Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Microorganisms in Honey

Written By

Mayara Salgado Silva, Yavor Rabadzhiev, Monique Renon Eller, Ilia Iliev, Iskra Ivanova and Weyder Cristiano Santana

Submitted: June 2nd, 2016 Reviewed: December 15th, 2016 Published: March 15th, 2017

DOI: 10.5772/67262

Chapter metrics overview

4,207 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Honey is a product with low water activity because of the great amount of sugars (fructose and glucose), and also it has antimicrobial compounds derived from flowers or because of its transformation process in the beehive. Despite all the honey microorganism barriers, some species of microorganisms are able to survive and may cause damage to honeybees or consumers. Techniques of pathogenic microorganism identification by DNA using PCR are recommended and required for sanitary and customs control. It is important to know the diversity of contaminating microorganisms in honey, especially due to disseminate pathogenic microorganisms in the international traded marketing. In contrast, beneficial microorganisms such as yeasts can remain latently in this product waiting for the moment in which the environment is suitable for their development. Among the beneficial bacteria found in honeybee products, we can mention some lactic acid bacteria that act as prebiotics when ingested. The microorganisms in the digestive tract of honeybees are important for their health. Thus, we present the knowledge of microbiota associated with honey from honeybees and stingless bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae) and the techniques available for the detection of microorganisms in honey.


  • microbiota
  • prebiotics
  • pathogenic microorganisms
  • yeast
  • bacteria

1. Introduction

Honey is used as a therapeutic product since ancient times. Its properties are chemically evidenced by its composition. Among features that make this product effective against microorganisms, we can quote high osmotic pressure by low water activity (average 17.2%); low pH because of the presence of organic acids, mainly gluconic acid (average 3.9); the presence of hydrogen peroxide generated by action of enzyme glucose oxidase; low protein content; low redox potential due to the presence of reducing sugars; and chemical agents present as lysozyme, phenolic acids, pinocembrin, terpenes, benzyl alcohol, and volatile substances [1, 2].

High osmotic pressure results from its composition: 85–95% of sugar, of which it has 28–31% of glucose, 22–38% of fructose, 1–4% of sucrose, and 1–9% maltose [3]. Isomaltose and some oligosaccharides are also present in honey and vary according to flowering, climate, and local production [4, 5]. As honey is a product developed from changes in nectar, the bees incorporate the glucose oxidase enzyme that converts glucose into hydrogen peroxide and gluconic acid; this compound is indeed important for the taste of products as well as their bioactivity [5, 6]. The presence of acids and other chemicals varies with the composition of the transformed nectar; for this reason, some honeys have higher antimicrobial activity with respect to other different blossoming [7].

About these conditions, few microorganisms have the capacity to develop or remain in honey. These microorganisms are derived from primary or secondary sources of contamination. The primary sources are related to digestive tract of honeybees, which have natural microorganisms and sources of material collection such as nectar, pollen and propolis, air, flowers, and the environment inside the beehive, while the secondary sources are incorporation of honey microorganisms postharvest, processing plants, and appliances [5].


2. Human pathogenic microorganisms found in honey

Due to characteristics cited above, only pathogenic bacteria capable of sporulation have the ability to keep in honey, but they have no reproductive capacity or vegetative cells. Fungi and yeasts are able to maintain their vegetative form [2].

Fungal growth is followed by the production of mycotoxins, which are secondary metabolites of filamentous fungi and toxic to humans and animals even in small concentrations. These are produced by fungi to reduce the incidence of competitors in environment [8]. The main producers of mycotoxins are fungi of the genus Aspergillus, Alternaria, Fusarium, and Penicillium [9]. Among which we should highlight Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp. because they are the most commonly found in honey. Articles about these microorganisms in honey record these genera in isolated colonies in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Italy, and Brazil [1013]. They are also associated with disease in honeybees.

In research performed with honey samples of different blossoming, fungi of different species were isolated, Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus proliferans, Aspergillus spelunceus, Chaetomium globosum, Cladosporium cladosporioides, Daldinia concentrica, Emericella discophora, Emericella qinqixianii, Penicillium corylophilum, Penicillium decumbens, Penicillium polonicum, and Penicillium echinulatum, of which P. corylophilum and A. niger were the most frequent, but in low count, indicating that the honey is capable of containing multiplication of these fungi [13]. The presence of fungi does not imply the presence of mycotoxin; it has necessary ideal conditions such as high water activity, the presence of sugars, and the presence of organic acids capable of reducing pH. Necessary conditions for fungal growth are not always the necessary conditions for production of mycotoxins [9]. As an example, we can cite the patulin produced by species of Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Byssochlamys whose optimum temperature for production is 23–25°C, with minimal water activity of 0.82–0.83. Aflatoxins produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus have ideal temperature of 30–52°C and 0.80–0.95 water activity, and ochratoxin that is produced by species of Aspergillus and Penicillium needs temperature between 30–35°C and 0.93–0.99 of water activity [9].

Despite of inappropriate condition found in honey for mycotoxin production, it is important to say that the presence of fungus can also cause disease in different ways, as induction of allergic responses and infections. The fungi of genus Aspergillus are able to causing bronchopulmonary allergies among other forms of invasive aspergillosis. They are also related in acquired disease by immunocompromised patients in hospital. Aspergillus fumigatus is the most pathogenic followed by A. flavus, Aspergillus terreus, and A. niger [14]. The allergies and asthma may be caused by inhaled or ingested spores. For example, Aspergillus clavatus and A. fumigatus are responsible for allergies from malt workers who inhaled large amounts of spores during the malt handling for contaminated barley [15]. Foods with acidic pH, low humidity, and high concentration of sugars, such as honey, are sources for growth of the fungi Aspergillus glaucus [15].

Regarding the Penicillium, this fungus was first associated as producer of mycotoxins. They are saprophytic fungi able to grow at water activities less than 0.9; they can invade plants and animals but not as obligate parasite. They have vegetative reproduction by spores. However, the most important aspect concerns the production of toxins as aflatoxins, patulin, and ochratoxins [16]. In humans, only a minority of fungal species has pathogenicity, i.e., Penicillium marneffei (Southeast Asia), which is assigned lung infections in people with HIV virus in South Asia and China, and opportunistic infections—keratitis, ear infections, and endocarditis [17].

With respect to yeasts, only Debaryomyces hansenii, Zygosaccharomyces rouxii, Zygosaccharomyces mellis, Aureobasidium pullulans, and Cryptococcus uzbekistanensis species were isolated from honey [13]. Among them only Cryptococcus species was associated with human pathogenicity, i.e., the yeast Cryptococcus neoformans is characterized as opportunistic human pathogen able to infect the central nervous system [18].

Among bacteria, Bacillus sp. and Clostridium sp. were described in honey. Clostridum perfringens is known as an enterotoxin producer that happens in final stages of sporulation; thus, in adverse conditions for their development, the toxin will be released together with spore. Vegetative cells also produce enterotoxin but at low levels. Unlike C. perfringens, the toxin produced by Clostridium botulinum is stronger and produced during propagation. Thus, the best condition for propagation is the same for toxin production, which is 4.5 pH, water activity of 0.93, and temperature varying with strain [19].

There are about 200 species of Clostridium; a lot of them has pathogenicity and produce one or more toxins, assimilated by the gut and transported by blood [20]. Only Clostridium botulinum was found in honey [2], but was hardly detected with conventional methods; however, with molecular techniques as PCR, the detection was more accurate. In this way, samples that seem negative showed positive with molecular test [21, 22]. This microorganism enters the beehive through the contaminated water or even by contact of product with ground. This organism does not cause damage to honeybees, but it is responsible for the development of botulism in humans, especially in children or people with weakened immune systems and can lead to death [23].

Genus Bacillus comprises rod-shaped Gram-positive bacteria with the ability to form spores. There are 60 species of huge genetic diversity, and most of them are nonpathogenic; the pathogenicity associated with others is in opportunistic form. These pathogens belong to group Bacillus cereus, a subgroup Bacillus subtilis; however, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus pumilus, and Bacillus majavensis can cause poisoning by food too [24]. Bacillus cereus is an important pathogen in honey; it is an enterotoxin producer in pH 6.0–8.0 and temperature ranging from 6°C to 21°C, but it is necessary to ingest 107 cells/mL to reach toxic effect [19].

Researchers isolated some bacteria in honey samples of different geographical and botanical origins. “They found B. pumilus (ML374), B. licheniformis (ML103A and ML104B), B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. cereus, B. thuringiensis, B. licheniformis, B. megaterium, and B. pumilus [13].” The bacteria of species B. cereus are enterotoxin producers; the others of Bacillus species are considered safe. Due to their ability of producing bacteriocins, they are promising in the study of new antimicrobial [25].


3. Beneficial microorganisms in honey for humans

Human metabolism is dependent of symbiotic microorganisms, known as the indigenous microflora capable of favoring the production and absorption of essential nutrients to our body such as K and B12 vitamins, pentatonic acid, pyridoxine, and biotin, and acts by modulating the immune system [26]. This microbiota lives in the gut, due to high acidity of the stomach (pH 1.5); the most microorganisms are unable to grow, while in the gut we can found a lot of microorganisms with 500–600 different species [26]. There is no oxygen in gut; for this reason, the gut bacteria are aero-tolerant and facultative anaerobic. We can find bacteria of genus Actinomyces, Bacteroides, Clostridium, Enterobacter, Enterococcus, Escherichia, Klebsiella, Lactobacillus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus; many of them are opportunistic pathogens when move to other parts of the body [26].

For honey production, honeybees ingest nectar and turn this with help of enzymes. Beyond the enzymes, they incorporate some symbiont microorganisms associated with gastrointestinal tract that can bring benefit to human health [27]. The natural human microbiota is stable; so it is necessary for daily intake of the new symbiont to be able to populate the human body and maintain its benefits [28]. These microorganisms are known as probiotics and, when they grow in human gut, can make nourishment benefits, like fermentation, and broke nutrients facilitating absorption of short-chain fatty acids, ions, amino acids, and vitamins; protective effect, preventing invasion of pathogenic microorganisms; and trophic effect in the gut epithelium and in the system [28].

Bacterium Gluconobacter oxydans was isolated from honey harvested directly from beehive. Also, Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp. were found [29, 30]. However, G. oxydans is highlighted because they showed 100% of survival in pH of 5.0 and 50% of survival after 3 h of contact in pH of 2.0 and showed resistance in 2% of bile salts. This is atypical behavior for bacteria, because normally they have low resistance in acidic environments. For this way, a bacterium resistant to condition of the stomach is promising to arrive in the gut, where it will grow and will make benefit [29]. These bacteria can assimilate cholesterol reducing absorption of this component by the body, and it can be used as probiotics in food [29]. In addition to this, as honey is rich in fructose, some bacteria that live in there possess the ability to degrade fructose more easily; these bacteria are known as fructophilic lactic acid that prefer to metabolize fructose and not glucose as normally is observed. In the gut, these bacteria produce bacteriocins that act as a barrier to other microorganisms and contribute to the immune system. Lactobacillus kunkeei, fructophilic lactic acid bacteria, were found in the stomach of honeybees, as well as in their hives [27].

Besides these microorganisms is necessary consumption of substances that promote their development, known as prebiotics. These prebiotics are components, like oligosaccharides, that are not digested by humans, but they serve as a substrate for the growth and performance of probiotics [28, 31]. Currently, there is a great interest in combining probiotics with oligosaccharides acting like prebiotic. There are studies with probiotic Lactobacillus sp., which show that when they are grown in the presence of oligonucleotides, they show an increase in growth and antibacterial activity with production of bacteriocins [32].

The most-studied prebiotics are fructo-oligosaccharides, inulin, and oligofructose especially [33, 34]. However, there are others recognized as prebiotic, like galacto-oligosaccharides, trans-galactosylated oligosaccharide, isomalto-oligosaccharides, lactulose, pyrodextrin, and soy-oligosaccharides [28]. In honey we can find malto-oligosaccharides [35], specifically in Brazilian honey samples that were found in isomaltose, cellobiose, panose, maltotriose, melezitose, raffinose, maltose, turanose, and maltotriose, which are characterized as prebiotics [36].

In addition to probiotics, there are microorganisms associated with honey that can produce bacteriocins, which are substances able to reduce or eliminate competing microorganisms. These are peptides produced by bacteria producers of lactic acid, to reduce competition for nutrients, making inappropriate environment for development of other bacteria; for this reason, they are studied as an option for replacing antibiotics, and as usual these can cause harsh effects to humans also. Bacteriocins have high potency in vivo and in vitro and have low toxicity, and they can be produced in situ through consumption of probiotics or purified through bioengineering [37]. In 2013, a study was conducted with a new bacterium strain isolated from honey, able to produce bacteriocins fungicides called Bacillus BH072. These bacteriocins were tested and showed inhibitory character against A. niger CGMCC3.03928, Fusarium oxysporum CGMCC3.2830, Pythium, and Botrytis cinerea CGMCC3.4584 [25]. In another search, 13 lactic acid bacteria were isolated from honey and honeybees, and they were tested against bovine mastitis; they observed that the synergism between lactic acid bacteria and honey was able to inhibit growth of bacteria that cause mastitis, even those that were resistant to other antibiotics, and this is a promising preventive treatment to be studied [38].

Studies suggested that the antimicrobial character of honey is attributed to activity of these bacteria in honey; these are also present in the stomach of honeybees. Lactobacillus spp. were isolated from the stomach of honeybees and honey, they were then tested against Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica, and they showed inhibitory effect. It is important to say that Lactobacillus helsingborgensis and L. kunkeei are the most candidate promisors like probiotic producers of bacteriocins [39]. Direct application of honey was also effective against Serratia marcescens and Candida albicans [40]. Beyond health benefits, discovery and application of microorganisms able to develop biotechnological products must be studied because they can improve lifestyle and human survival, becoming in this way beneficial microorganisms.

Besides the microbiota associated with honey, it is worth mentioning that this product alone is highly beneficial by features from its composition. This makes the honey effective activity like antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antihyperlipidemic, cardioprotective properties, for ocular treatment, gastrointestinal tract disorders, neurological disorders and wound healing [1]. Honey has a series of phenolic acids like caffeic, ellagic, ferulic, and p-coumaric acids; flavonoids, such as apigenin, chrysin, galangin, hesperetin, kaempferol, pinocembrin, and quercetin; and antioxidants, such as tocopherols, ascorbic acid, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and reduced glutathione [41]. These compounds are known for their ability to reduce free radicals; this composition may vary depending on floral source that honeybees have visited for honey production [42]. Its antimicrobial activity makes it an important substance for the treatment of wounds as a result of carbon, lipids, amino acids, proteins, vitamins, and minerals active in healing. Components such as hydrogen peroxide, high osmolarity, acidity, non-peroxide factors, nitric oxide, and phenols are active in their healing effect. It also promotes growth of tissue in the human body, and it has anti-inflammatory activity [43]. However, it is important to note that honey directed to the treatment of wounds and inflammation should undergo irradiation treatment, so that microbiota will not interfere negatively on treatment [44].

Finally, it is important to note that consumption of foods able to bring health benefits, beyond nutrition, is a current practice that should be encouraged; honey is characterized as such, and it should be ingested daily.


4. Microorganisms in honey for industrial use

The yeasts that were found in honey are able to withstand high concentrations of acids and sugar, and it can be a problem for the honey processing industry; however, they are promising for fermentative processes. Furthermore, the low concentrations of these nutrients in honey characterize yeasts as nutritionally less demanding. Saccharomyces is widely found in honey, as well as Rhodotorula, Debaryomyces, Hansenula, Lipomyces, Oosporidium, Pichiu, Torulopsis, Trichosporon, Nematospora, Schizosaccharomyces, Schwanniomyces, Torulu, and Zygosaccharomyces. The amount of these yeasts will be increased in relation to the humidity of honey; honey with higher humidity, we will have higher population of yeasts [2]. Species of Zygosaccharomyces are recognized as osmophilic; Zygosaccharomyces gambellarensis (a new species of yeast), Zygosaccharomyces favi sp. nov., and Zygosaccharomyces clade were isolated from honey and beebread. They are obligatory osmophilic, and they do not have the ability to grow in high water activity [45]. In another study, during the isolation of 20 strains of yeasts from honey, all of them were characterized as Zygosaccharomyces rouxii [46]. Studies show that this yeast has high productivity of glycerol, a common characteristic in osmophilic yeast [47].

Besides yeast, filamentous fungi are also significant because they are known for their ability to produce extracellular substances such as enzymes and acids; they must be studied, as they are able to produce substances of industrial interest in osmotic stress condition. The genera Aspergillus and Penicillium, previously mentioned pathogens [10], are able to produce numerous extracellular compounds with biotechnological importance due to their characteristic of digest food externally before absorption of nutrients; for this reason, they produce organic acids and extracellular enzymes such as amylases and citric acid [15]. These fungi are capable of degrading starch, hemicellulose, cellulose, pectin, and sugars among other polymers. Some of them are able to degrade fats, oils, chitin, and keratin [16, 48].


5. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor for honeybee health

Honeybees have a beneficial anaerobic and micro-aerobic natural microbiota acquired and installed in their body. This includes Gram-negative groups like species Gilliamella apicola, Snodgrassella alvi, and Frischella perrara and Gram-positive groups like species of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium [49, 50]. That is, Acetobacteraceae, Parasaccharibacter apium confers resistant to Nosema [51] and Bartonella apis, a honey bee gut symbiont of the class Alphaproteobacteria [52, 53]. So it is natural for bees to acquire these microorganisms through feeding [49]. This honeybee normal microbiota comes from food, pollen, and honey consumption or through contact with other worker honeybees.

The microbiota associated to the honeybee A. mellifera is complex, and it has been described as being mainly composed of yeasts, Gram-positive bacteria (such as Lactobacillus rigidus apis, S. constellatus, Bacillus spp., Streptococcus, and Clostridium), and Gram-negative or Gram-variable bacteria (Achromobacter, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Escherichia coli, Flavobacterium, Klebsiella, Proteus, and Pseudomonas) [5458].

There are several bacterial species negatively affecting honeybee health—Paenibacillus larvae, Melissococcus plutonius, Spiroplasma apis, and Spiroplasma melliferum [5961]. Besides bacteria, there are many fungi, viruses [62], and protozoa, i.e., Apicystis bombi, Crithidia mellificae, and Lotmaria passim (Figure 1) [6365]. P. larvae is a sporulated Gram-positive Bacillus that causes the American foulbrood disease in larvae.

Figure 1.

The pathogens and beneficial microorganisms in honeybee: one pathway of bee food contamination comes from environmental nectar, pollen (on flowers), and water collected by worker honeybees. The food is stored in beehive and can be transferred by trophallaxis among workers and brood. Another pathway is the consumption by honeybees of contaminated honey and/or pollen from other beehives. Common viruses: black queen cell virus (BQCV), deformed wing virus (DWV), Kashmir bee virus (KBV), Sacbrood virus (SV), acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV), Israel acute paralysis virus (IAPV), and slow paralysis virus (SPV). Niche of beneficial microbiota on alimentary tract (gut). The arrows indicate the transfer of microorganisms by food among individuals (larva and adults) in the beehive. For detail, see in the text.

Gilliam reported that these bacteria could be endemic of the digestive tract of adult honeybees and independent of seasons and nutritional factors [11]. They are different depending on the sources of nectar and the presence of other bacterial genera in the stomach of the honeybee. It seems that bees and lactic acid bacteria developed mutualism. Lactic acid bacteria prepare the environment to make nutrients available for honeybees; on the other hand, intestinal tract of honeybees is protected from harmful microorganisms. The honeybee regurgitates the nectar stocked in the crop in the hive honeycomb that has an optimum temperature of 35°C [66] for the development of lactic acid bacteria.

The honeybee larvae probably are sterile initially, but as feed on honey from nurse workers, honeybees gain over time this intestinal flora before completing their life cycle [67]. Honeybees harbor a number of commensal or beneficial bacteria distributed throughout the different compartments of their gastrointestinal tract. Each compartment of the honeybee gastrointestinal tract has a distinct environment favoring specific microorganisms [68]. Several findings have indicated that the honeybee gut is colonized by a distinctive set of bacterial species designated as the core gut microbiota [69]. Because the community composition changes through the life cycle of honeybee, the colonization of the gut is believed to be influenced by the age [68]. During the course of their life span, worker honeybee performs many different tasks that can contribute to these variations. Newly emerged worker honeybees nurse larvae within the hive, whereas older worker honeybees build and maintain the wax combs, defend the colony, and receive and process food that is collected by foragers. In addition to the microbiota in the gut, a novel lactic acid bacterial flora composed of 13 taxonomically well-defined Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species were discovered in the crop of honeybees [70, 71]. The crop functions as an inflatable bag that can transport the nectar back to the hive for storage and honey production. It is hypothesized that lactic acid bacteria play a key role in the conversion of both nectar to honey and pollen to beebread (stored food rich in protein) due to their fermentation properties [70, 72]. The lactic acid bacterial microbiota is of great importance to the honeybee health, protecting them against bee pathogens [73, 74] and contributing to the antimicrobial properties of honey [71].

Lactic acid bacteria are found in two distinct phyla: Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. The most important genera of lactic acid bacteria within the Firmicutes are Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, and Weissella, which all have a low G+C content. Lactic acid bacteria in the Actinobacteria phylum only include species of the Bifidobacterium genus that in contrast to the Firmicutes members have a high G+C content [75, 76].

Lactic acid bacteria are important inhabitants of the intestinal tract of man and other mammalian and vertebrate animals. Lactobacillus and Enterococcus are members of this family and are also present in food and fermentation processes [77]. These microorganisms disclose interesting properties not only for the food industry but also for health. The antimicrobial potential of these bacteria includes, among others, the synthesis of compounds such as lactic acid, short-chain volatile fatty acids, and bacteriocin-like molecules [78, 79]. Antagonistic studies are generally directed toward food spoilage and/or pathogenic microorganisms related to the host or product from which the lactic acid bacteria were isolated. Fructophilic lactic acid bacteria are a special group of lactic acid bacteria, which prefer fructose over glucose as growth substrate [80]. They are found in fructose-rich niches, e.g., flowers and fruits. Moreover, the microorganisms can be found in fermented foods made from specific fruits, including wine, fermented cocoa beans, and fermented durian-based condiments [8183]. Fructobacillus spp. and L. kunkeei are representatives of these microorganisms, and a few novel species have recently been classified as members of this interesting group [84, 85].

Quite recently fructophilic lactic acid bacteria were found in the gastrointestinal tract of several flower- or fructose-related insects, including honeybees, tropical fruit flies, and giant ants [8688], whose diets are fructose rich. Of these insects, honeybees are economically and agriculturally important for honey production and especially for crop pollination, which links to human food production. However, despite the importance of these insects in nature and in our lives, populations of honeybees are reported to have decreased considerably during the last decade and to be still decreasing worldwide, mainly by colony collapse disorder [89]. To understand and to prevent the disorder, microbial interactions, both symbiotic and pathogenic, have recently been studied [90, 91], and findings have indicated that honeybees carry specific microbiota dissimilar to other animals, including humans. Fructophilic lactic acid bacteria, especially L. kunkeei, have been found to be one of the dominating bacterial species in several honeybees kept or captured in different regions [73, 90]. Lactic acid bacteria have been successfully applied as probiotics to contribute to health in humans and various companion and farm animals [92, 93]. As lactic acid bacteria are important components in their gastrointestinal tract, with a reported impact on the intestinal barrier mechanism [94], it is not surprising that lactic acid bacteria, especially fructophilic lactic acid bacteria, may be involved with honeybee health.

Symbiosis is common in nature, in which symbionts as commensals or mutualists evolved to benefit each other. Culture-independent studies of the human microbiota identified recently a complex symbiotic environment with more than 1000 bacterial phylotypes representing more than 7000 strains [95]. The composition of this microbiota has been suggested to be a result of a highly coevolved symbiosis and commensalism influenced by nutrition, physiology, and immunological factors. It varied with the sources of nectar and the presence of other bacterial genera within the honeybee and ended up eventually in the honey (Figure 1).


6. Microorganisms in stingless bee honey

Products of stingless bees are consumed since before the discovery of the Americas to the present day. Honey of these bees has activities against microorganisms, having importance in the colony maintenance as a microbiologically stable environment [96]. Stingless bee honey has characteristics that confer antimicrobial character, i.e., activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria such as Enterococcus, Staphylococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus cereus, and Candida albicans [1, 97, 98], which justifies its use in popular medicine [6, 41, 99101].

However, Meliponini also feature mutualistic interaction with microorganisms, i.e., lactic acid bacteria are found in Australian species as Tetragonula carbonaria, T. hockingsi, and Austroplebeia australis [102]. Yeasts such as Starmerella meliponinorum, Starmerella neotropicalis, Candida apicola, and Zygosaccharomyces spp. are commonly found in the Neotropical species of stingless bees such as Tetragonisca angustula, Frieseomelitta varia, Melipona quinquefasciata, and Melipona quadrifasciata [103105] and provide sensory and conservation to food characteristics [106109].

About fungi, the interesting fact is that bees cultivate them as food [110] and protection against other pathogenic microorganisms [111], i.e., Scaptotrigona aff. depilis young larvae, needs to be fed from the mycelium of Monascus genus (Ascomycotina) to complete their development [112], which reinforces the intrinsic evolutionary relationship between microorganisms and these bees.

Little is known about pathogens in stingless bees; however, there are no pathogen transfer record from A. mellifera [113], which shows the lack of information about microorganisms in Meliponini.


7. Microorganism detection methodologies in honey and honeybee products

7.1. Microbial diversity

Much has been discussed about the succession of gut microbiota among queens, workers, and larvae and the role of the diversity on the quality of honey, safety, and health of the colony [11, 53, 114117]. New methodologies have made it possible to access information about the differences in the profile of this microbiota in different apiculture sources [118121], species [53, 122] and genetic diversity [116] of honeybees, development stages [53, 68, 117, 122126], nutrition [116, 127], location inside the gut [49, 53, 68] and digestive system [120], ontogenetic stage and geographic location [118, 122, 125], environmental conditions [128], health control [129], and individual [116, 125].

This access has been carried out mainly by sequencing the coding region of the 16S subunit of the bacterial ribosome [53, 121, 130], both from genomic DNA from microorganisms growing on selective media as Man-Rogosa-Sharpe agar, Sabouraud dextrose agar, and Candida agar [117, 120, 131, 132], such as process-independent culture as specific PCR [68], denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis [124, 125], mixed and deep 16S sequencing [49, 128], pyrosequencing [53, 116, 121], and clone library [115, 118, 120, 122]. While culture-dependent methods are ideal for quantification of microorganisms and phenotypic testing, culture-independent methods generally have greater coverage in relation to the amount of different species accessed and are ideal for fingerprinting studies, and the identification of these species may be performed by real-time PCR analysis [49, 68, 125, 128]. These methods, although they have different principles, were able to distinguish similarly the narrow niche of bacterial species and the diversity of strains present in these matrices [120]. In some works, the complete genome [132, 133] or metagenome [114, 115] of the narrow range of species of microorganisms is accessed, enabling the search for specific functions of these bacteria for beehives by gene annotation, PCR screening [114], and Post-Light TM ion semiconductor sequencing [127]. Fluorescent in situ hybridization microscopy has also been used to characterize distribution and abundance of specific phyla across the life cycle and among gut organs [68]. Changes in the diversity of microbial populations found by these authors would be able to explain the transformations that occur in honey and pollen, as well as strategies of these insects to combat pathogens and invaders [11, 114, 116, 121] and beebread preservation [11, 120].

Several microorganisms present in the honey and in the gut of honeybees have antagonistic effects on honeybees and human pathogens, especially of Bacillus genus [123, 134], lactic acid bacteria as Lactobacillus [71, 121, 124, 130132, 135], Enterococcus [130], Bifidobacteria [116, 132, 136138], and Acetobacteraceae [117, 121, 133]. These same microorganisms can be accessed for other purposes, such as its potential as fermenters [116, 130, 133] or probiotics [116]. In this case, direct detection strategies of these microorganisms are not the analysis priority since their isolation is of interest to researchers for the antagonism studies. “This isolation is mainly done using traditional selective media, especially Man-Rogosa and Sharpe agar to Lactobacillus; Streptococcus selective medium and MTPY or Wilkins-Chalgren medium for Bifidobacterium” [71, 130, 136, 138, 139], with or without prior enrichment [133], and the identification of the isolates is mainly performed by sequencing 16S rRNA amplicons. However, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry profiling was used for acetobacterium identification from bumble bee crop [133] and clustering of lactic acid bacteria of a bumble bee gut microbiota [139]. Several studies have shown the effectiveness of these microorganisms to inhibit human pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli O157: H7, Salmonella, and Listeria [130, 140] or pathogens of honeybees as Melissococcus plutonius [124, 138], the causative agent of European foulbrood and Paenibacillus larvae [123, 124, 130, 134], and the causative agent of American foulbrood, among others. This effectiveness is generally associated with the production of acid, bacteriocins [130], and other antimicrobial molecules [140].

7.2. Monitoring of the microbiological honey quality

Traditional methods are often still used for monitoring the microbiological quality of honey used for human consumption, even as the rates established by the laws use these methods. Potato dextrose agar and yeast extract glucose chloramphenicol agar are media normally used for aerobic count and the total fungi (yeasts and molds), while Violet Red Bile and MacConkey medium agars are normally used for counting coliforms, which can also be done by the most probable number technique [119, 141, 142]. These media have recently been used to monitor the efficiency of a new filter-based method based in reducing the microbial burden and to improve the microbiological quality of honey [143]. Potato glucose agar in Brazil was also used for monitoring the honey contamination by yeast and fungi [144]. Standard plate count agar is used for monitoring of mesophilic bacteria, such as that was done in honey samples of Portugal [141, 142] and Argentina [119, 145].

7.3. Detection of honeybee pathogens in honey

The honey is an important route of contamination of honeybees, spreading many microorganisms, particularly pathogens that infect the honeybees. Several molecular techniques have been developed for the detection of pathogens like Paenibacillus larvae, Melissococcus plutonius, Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis [129, 146, 147], Ascophera apis and Ascophera ceranae, and A. flavus [129, 148]. Among them can highlight the simple PCR [149151], NESTED-PCR [152], RT-PCR [153, 154], immunology-based tests (ELISA), and probe-based hybridization analysis [155]. The main advantages of these techniques would be less needed for sample treatment which often can be applied directly to the honeybee products, fast technique, specificity, and sensitivity of detection.

The use of these techniques and the detection of this pathogen have allowed the control of mortality of honeybee populations around the world, restricting the dissemination of pathogens in bee products. For example, the diagnosis of American foulbrood and European foulbrood usually occurs through visual inspection of brood combs and detection of diseased larvae, subjective criteria that could be confused with other beehive conditions [155, 156]. The traditional methods of detection of these pathogens include the visualization by microscopy and detection in tissues [155]; culture on selective medium [151, 155, 156], including P. larvae agar [151]; bacteriophage sensitivity; immunotechniques; and microscopy of suspect bacterial strains have been considered adequate for routine identification purposes [151]; these methods are time-consuming and laborious but especially require that the infection is in progress so that the pathogen is detected and confirmed. The detection of pathogens before any clinical signs of disease to be visible in the colony would not only control these diseases but also the prevention of their consequences for the hive. That is, M. plutonius was detected in healthy colonies by RT-PCR in England and Wales, showing that the extent of the prevalence of this pathogen in hives goes beyond the clinical signs [157].

RT-PCR has been used to simultaneously detect multiple viruses such as in cases of honeybee parasitic mite syndrome where five out of seven viruses were detected in sample mite in Thailand [158]. Also, different multiplex RT-PCR were developed for the simultaneous detection of i) black queen cell virus (BQCV), deformed wing virus (DWV), Kashmir bee virus (KBV) and Sacbrood virus (SV) [159], ii) acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), BQCV and SV [160], iii) ABPV and SV [161] iv) ABPV, chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV), BQCV, DWV, KBV, and SV [162]. The effectiveness of this method in the detection of these pathogens was demonstrated in the simultaneous detection of these viruses in colonies [159, 160] and queens [162], where up to 93% of the queens have multiple infections [162].

Even more efficiently nine viruses (ABPV, BQCV, CBPV, DWV, KBV, SV, Israel acute paralysis virus (IAPV), Varroa destructor virus 1 (VDV-1), and slow paralysis virus (SPV)) were detected simultaneously in a single test developed by Glover and coworkers. These authors used a microarray technique with oligonucleotides based on DNA sequences of each of these viruses, but the time and cost of the technique are still unfeasible with its use for routine diagnosis [163].


  1. 1. Rao PV, Krishnan KT, Salleh N, Gan SH. Biological and therapeutic effects of honey produced by honey bees and stingless bees: a comparative review. Rev Bras Farmacogn 2016;26:657–664. doi:10.1016/j.bjp.2016.01.012.
  2. 2. Snowdon JA, Cliver DO. Microorganisms in honey. Int J Food Microbiol 1996;31:1–26. doi:10.1016/0168-1605(96)00970-1.
  3. 3. da Silva PM, Gauche C, Gonzaga LV, Costa ACO, Fett R. Honey: Chemical composition, stability and authenticity. Food Chem 2016;196:309–323. doi:
  4. 4. Buba F, Gidado A, Shugaba A. Analysis of biochemical composition of honey samples from North-East Nigeria. Biochem Anal Biochem 2013;2. doi:10.4172/2161-1009.1000139.
  5. 5. Olaitan PB, Adeleke OE, Ola IO. Honey: A reservoir for microorganisms and an inhibitory agent for microbes. Afr Health Sci 2007;7:159–165.
  6. 6. Bogdanov S. Honey in medicine. Bee Prod Sci 2014:1–24.
  7. 7. Cuevas-Glory LF, Pino JA, Santiago LS, Sauri-Duch E. A review of volatile analytical methods for determining the botanical origin of honey. Food Chem 2007;103:1032–1043. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.07.068.
  8. 8. Pitt JI. Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins. Br Med Bull 2000;56:184–192.
  9. 9. Barkai-Golan R, Paster N. Mycotoxins in fruits and vegetables. San Diego: Academic Press; 2008. doi:
  10. 10. Foley K, Fazio G, Jensen AB, Hughes WOH. The distribution of Aspergillus spp. opportunistic parasites in hives and their pathogenicity to honey bees. Vet Microbiol 2014;169:203–210. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.11.029
  11. 11. Gilliam M. Identification and roles of non-pathogenic microflora associated with honey bees. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1997;155:1 LP–10 LP. doi:
  12. 12. Naseer S, Khan SA, Azim MK. Identification of cultivable bacteria from natural honey of different botanical origin. Pak J Biochem Mol Biol 2015;48:53–56.
  13. 13. Sinacori M, Francesca N, Alfonzo A, Cruciata M, Sannino C, Settanni L, et al.. Cultivable microorganisms associated with honeys of different geographical and botanical origin. Food Microbiol 2014;38:284–294. doi:10.1016/
  14. 14. An Z Handbook of Industrial Mycology. Marcel Dekker: New York; 2004. doi:10.1201/9780203970553.
  15. 15. Machida M, Gomi K. Aspergillus: molecular biology and genomics. Caister Academic Press: Norfolk, UK; 2010. doi: 10.1002/biot.201000025
  16. 16. DeVries JW, Trucksess MW, Jackson LS, editors. Mycotoxins and food safety. Springer: New York (USA); 2002.
  17. 17. de Hoog GS, Guarro J, Gené J, Figueras MJ. Atlas of clinical fungi. ASM Press: Netherlands; 2000. doi: 10.1023/A:1013183715057
  18. 18. Ashbee R, Bignell EM. Pathogenic Yeasts. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03150-2
  19. 19. Jay JM, Loessner MJ, Golden DA. Food poisoning caused by gram-positive sporeforming bacteria. Mod Food Microbiol, Boston, MA: Springer US; 2005, pp. 567–590. doi:10.1007/0-387-23413-6_24
  20. 20. Markey B, Leonard F, Archambault M, Cullinane A, Maguire D. Clinical Veterinary Microbiology. 2nd ed. Mosby/Elsevier: Edinburgh; 2013.
  21. 21. Nevas M, Hielm S, Lindström M, Horn H, Koivulehto K, Korkeala H. High prevalence of Clostridium botulinum types A and B in honey samples detected by polymerase chain reaction. Int J Food Microbiol 2002;72:45–52. doi:10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00615-8
  22. 22. Matovic K, Baltic M, Nedic N, Dmitric M, Nenadic D, Vaskovic N, et al.. The investigation of the presence of Clostridium botulinum spores in honey in Serbia. Proced Food Sci 2015;5:180–183. doi:10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.051
  23. 23. Poormontaseri M, Hosseinzadeh S, Shekarforoush SS. Characterization of Clostridium botulinum spores and its toxin in honey. Iran J Vet Res 2014;15:36–39.
  24. 24. Økstad OA, Kolstø A-B. Genomics of Bacillus species. In: Wiedmann M, Zhang W, editors. Genomics Foodborne Bact. Pathog., New York, NY: Springer New York; 2011, pp. 29–53. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7686-4_2
  25. 25. Zhao X, Zhou Z, Han Y, Wang Z, Fan J, Xiao H. Isolation and identification of antifungal peptides from Bacillus BH072, a novel bacterium isolated from honey. Microbiol Res 2013;168:598–606. doi:10.1016/j.micres.2013.03.001
  26. 26. Engelkirk PG, Duben-Engelkirk JL, Burton GRW. Burton’s microbiology for the health sciences. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, United States; 2011.
  27. 27. Endo A, Salminen S. Honeybees and beehives are rich sources for fructophilic lactic acid bacteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 2013;36:444–448. doi:
  28. 28. Anadón A, Martínez-Larrañaga MR, Arés I, Martínez MA. Prebiotics and probiotics: An assessment of their safety and health benefits. In: Watson RR, Preedy VR, editors. Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics, Academic Press: United States; 2016, pp. 3–23. doi:10.1016/ B978-0-12-802189-7.00001-0.
  29. 29. Begum SB, Roobia RR, Karthikeyan M, Murugappan RM. Validation of nutraceutical properties of honey and probiotic potential of its innate microflora. LWT – Food Sci Technol 2015;60:743–750. doi:
  30. 30. Kappeng K, Pathom-aree W. Isolation of acetic acid bacteria from honey. Maejo Int J Sci Technol 2009;3:71–76.
  31. 31. Munir MB, Hashim R, Chai YH, Marsh TL, Nor SAM. Dietary prebiotics and probiotics influence growth performance, nutrient digestibility and the expression of immune regulatory genes in snakehead (Channa striata) fingerlings. Aquaculture 2016;460:59–68. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.03.041.
  32. 32. Pranckutė R, Kaunietis A, Kuisienė N, Čitavičius DJ. Combining prebiotics with probiotic bacteria can enhance bacterial growth and secretion of bacteriocins. Int J Biol Macromol 2016;89:669–676. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.05.041.
  33. 33. Bosscher D, Van Loo J, Franck A, Van Loo J, Franck A. Inulin and oligofructose as prebiotics in the prevention of intestinal infections and diseases. Nutr Res Rev 2006;19:216–226. doi:10.1017/S0954422407249686.
  34. 34. Rurangwa E, Laranja JL, Van Houdt R, Delaedt Y, Geraylou Z, Van de Wiele T, et al.. Selected nondigestible carbohydrates and prebiotics support the growth of probiotic fish bacteria mono-cultures in vitro. J Appl Microbiol 2009;106:932–940. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.04034.x.
  35. 35. Morales V, Corzo N, Sanz ML. HPAEC-PAD oligosaccharide analysis to detect adulterations of honey with sugar syrups. Food Chem 2008;107:922–928. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.08.050.
  36. 36. Da Costa Leite J, Trugo L, Costa LS, Quinteiro LM., Barth O, Dutra VM, et al. Determination of oligosaccharides in Brazilian honeys of different botanical origin. Food Chem 2000;70:93–98. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(99)00115-2.
  37. 37. Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. Bacteriocins — a viable alternative to antibiotics? Nat Rev Microbiol 2012;11:95–105. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2937.
  38. 38. Piccart K, Vásquez A, Piepers S, De Vliegher S, Olofsson TC. Short communication: Lactic acid bacteria from the honeybee inhibit the in vitro growth of mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:2940–2944. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10208.
  39. 39. Veress A, Kömüves J, Wilk T, Zajácz E, Kerényi Z, Kocsis R, et al.. Analysis of bacteria isolated from honey and honeybee stomach. N Biotechnol 2016;33:S175–S176. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2016.06.1329.
  40. 40. Lusby PE, Coombes AL, Wilkinson JM. Bactericidal activity of different honeys against pathogenic bacteria. Arch Med Res 2005;36:464–467. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2005.03.038.
  41. 41. Vit P, Vargas O, Lpez T, Valle F. Meliponini biodiversity and medicinal uses of pot-honey from El Oro province in Ecuador. Emir J Food Agric 2015;17:1. doi:10.9755/ejfa.2015.04.079.
  42. 42. Boussaid A, Chouaibi M, Rezig L, Hellal R, Donsì F, Ferrari G, et al.. Physicochemical and bioactive properties of six honey samples from various floral origins from Tunisia. Arab J Chem doi:
  43. 43. Oryan A, Alemzadeh E, Moshiri A. Biological properties and therapeutic activities of honey in wound healing: A narrative review and meta-analysis. J Tissue Viability 2016;25:98–118. doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2015.12.002.
  44. 44. Carnwath R, Graham EM, Reynolds K, Pollock PJ. The antimicrobial activity of honey against common equine wound bacterial isolates. Vet J 2014;199:110–114. doi:
  45. 45. Čadež N, Fülöp L, Dlauchy D, Péter G. Zygosaccharomyces favi sp. nov., an obligate osmophilic yeast species from bee bread and honey. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015;107:645–654. doi:10.1007/s10482-014-0359-1.
  46. 46. Gupta JK, Sharma R. Production technology and quality characteristics of mead and fruit-honey wines: A review. Nat Prod Radiance 2009;8:345–355.
  47. 47. ŌNishi H. Osmophilic Yeasts. In: C.O. Chichester EMM and GFSBT-A in FR, editor. vol. Volume 12, Academic Press; 1963, pp. 53–94. doi:10.1016/S0065-2628(08)60006-3.
  48. 48. Dighton J, White JF, Oudemans P. The fungal community: Its organization and role in the ecosystem. CRC Press: United States; 2005. doi:10.1201/9781420027891.ch0.
  49. 49. Powell JE, Martinson VG, Urban-Mead K, Moran NA. Routes of acquisition of the gut microbiota of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Appl Environ Microbiol 2014;80:7378–7387. doi:10.1128/AEM.01861-14.
  50. 50. Moran NA. Genomics of the honey bee microbiome. Curr Opin Insect Sci 2015;10:22–28. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2015.04.003.
  51. 51. Corby-Harris V, Snyder L, Meador CAD, Naldo R, Mott B, Anderson KE. Parasaccharibacter apium, gen. nov., sp. nov., improves honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) resistance to Nosema. J Econ Entomol 2016;109:537 LP–543 LP.
  52. 52. Kešnerová L, Moritz R, Engel P. Bartonella apis sp. nov., a honey bee gut symbiont of the class Alphaproteobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016;66:414–421. doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.000736.
  53. 53. Ahn J-H, Hong I-P, Bok J-I, Kim B-Y, Song J, Weon H-Y. Pyrosequencing analysis of the bacterial communities in the guts of honey bees Apis cerana and Apis mellifera in Korea. J Microbiol 2012;50:735–745. doi:10.1007/s12275-012-2188-0.
  54. 54. Rousseau M, Tysset C, Durand C. Presence of streptococci of the Lancefield D group in healthy working bees (Apis mellifera L.). Interpretation of their presence in alimentary bacteriology. Bull Acad Vet Fr 1969;42:173–186.
  55. 55. Gilliam M, Morton HL. Bacteria belonging to the genus Bacillus isolated from honey bees, Apis mellifera, fed 2,4-d and antibiotics. Apidologie 1978;9:213–222. doi:10.1051/apido:19780305.
  56. 56. Gilliam M, Prest DB. Microbiology of feces of the larval honey bee, Apis mellifera. J Invertebr Pathol 1987;49:70–75. doi:10.1016/0022-2011(87)90127-3.
  57. 57. Rada V, Máchová M, Huk J, Marounek M, Dušková D. Microflora in the honeybee digestive tract: counts, characteristics and sensitivity to veterinary drugs. Apidologie 1997;28:357–365. doi:10.1051/apido:19970603.
  58. 58. Mohr KI, Tebbe CC. Diversity and phylotype consistency of bacteria in the guts of three bee species (Apoidea) at an oilseed rape field. Environ Microbiol 2006;8:258–272. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00893.x.
  59. 59. Cox-Foster DL, Conlan S, Holmes EC, Palacios G, Evans JD, Moran NA, et al.. A metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony collapse disorder. Science (80- ) 2007;318:283–287. doi:10.1126/science.1146498.
  60. 60. Evans JD, Schwarz RS. Bees brought to their knees: microbes affecting honey bee health. Trends Microbiol 2011;19:614–620. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2011.09.003.
  61. 61. Evans JD, Armstrong T-N. Antagonistic interactions between honey bee bacterial symbionts and implications for disease. BMC Ecol 2006;6:1–9. doi:10.1186/1472-6785-6-4.
  62. 62. Genersch E, Evans JD, Fries I. Honey bee disease overview. J Invertebr Pathol 2010;103:S2–S4. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.015.
  63. 63. Ravoet J, Schwarz RS, Descamps T, Yañez O, Tozkar CO, Martin-Hernandez R, et al.. Differential diagnosis of the honey bee trypanosomatids Crithidia mellificae and Lotmaria passim. J Invertebr Pathol 2015;130:21–27. doi:
  64. 64. Schwarz RS, Bauchan GR, Murphy CA, Ravoet J, de Graaf DC, Evans JD. Characterization of two species of trypanosomatidae from the honey bee Apis mellifera: Crithidia mellificae Langridge and McGhee, and Lotmaria passim n. gen., n. sp. J Eukaryot Microbiol 2015;62:567–583. doi:10.1111/jeu.12209.
  65. 65. Plischuk S, Meeus I, Smagghe G, Lange CE. Apicystis bombi (Apicomplexa: Neogregarinorida) parasitizing Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Argentina. Environ Microbiol Rep 2011;3:565–568. doi:10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00261.x.
  66. 66. Jones JC. Honey bee nest thermoregulation: diversity promotes stability. Science (80- ) 2004;305:402–404. doi:10.1126/science.1096340.
  67. 67. Lee CY, Kime RW. The use of honey for clarifying apple juice. J Apic Res 1984;23:45–49.
  68. 68. Martinson VG, Moy J, Moran NA. Establishment of characteristic gut bacteria during development of the honeybee worker. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012;78:2830–2840. doi:10.1128/AEM.07810-11.
  69. 69. Martinson VG, Danforth BN, Minckley RL, Rueppell O, Tingek S, Moran NA. A simple and distinctive microbiota associated with honey bees and bumble bees. Mol Ecol 2011;20:619–628. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04959.x.
  70. 70. Olofsson TC, Vásquez A. Detection and identification of a novel lactic acid bacterial flora within the honey stomach of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Curr Microbiol 2008;57:356–363. doi:10.1007/s00284-008-9202-0.
  71. 71. Olofsson TC, Alsterfjord M, Nilson B, Butler E, Vasquez A. Lactobacillus apinorum sp. nov., Lactobacillus mellifer sp. nov., Lactobacillus mellis sp. nov., Lactobacillus melliventris sp. nov., Lactobacillus kimbladii sp. nov., Lactobacillus helsingborgensis sp. nov. and <. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014;64:3109–3119. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.059600-0.
  72. 72. Vásquez A, Olofsson TC, Sammataro D. A scientific note on the lactic acid bacterial flora in honeybees in the USA – A comparison with bees from Sweden. Apidologie 2009;40:26–28. doi:10.1051/apido:2008063.
  73. 73. Vásquez A, Forsgren E, Fries I, Paxton RJ, Flaberg E, Szekely L, et al.. Symbionts as major modulators of insect health: Lactic acid bacteria and honeybees. PLoS One 2012;7:e33188. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033188.
  74. 74. Forsgren E, Olofsson TC, Vásquez A, Fries I. Novel lactic acid bacteria inhibiting Paenibacillus larvae in honey bee larvae. Apidologie 2010;41:99–108. doi:10.1051/apido/2009065.
  75. 75. Sun Z, Yu J, Dan T, Zhang W, Zhang H. Phylogenesis and evolution of lactic acid bacteria. In: Zhang H, Cai Y, editors. Lact. Acid Bact., Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014, pp. 1–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8841-0_1.
  76. 76. Liu W, Pang H, Zhang H, Cai Y. Biodiversity of lactic acid bacteria. In: Zhang H, Cai Y, editors. Lact. Acid Bact., Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014, pp. 103–203. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8841-0_2.
  77. 77. Yoshiyama M, Wu M, Sugimura Y, Takaya N, Kimoto-Nira H, Suzuki C. Inhibition of Paenibacillus larvae by lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented materials. J Invertebr Pathol 2013;112:62–67. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2012.09.002.
  78. 78. Jack RW, Tagg JR, Ray B. Bacteriocins of gram-positive bacteria. Microbiol Rev 1995;59:171–200.
  79. 79. Wilson AR, Sigee D, Epton HAS. Anti-bacterial activity of Lactobacillus plantarum strain SK1 against Listeria monocytogenes is due to lactic acid production. J Appl Microbiol 2005;99:1516–1522. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02725.x.
  80. 80. Endo A, Futagawa-Endo Y, Dicks LMT. Isolation and characterization of fructophilic lactic acid bacteria from fructose-rich niches. Syst Appl Microbiol 2009;32:593–600. doi:
  81. 81. Endo A, Irisawa T, Futagawa-Endo Y, Takano K, du Toit M, Okada S, et al.. Characterization and emended description of Lactobacillus kunkeei as a fructophilic lactic acid bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012;62:500–504.
  82. 82. Leisner JJ. Leuconostoc durionis sp. nov., a heterofermenter with no detectable gas production from glucose. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005;55:1267–1270. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63434-0.
  83. 83. Papalexandratou Z, Falony G, Romanens E, Jimenez JC, Amores F, Daniel H-M, et al.. Species diversity, community dynamics, and metabolite kinetics of the microbiota associated with traditional Ecuadorian spontaneous Cocoa bean fermentations. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011;77:7698–7714. doi:10.1128/AEM.05523-11.
  84. 84. Endo A, Futagawa-Endo Y, Sakamoto M, Kitahara M, Dicks LMT. Lactobacillus florum sp. nov., a fructophilic species isolated from flowers. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010;60:2478–2482.
  85. 85. Endo A, Irisawa T, Futagawa-Endo Y, Sonomoto K, Itoh K, Takano K, et al.. Fructobacillus tropaeoli sp. nov., a fructophilic lactic acid bacterium isolated from a flower. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2011;61:898–902.
  86. 86. He H, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Wei C. Bacteria associated with gut lumen of Camponotus japonicus Mayr. Environ Entomol 2011;40:1405–1409. doi:10.1603/EN11157.
  87. 87. Koch H, Schmid-Hempel P. Bacterial communities in central European bumblebees: Low diversity and high specificity. Microb Ecol 2011;62:121–133. doi:10.1007/s00248-011-9854-3.
  88. 88. Thaochan N, Drew RAI, Hughes JM, Vijaysegaran S, Chinajariyawong A. Alimentary tract bacteria isolated and identified with API-20E and molecular cloning techniques from Australian tropical fruit flies, Bactrocera cacuminata and B. tryoni. J Insect Sci 2010;10:1–16. doi:10.1673/031.010.13101.
  89. 89. Bromenshenk JJ, Henderson CB, Wick CH, Stanford MF, Zulich AW, Jabbour RE, et al.. Iridovirus and microsporidian linked to honey bee colony decline. PLoS One 2010;5:e13181.
  90. 90. Mcfrederick QS, Wcislo WT, Taylor DR, Ishak HD, Dowd SE, Mueller UG. Environment or kin: whence do bees obtain acidophilic bacteria?. Mol Ecol 2012;21:1754–1768. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05496.x.
  91. 91. Moran NA, Hansen AK, Powell JE, Sabree ZL. Distinctive gut microbiota of honey bees assessed using deep sampling from individual worker bees. PLoS One 2012;7:e36393. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036393.
  92. 92. Berge AC, Wierup M. Nutritional strategies to combat Salmonella in mono-gastric food animal production. Animal 2011;6:557–564. doi:10.1017/S1751731111002217.
  93. 93. Salminen S, Isolauri E. Opportunities for improving the health and nutrition of the human infant by probiotics. Pers Nutr Divers Needs Infants Child, vol. 62, Basel: KARGER; 2008, pp. 223–237. doi:10.1159/000146350.
  94. 94. Miyauchi E, O’Callaghan J, Butto LF, Hurley G, Melgar S, Tanabe S, et al.. Mechanism of protection of transepithelial barrier function by Lactobacillus salivarius: strain dependence and attenuation by bacteriocin production. AJP Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012;303:G1029–G1041. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00003.2012.
  95. 95. Rajilić-Stojanović M, Smidt H, de Vos WM. Diversity of the human gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Environ Microbiol 2007;9:2125–2136. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01369.x.
  96. 96. Massaro CF, Katouli M, Grkovic T, Vu H, Quinn RJ, Heard TA, et al.. Anti-staphylococcal activity of C-methyl flavanones from propolis of Australian stingless bees (Tetragonula carbonaria) and fruit resins of Corymbia torelliana (Myrtaceae). Fitoterapia 2014;95:247–257. doi:
  97. 97. Guerrini A, Bruni R, Maietti S, Poli F, Rossi D, Paganetto G, et al.. Ecuadorian stingless bee (Meliponinae) honey: A chemical and functional profile of an ancient health product.Food Chem 2009;114:1413–1420. doi:
  98. 98. Biluca FC, Braghini F, Gonzaga LV, Costa ACO, Fett R. Physicochemical profiles, minerals and bioactive compounds of stingless bee honey (Meliponinae). J Food Compos Anal 2016;50:61–69. doi:
  99. 99. Choudhari MK, Punekar SA, Ranade R V, Paknikar KM. Antimicrobial activity of stingless bee (Trigona sp.) propolis used in the folk medicine of Western Maharashtra, India. J Ethnopharmacol 2012;141:363–367. doi:
  100. 100. Vit P, Medina M, Eunice Enríquez M. Quality standards for medicinal uses of Meliponinae honey in Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela. Bee World 2004;85:2–5. doi:10.1080/0005772X.2004.11099603.
  101. 101. Costa-Neto EM. The use of insects in folk medicine in the state of Bahia, Northeastern Brazil, with notes on insects reported elsewhere in Brazilian folk medicine. Hum Ecol 2002;30:245–263. doi:10.1023/A:1015696830997.
  102. 102. Leonhardt SD, Kaltenpoth M. Microbial communities of three sympatric Australian stingless bee species. PLoS One 2014;9:e105718.
  103. 103. Teixeira ACP. Starmerella meliponinorum sp. nov., a novel ascomycetous yeast species associated with stingless bees. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003;53:339–343. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02262-0.
  104. 104. Rosa C, Lachance M, Silva J, Teixeira A, Marini M, Antonini Y, et al.. Yeast communities associated with stingless bees. FEMS Yeast Res 2003;4:271–275. doi:10.1016/S1567-1356(03)00173-9.
  105. 105. Daniel H-M, Rosa CA, Thiago-Calaca PSS, Antonini Y, Bastos EMAF, Evrard P, et al. Starmerella neotropicalis f. a., sp. nov., a yeast species found in bees and pollen. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013;63:3896–3903. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.055897-0.
  106. 106. Camargo JMF de, Garcia MVB, Júnior ERQ, Castrillon A. Previous notes on the bionomic of Ptilotrigona lurida (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponinae): Association of yeasts in stored pollen. Bulletin of the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (BR); 1992; 8.
  107. 107. Fernandes-da-Silva PG, Zucoloto FS. A semi-artificial diet for Scaptotrigona depilis Moure (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Apic Res 1990;29:233–235. doi:10.1080/00218839.1990.11101225.
  108. 108. Costa L, Venturieri GC. Diet impacts on Melipona flavolineata workers (Apidae, Meliponini). J Apic Res 2009;48:38–45. doi:10.3896/IBRA.
  109. 109. Gilliam M, Buchmann SL, Lorenz BJ, Roubik DW. Microbiology of the larval provisions of the stingless bee, Trigona hypogea, an obligate necrophage. Biotropica 1985;17:28. doi:10.2307/2388374.
  110. 110. Oldroyd BPP, Aanen DKK. Entomology: A bee farming a fungus. Curr Biol 2015;25:R1072–R1074. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.062.
  111. 111. Menezes C, Vollet-Neto A, Contrera FAFL, Venturieri GC, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL. The role of useful microorganisms to stingless bees and stingless beekeeping. In: Vit P, Pedro MSR, Roubik D, editors. Pot-Honey, New York, NY: Springer New York; 2013, pp. 153–171. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4960-7_10.
  112. 112. Menezes C, Vollet-Neto A, Marsaioli AJJ, Zampieri D, Fontoura ICC, Luchessi ADD, et al.. A Brazilian social bee must cultivate fungus to survive. Curr Biol 2015;25:2851–2855. doi:
  113. 113. Nunes-Silva P, Piot N, Meeus I, Blochtein B, Smagghe G. Absence of Leishmaniinae and Nosematidae in stingless bees. Sci Rep 2016;6:32547.
  114. 114. Engel P, Martinson VG, Moran NA. Functional diversity within the simple gut microbiota of the honey bee. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;109:11002–11007. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202970109.
  115. 115. Engel P, Moran NA. Functional and evolutionary insights into the simple yet specific gut microbiota of the honey bee from metagenomic analysis. Gut Microbes 2013;4:60–65. doi:10.4161/gmic.22517.
  116. 116. Mattila HR, Rios D, Walker-Sperling VE, Roeselers G, Newton ILG. Characterization of the active microbiotas associated with honey bees reveals healthier and broader communities when colonies are genetically diverse. PLoS One 2012;7:e32962. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032962.
  117. 117. Vojvodic S, Rehan SM, Anderson KE. Microbial gut diversity of Africanized and European honey bee larval instars. PLoS One 2013;8:e72106. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072106.
  118. 118. Jeyaprakash A, Hoy MA, Allsopp MH, Jay JM, Loessner MJ, Golden DA. Modern Food Microbiology. vol. 84. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2005. doi:10.1007/b100840.
  119. 119. Iurlina MO, Fritz R. Characterization of microorganisms in Argentinean honeys from different sources. Int J Food Microbiol 2005;105:297–304. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.03.017.
  120. 120. Anderson KE, Sheehan TH, Mott BM, Maes P, Snyder L, Schwan MR, et al.. Microbial ecology of the hive and pollination landscape: Bacterial associates from floral nectar, the alimentary tract and stored food of honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS One 2013;8:e83125.
  121. 121. Corby-Harris V, Maes P, Anderson KE. The bacterial communities associated with honey bee (Apis mellifera) foragers. PLoS One 2014;9:e95056. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095056.
  122. 122. Disayathanoowat T, Young JPW, Helgason T, Chantawannakul P. T-RFLP analysis of bacterial communities in the midguts of Apis mellifera and Apis cerana honey bees in Thailand. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2012;79:273–281. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01216.x.
  123. 123. Yoshiyama M, Kimura K. Bacteria in the gut of Japanese honeybee, Apis cerana japonica, and their antagonistic effect against Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood. J Invertebr Pathol 2009;102:91–96. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.005.
  124. 124. Killer J, Votavova A, Valterova I, Vlkova E, Rada V, Hroncova Z. Lactobacillus bombi sp. nov., from the digestive tract of laboratory-reared bumblebee queens (Bombus terrestris). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014;64:2611–2617. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.063602-0.
  125. 125. Hroncova Z, Havlik J, Killer J, Doskocil I, Tyl J, Kamler M, et al.. Variation in honey bee gut microbial diversity affected by ontogenetic stage, age and geographic location. PLoS One 2015;10:e0118707. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118707.
  126. 126. Engel P, James RR, Koga R, Kwong WK, McFrederick QS, Moran NA. Standard methods for research on Apis mellifera gut symbionts. J Apic Res 2013;52:1–24. doi:10.3896/IBRA.
  127. 127. Saraiva MA, Zemolin APP, Franco JL, Boldo JT, Stefenon VM, Triplett EW, et al.. Relationship between honeybee nutrition and their microbial communities. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015;107:921–933. doi:10.1007/s10482-015-0384-8.
  128. 128. Ludvigsen J, Rangberg A, Avershina E, Sekelja M, Kreibich C, Amdam G, et al.. Shifts in the midgut/pyloric microbiota composition within a honey bee apiary throughout a season. Microbes Environ 2015;30:235–244. doi:10.1264/jsme2.ME15019.
  129. 129. Guimarães-Cestaro L, Serrão JE, Message D, Martins MF, Teixeira ÉW. Simultaneous detection of Nosema spp., Ascosphaera apis and Paenibacillus larvae in honey bee products. J Hymenopt Res 2016;49:43–50. doi:10.3897/JHR.49.7061.
  130. 130. Carina Audisio M, Torres MJMJ, Sabate DC, Ibarguren C, Apella MCMC, Sabaté DC, et al.. Properties of different lactic acid bacteria isolated from Apis mellifera L. bee-gut. Microbiol Res 2011;166:1–13. doi:
  131. 131. Tajabadi N, Mardan M, Saari N, Mustafa S, Bahreini R, Manap MYA. Identification of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus pentosus and Lactobacillus fermentum from honey stomach of honeybee. Brazilian J Microbiol 2013;44:717–722. doi:10.1590/S1517-83822013000300008.
  132. 132. Ellegaard KM, Tamarit D, Javelind E, Olofsson TC, Andersson SGE, Vásquez A. Extensive intra-phylotype diversity in Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria from the honeybee gut. BMC Genom 2015;16:1–22. doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1476-6.
  133. 133. Li L, Praet J, Borremans W, Nunes OC, Manaia CM, Cleenwerck I, et al.. Bombella intestini gen. nov., sp. nov., an acetic acid bacterium isolated from bumble bee crop. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015;65:267–273. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.068049-0.
  134. 134. Alippi AM, Reynaldi FJ. Inhibition of the growth of Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood of honeybees, by selected strains of aerobic spore-forming bacteria isolated from apiarian sources. J Invertebr Pathol 2006;91:141–146. doi:
  135. 135. Killer J, Dubna S, Sedlacek I, Svec P. Lactobacillus apis sp. nov., from the stomach of honeybees (Apis mellifera), having an in vitro inhibitory effect on the causative agents of American and European foulbrood. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014;64:152–157. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.053033-0.
  136. 136. Killer J, Kopečný J, Mrázek J, Havlík J, Koppová I, Benada O, et al.. Bombiscardovia coagulans gen. nov., sp. nov., a new member of the family Bifidobacteriaceae isolated from the digestive tract of bumblebees. Syst Appl Microbiol 2010;33:359–366. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.08.002.
  137. 137. Killer J, Kopecny J, Mrazek J, Koppova I, Havlik J, Benada O, et al.. Bifidobacterium actinocoloniiforme sp. nov. and Bifidobacterium bohemicum sp. nov., from the bumblebee digestive tract. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2011;61:1315–1321. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.022525-0.
  138. 138. Wu M, Sugimura Y, Takaya N, Takamatsu D, Kobayashi M, Taylor D, et al.. Characterization of Bifidobacteria in the digestive tract of the Japanese honeybee, Apis cerana japonica. J Invertebr Pathol 2013;112:88–93. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2012.09.005.
  139. 139. Praet J, Meeus I, Cnockaert M, Houf K, Smagghe G, Vandamme P. Novel lactic acid bacteria isolated from the bumble bee gut: Convivina intestini gen. nov., sp. nov., Lactobacillus bombicola sp. nov., and Weissella bombi sp. nov. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015;107:1337–1349. doi:10.1007/s10482-015-0429-z.
  140. 140. Lee H, Churey J, Worobo R. Antimicrobial activity of bacterial isolates from different floral sources of honey. Int J Food Microbiol 2008;126:240–244. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.04.030.
  141. 141. Gomes S, Dias LG, Moreira LL, Rodrigues P, Estevinho L. Physicochemical, microbiological and antimicrobial properties of commercial honeys from Portugal. Food Chem Toxicol 2010;48:544–548. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.029.
  142. 142. Estevinho LM, Feas X, Seijas JA, Pilar Vazquez-Tato M. Organic honey from Trás-Os-Montes region (Portugal): Chemical, palynological, microbiological and bioactive compounds characterization. Food Chem Toxicol 2012;50:258–264. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.10.034.
  143. 143. Alam MS, Sharma DK, Sehgal VK, Arora M, Bhatia S. Development and evaluation of low cost honey heating-cum-filtration system. J Food Sci Technol 2014;51:3476–3481. doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0863-0.
  144. 144. Ananias KR, Melo AAM de, Moura CJ de. Analysis of moisture content, acidity and contamination by yeast and molds in Apis mellifera L. honey from central Brazil. Brazilian J Microbiol 2013;44:679–683.
  145. 145. Pucciarelli AB, Schapovaloff ME, Kummritz S, Señuk IA, Brumovsky LA, Dallagnol AM. Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of yateí (Tetragonisca angustula) honey for assessing quality standards and commercialization. Rev Argent Microbiol 2014;46:325–332. doi:10.1016/S0325-7541(14)70091-4.
  146. 146. Gochnauer TA, Margetts VJ. A rapid method for concentrating Nosema apis spores. J Invertebr Pathol 1980;36:278–280. doi:10.1016/0022-2011(80)90035-X.
  147. 147. Chen Y, Evans JD, Smith IB, Pettis JS. Nosema ceranae is a long-present and wide-spread microsporidian infection of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in the United States. J Invertebr Pathol 2008;97:186–188. doi:
  148. 148. Rehner SA, Evans JD. Microsatellite loci for the fungus Ascosphaera apis: cause of honey bee chalkbrood disease. Mol Ecol Resour 2009;9:855–858. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02455.x.
  149. 149. Alippi AM, López AC, Aguilar OM. A PCR-based method that permits specific detection of Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae, the cause of American Foulbrood of honey bees, at the subspecies level. Lett Appl Microbiol 2004;39:25–33. doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2004.01535.x.
  150. 150. Ryba S, Titera D, Haklova M, Stopka P. A PCR method of detecting American Foulbrood (Paenibacillus larvae) in winter beehive wax debris. Vet Microbiol 2009;139:193–196. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.05.009.
  151. 151. De Graaf DC, Alippi AM, Brown M, Evans JD, Feldlaufer M, Gregorc A, et al.. Diagnosis of American foulbrood in honey bees: a synthesis and proposed analytical protocols. Lett Appl Microbiol 2006;43:583–590. doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.02057.x.
  152. 152. Lauro FM, Favaretto M, Covolo L, Rassu M, Bertoloni G. Rapid detection of Paenibacillus larvae from honey and hive samples with a novel nested PCR protocol. Int J Food Microbiol 2003;81:195–201. doi:10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00257-X.
  153. 153. López-Campos G, Martínez-Suárez JV, Aguado-Urda M, López-Alonso V. Microarray detection and characterization of bacterial foodborne pathogens. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2012. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3250-0.
  154. 154. Han S-H, Lee D-WD-B, Lee D-WD-B, Kim E-H, Yoon B-S. Ultra-rapid real-time PCR for the detection of Paenibacillus larvae, the causative agent of American Foulbrood (AFB). J Invertebr Pathol 2008;99:8–13. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2008.04.010.
  155. 155. Forsgren E. European foulbrood in honey bees. J Invertebr Pathol 2010;103:S5–S9. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2009.06.016.
  156. 156. Gillard M, Charriere JD, Belloy L. Distribution of Paenibacillus larvae spores inside honey bee colonies and its relevance for diagnosis. J Invertebr Pathol 2008;99:92–95. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2008.05.010.
  157. 157. Budge GE, Barrett B, Jones B, Pietravalle S, Marris G, Chantawannakul P, et al.. The occurrence of Melissococcus plutonius in healthy colonies of Apis mellifera and the efficacy of European foulbrood control measures. J Invertebr Pathol 2010;105:164–170. doi:
  158. 158. Chantawannakul P, Ward L, Boonham N, Brown M. A scientific note on the detection of honeybee viruses using real-time PCR (TaqMan) in Varroa mites collected from a Thai honeybee (Apis mellifera) apiary. J Invertebr Pathol 2006;91:69–73. doi:
  159. 159. Chen Y, Zhao Y, Hammond J, Hsu H, Evans J, Feldlaufer M. Multiple virus infections in the honey bee and genome divergence of honey bee viruses. J Invertebr Pathol 2004;87:84–93. doi:
  160. 160. Grabensteiner E, Bakonyi T, Ritter W, Pechhacker H, Nowotny N. Development of a multiplex RT-PCR for the simultaneous detection of three viruses of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.): Acute bee paralysis virus, Black queen cell virus and Sacbrood virus. J Invertebr Pathol 2007;94:222–225. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2006.11.006.
  161. 161. Kukielka D, Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM. One-step real-time quantitative PCR assays for the detection and field study of Sacbrood honeybee and Acute bee paralysis viruses. J Virol Methods 2009;161:240–246. doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.06.014.
  162. 162. Chen Y, Pettis JS, Feldlaufer MF. Detection of multiple viruses in queens of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. J Invertebr Pathol 2005;90:118–121. doi:
  163. 163. Glover RH, Adams IP, Budge G, Wilkins S, Boonham N. Detection of honey bee (Apis mellifera) viruses with an oligonucleotide microarray. J Invertebr Pathol 2011;107:216–219. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2011.03.004.

Written By

Mayara Salgado Silva, Yavor Rabadzhiev, Monique Renon Eller, Ilia Iliev, Iskra Ivanova and Weyder Cristiano Santana

Submitted: June 2nd, 2016 Reviewed: December 15th, 2016 Published: March 15th, 2017