscope at × 400 magnification. In each field of vision, we counted ten sperm cells with fragmented and degraded DNA and normal spermatozoa. We calculated the percentage of sperm with fragmented DNA.
Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software version 9.5 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, NC). The multivariate analysis of variance showed no significant effect of the colony or queens’ age (F = 28.61 p = 0.2284); therefore, we carried out comparisons between the sperm collected from the drones and the sperm sampled from the spermatheca of the 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year-old bee queens were performed with one-way ANOVA, Tukey test. Percentage data were arcsine-transformed (Sokal and Rohlf 1981).
This method turned out to be applicable in beekeeping for detection of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) (Borsuk et al. 2018). The higher percentage of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) in the drones than in the queens (Figure 1) can be explained by the fact that sperm cells with DNA fragmentation (SDF) reach the spermatheca together with sperm with non-fragmented DNA.
Some sperm with fragmented and non-fragmented DNA is expelled from the queen’s body after copulation (Koeniger 1986). As many as 10% out of the 14% of sperm with fragmented DNA (SDF) detected in the drones reach the spermatheca (Figure 1). They are morphologically and physiologically normal sperm cells with damaged DNA (Benchaib et al. 2003; Osman et al. 2015; Simon et al. 2017). When the queen begins to lay eggs, spermatozoa leave the spermatheca. In the first 2 years of laying eggs, sperm cells with DNA fragmentation (SDF) probably lose the competition for leaving the spermatheca with the strongest sperm and remain in the spermatheca until it contains lower sperm amounts. Only then are they able to compete with other spermatozoa for priority in fertilisation of eggs. If not, the lower percentage of sperm with SDF in old queens could even indicate that they may have died earlier than normal sperm. That is why we observed a reduction of sperm cell DNA fragmentation (SDF) in the 3- and 4-year-old bee queens (Figure 1).
poor queen quality; the failure is due to an unfortunate mating flight taken by the queen (Koeniger et al. 2014);
irregular deposition of eggs by the queen (Woyke 1976);
bacterial brood diseases (European Foulbrood, American Foulbrood), which prevent rearing the brood to the adult stage (Woyke 1976);
Eggs fertilised by sperm cells with DNA fragmentation (SDF) do not develop normally and are probably eaten by bees, likewise eggs with diploid drones (Woyke 1963b, c). Empty cells remain after the eggs have been eaten by bees; therefore, scattered brood is observed more frequently in older queens, failing old queen, or poor queen quality (Sammataro and Avitabile 1998; Jabde 2005; Head 2010, Koeniger et al. 2014). The sperm supply in the spermatheca declines with the queen’s age (Akyol et al. 2008; Gregorc et al. 2008; Al-Lawati et al. 2009), which results in irregularities in egg deposition (Woyke 1976) and emergence of scattered brood. Harbo (1979) demonstrated that the queen uses always the same sperm volume for egg fertilisation; accordingly, many spermatozoa are used in young queens and very few in old queens. In the present investigations, the 3- and 4-year-old queens had fewer spermatozoa with DNA fragmentation (SDF) (Figure 1), which were not the first to die in the spermatheca, due to their lower number. Therefore, it is highly probable that they fertilised the eggs deposited by the queen, which were then eaten by the bees and scattered brood developed.
Our investigations expand the knowledge of the phenomenon of scattered brood in honeybee colonies with older queens.
GB conceived this research and designed experiments; MK MA performed experiments and analysis; GB KO wrote the paper and participated in the revisions of it.
- Berlepsch, A. V. (1873) Die Biene und ihre Zucht mit beweglichen Waben in Gegenden ohne Spätsommertracht. G. Schneider, MannheimGoogle Scholar
- Bishop, G. H. (1920) Fertilization in the honeybee. J. Exp. Zool. 3, 225–286Google Scholar
- Borsuk, G., Olszewski, K., Strachecka, A., Paleolog, J., Gagoś, M. (2011) Microscopic image of honeybee drone spermatozoa in three diluents. J. Apic. Sci. 55, 73–80Google Scholar
- Borsuk, G., Kozłowska, M., Anusiewicz, M., Paleolog, J. (2018) Nosema ceranae changes semen characteristics and damages sperm DNA in honeybee drones. ISJ-Invert. Surviv. J. 15, 197–202Google Scholar
- Bresslau, E. (1905) Der Samenblasengang der Bienenkönigin. Zool. Anz. 29, 299–325.Google Scholar
- Head, V. (2010) Keeping Bees. Arcturus Publishing LimitedGoogle Scholar
- Jabde, P.V. (2005) Text Book of Applied Zoology. Discovery Publishing House New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- Koeniger, G. (1986) Reproduction and mating behaviour, in: Rinderer T. E. (ed.) Bee Genetics and Breeding. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Koeniger, G., Koeniger, N., Ellis, J., Connor, L. (2014) Mating Biology of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera), 1. , Kalamazoo: Wicwas PressGoogle Scholar
- Kraus, F. B., Neumann, P., van Praagh, J., Moritz, R. F. A. (2004) Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55 (5): 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0706-0
- Moritz, R. F. A, Kryger, P., Allsopp, M. H. (1996) Competition for royalty in bees. Nature 384, 31Google Scholar
- Sammataro, D., Avitabile, A. (1998) The Beekeeper’s Handbook. Comstock Publishing AssociatesGoogle Scholar
- Sokal, R. R., Rohlf, F. J. (1981) Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Tryasko, W. W. (1951) Priznaki osemennosti pcelich matok. Pčelovodstvo 11, 25–31Google Scholar
- Winston, M. L. (1991) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
- Woyke, J. (1962) The hatchability of “lethal” eggs in a two sex-allele fraternity of honeybees. J. Apic. Res. 1, 6-13Google Scholar
- Woyke, J. (1963a) Contribution of successive drones to the insemination of a queen. Proceedings, Comp. Text. of Lect. of XIX Congress of Apimondia, 715–718Google Scholar
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.