In traditional bee breeding, the honeybee queen is chosen for breeding based on the performance of the colony produced by its mother. However, we cannot be entirely certain that a specific queen will produce offspring with desirable traits until we observe the young queen’s new colony. Collecting the queen’s genetic material enables quick and reliable determination of the relevant information. We sampled exuviae, feces, and wingtips for DNA extraction to avoid fatally injuring the queen when using tissue samples. Quantity and purity of extracted DNA were measured. Two mitochondrial markers were used to determine the lineage affiliation and exclude possible contamination of DNA extracts with non-honeybee DNA. dCAPS (derived Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences) markers allowed detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in nuclear DNA regions presumably associated with Varroa sensitive hygiene and set the example of successful development of genotyping protocol from non-destructive DNA sources. One of the logical future steps in honeybee breeding is introducing genomic selection and non-destructive sampling methods of genetic material may be the prerequisite for successful genotyping. Our results demonstrate that the extraction of DNA from feces and exuviae can be introduced into practice. The advantage of these two sources over wingtips is reducing the time window for processing the samples, thus enabling genotyping directly after the queen’s emergence.

No abstract

The purpose of our study was to investigate methods of short-term storage that allow preservation, transport and retrieval of genetic information contained in honeybee queen’s spermatheca. Genotyping of the honeybee colony requires well ahead planned sample collection, depending on the type of data to be acquired. Sampling and genotyping of spermatheca’s content instead of individual offspring is timesaving, allowing answers to the questions related to patriline composition immediately after mating. Such procedure is also cheaper and less error prone. For preservation either Allprotect Tissue Reagent (Qiagen) or absolute ethanol were used. Conditions during transportation were simulated by keeping samples 6–8 days at room temperature. Six different storing conditions of spermathecas were tested, complemented with two DNA extraction methods. We have analysed the concentration of DNA, RNA, and proteins in DNA extracts. We also analysed how strongly the DNA is subjected to fragmentation (through amplification of genetic markers ANT2 and tRNAleu-COX2) and whether the quality of the extracted DNA is suitable for microsatellite (MS) analysis. Then, we tested the usage of spermatheca as a source of patriline composition in an experiment with three instrumentally inseminated virgin queens and performed MS analysis of the extracted DNA from each spermatheca, as well as queens’ and drones’ tissue. Our results show that median DNA concentration from spermathecas excised prior the storage, regardless of the storing condition and DNA extraction method, were generally lower than median DNA concentration obtained from spermathecas dissected from the whole queens after the storage. Despite the differences in DNA yield from the samples subjected to different storing conditions there was no significant effect of storage method or the DNA extraction method on the amplification success, although fewer samples stored in EtOH amplified successfully in comparison to ATR storing reagent. However, we recommend EtOH as a storing reagent due to its availability, low price, simplicity in usage in the field and in the laboratory, and capability of good preservation of the samples for DNA analysis during transport at room temperature.

No abstract