Synergistic toxicity and physiological impact of imidacloprid alone and binary mixtures with seven representative pesticides on honey bee (Apis mellifera)

Yu Cheng Zhu; Jianxiu Yao; John Adamczyk; Randall Luttrell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176837

Abstract

Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world. In this study, we used spraying methods to simulate field exposures of bees to formulated imidacloprid (Advise^® 2FL) alone and binary mixtures with seven pesticides from different classes. Synergistic toxicity was detected from mixtures of Advise (58.6 mg a.i./L imidacloprid)+Domark (512.5 mg a.i. /L tetraconazole), Advise+Transform (58.5 mg a.i./L sulfoxaflor), and Advise+Vydate (68 mg a.i./L oxamyl), and mortality was significantly increased by 20%, 15%, and 26% respectively. The mixtures of Advise+Bracket (88.3 mg a.i./L acephate) and Advise+Karate (62.2 mg a.i./L L-cyhalothrin) showed additive interaction, while Advise+Belay (9.4 mg a.i./L clothianidin) and Advise+Roundup (1217.5 mg a.i./L glyphosate) had no additive/synergistic interaction. Spraying bees with the mixture of all eight pesticides increased mortality to 100%, significantly higher than all other treatments. Except Bracket which significantly suppressed esterase and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activities, other treatments of Advise-only and mixtures with other pesticides did not suppress enzyme activities significantly, including invertase, glutathione S-transferase (GST), and esterase and AChE. Immunity-related phenoloxidase (PO) activities in survivors tended to be more variable among treatments, but mostly still statistically similar to the control. By using specific enzyme inhibitors, we demonstrated that honey bees mainly rely on cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s) for detoxifying Advise, while esterases and GSTs play substantially less roles in the detoxification. This study provided valuable information for guiding pesticide selection in premixing and tank mixing in order to alleviate toxicity risk to honey bees. Our findings indicated mixtures of Advise with detoxification-enzyme-inducing pesticides may help bees to detoxify Advise, while toxicity synergists may pose further risk to bees, such as the Bracket which not only suppressed esterase and AChE activities, but also increased toxicity to bees.

Citation: Zhu YC, Yao J, Adamczyk J, Luttrell R (2017) Synergistic toxicity and physiological impact of imidacloprid alone and binary mixtures with seven representative pesticides on honey bee (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 12(5): e0176837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837

Editor: Nicolas Desneux, Institut Sophia Agrobiotech, FRANCE

Received: November 10, 2016; Accepted: April 18, 2017; Published: May 3, 2017

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus) produces hundreds of millions of dollar worth of honey [1], and enhances crop value by approximately $12 billion through natural and commercialized pollination service annually in the United States [2–3]. However, honey bees are not immune to biological and physical threats. They are attacked by numerous pests, parasites, and pathogens [4–6]. In addition, honey bees are often adversely, although unintentionally, impacted by farming practices, resulting in losing favorable natural habitats and direct poisoning from pesticides, because honey bees utilize crops as forage and share the agroecosystem with other insects including the pests targeted by the pesticides.

With the widespread implementation of transgenic crops and concurrent decrease in the use of some pesticides, piercing/sucking insects have shifted from secondary pest status to serious pests [7–8]. This pest status shift, coupled with the development of insecticide resistance in target insects [9–10], has resulted in increased use of insecticides for seed treatments and foliar sprays of systemic insecticides. This also increased the risk of direct exposures of foraging bees to insecticides. Currently, a variety of insecticides are available for crop pest control, including pyrethroids, organophosphates, carbamates, and neonicotinoids. More than forty pesticides are currently recommended by extension specialists for the chemical control of row crop insects in US Midsouth area [11–13].

During the last decade, sublethal pesticide residues in pollen has become a major concern and possible contribution to honey bee colony decline. Neonicotinoids that are widely used for seed treatment [14] and foliar spray have been implicated as key insecticides in this issue. The possible relationships between honey bee colony losses and sublethal effects of pesticide residues have received considerable attention, and published data indicated that pesticide residues may pose a range of concerns from serious adverse impacts [15–23] to very low or no risk [24–26] to honey bees. While a significant research efforts have been placed on the impact of residue levels of pesticides on honeybees and the collective data from these studies are generally inconclusive, however, a number of important issues may have been ignored or received much less research attention. They include (1) many pesticides have both contact and systemic toxicities; (2) pesticide residues in pollen from one-time seed treatment might be significantly lower than the pesticide deposits on plant leaves and flowers from foliar sprays applied multiple times over a growing season; and (3) testing with technical grade (pure) chemical may ignore the synergistic toxicity from formulating reagents [27].

Imidacloprid was the first synthetic neonicotinoid insecticide commercialized in 1991, and it incurs toxicity through contact and oral ingestion. As same as other neonicotinoids, imidacloprid is an agonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR). By acting on the central nervous system, neonicotinoids interfere with the transmission of stimuli by competing with the natural neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Irreversible and selective binding to the insect’s central nervous system causes paralysis and death by over-stimulation [28]. The systemic activity of imidacloprid is effective in controlling sucking insects, and the relatively low mammalian toxicity provide safety to users, thus making imidacloprid one of the most widely used insecticides [28].

Because sucking insects have become serious pests on southern row crops, especially cotton, in recent years, foliar sprays, almost an exclusive control method, are frequently applied [29] by growers using aerial sprayer or ground sprayer. Some crops with long blooming period are attractive to honey bees. While feeding method was widely used in previous toxicology studies to simulate in-hive feeding on contaminated pollens, the risks of foraging bees to direct and frequent exposures to foliar sprays (whole body exposure) and subsequently tarsal contact of pesticide residues on plant leaves have largely been less studied through laboratory simulation using spray tower. Further studies are needed to understand whether and how pesticide mixtures impact honey bee biology and physiology. In this study, we used a spray tower to simulate field spraying, instead using feeding or topical application (one-time exposure to limited body part). We also selected one of the imidacloprid commercial products, Advise^® 2FL (Advise) (used by farmers, instead of technical grade chemical) to examine potential additive/synergistic toxicities of Advise-only and binary mixtures (to simulate tank mixing, a common practice) with seven commonly used (representatives of different pesticide classes) pesticides to honey bee workers at LC₂₀ concentration. In addition to mortality measurements, physiological responses were also measured using microtiter plate reader assays of several detoxification, metabolic-, and immune-related enzymatic activities in pesticide treated survivors. Furthermore, we explored detoxification mechanisms in honey bees through inhibition of detoxification enzymes.

Methods and materials

2.1. Honey bee colony

Honey bee (Italian) queens and colonies were originally purchased from bee keepers located in pine forest and pasture area in Magee and Perkinston, Mississippi and maintained in a managed bee yard at the Mississippi Wildlife Management Area near Stoneville, MS. An oil trap (35x45 cm tray filled with vegetable oil) was installed at the bottom of each colony for Varroa mite (Varroa destructor) and small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) monitoring and control. Deep frames with more than 50% coverage of healthy sealed brood were pulled out and transferred to laboratory incubators (33°C±0.5°C; 65%±3 RH; no light). Twenty-five newly emerged workers were transferred daily into plastic cages (see descriptions below) and were provided a piece of global paddies (1 cm³, Betterbee, Greenwich, NY) placed at the bottom of the cage and one scintillation vial of 50% sugar solution and one scintillation vial of d-H₂O at the top of the cage. Caged bees were maintained in incubators at the same conditions described above until being used for experiment.

2.2. Pesticides and test concentrations

Formulated imidacloprid Advise^® 2FL (Advise) and other insecticides were purchased from local agricultural chemical stores and kept in a refrigerator (6±1°C). Solutions of individual and mixture of pesticides, prepared by diluting chemical in d-H₂O to a concentration equal to corresponding LC₂₀ concentration for each pesticide, were used for spray treatments of Advise alone and mixtures with seven representative pesticides based on data of Zhu et al. [30]. These concentrations are: Advise at 274 mg/L; Bracket (acephate) at 91 mg/L; Karate (lambda-cyhalothrin) at 273 mg/L; Vydate (oxamyl) at 162 mg/L; Domark (tetraconazole) at 2500 mg/L; Roundup (glyphosate) at 2500 mg/L; Transform (sulfoxaflor) at 117 mg/L; Belay (clothianidin) at 40 mg/L. Details of pesticide name, manufacturer, percentage of active ingredient, spray concentration of formulation, and mode of action were listed in Table 1.

Download:

Table 1. Pesticide name, manufacturer, percentage of active ingredient, spray concentration of formulation, and mode of action.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.t001

2.3. Bioassay methods

To simulate field foliar spray exposure, acute toxicities of Advise (imidacloprid) alone and binary mixtures with 7 representative pesticides were previously assayed using modified spray tower [30] for synergistic toxicity and specific enzyme inhibition tests. Briefly, the spray tower was constructed with Plexiglas^® to fit into a fume hood. The spray tower incorporated the original spray nozzle of Potter Spray Tower (Burkard Scientific Ltd, Uxbridge, UK) and nearly the same pressure air delivering and regulating systems as those in the Potter Spray Tower. Twenty-five newly emerged workers were transferred into a cage (made with a 500-ml round wide-mouth polypropylene jar [DxH: 9.3x10 cm]). An 8.9 cm diameter (d) hole was cut in the lid and covered with 3×3 mm-mesh metal screen for pesticide solution to spray through. Caged bees were supplied with 20 ml sugar syrupy (50%) and 20 ml d-H₂O in separate scintillation vials and kept at 33°C for 8 days before being used for experiments. Three replicates (cages) were used for each treatment. Caged bees were sprayed once with 0.5 ml pesticide solution with air pressure at 69 kPa (10 psi) and spray distance of 22 cm. Sugar and water vials were removed during spraying and were placed back on the top of the cages after spraying. Sprayed (caged) bees were sent back to incubators (33°C) after spray treatments. Mortality was recorded 48-h after treatment. Three surviving bees were collected 48-h after treatment from each cage and were used for enzyme activity assays (below).

For specific enzyme inhibition test, caged bees were sprayed with 0.5 ml of PBO (piperonyl butoxide), TPP (triphenyl phosphate), or DEM (diethyl maleate) solution at 1% (in 50% acetone) one hour before spraying the Advise solution at 233 mg/L. Five replicates (cages) were included in each treatment.

2.4. Enzyme activity assays

2.4.1. Chemicals.

The following chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO): protease inhibitor (cocktail tablets), α-naphthyl acetate, fast blue B salt, 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (CDNB), L-glutathione reduced (GSH), 4-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (pNPG), Dopamine hydrochloride, acetylthiocholine iodide (ATC), 5,5`-dithio-bis(2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB), ρ-hydroxybenzhydrazide (PAHBAH), umbelliferone (7-hydroxycoumarin), 7-ethoxycoumarin (7-EC), oxidized glutathione (GSSG), glutathione reductase, β-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (reduced β-NADPH).

2.4.2. Protein preparation.

After 48 h of exposure to a single spray treatment, heads plus thoraxes of three surviving workers per replicate (3 replicates per treatment) from the treatment assay were ground in phosphate buffer pH7.2 with protease inhibitor and 0.3% triton X-100. The homogenization was centrifuged at 4°C, 20,800 × g, for 15min and the supernatant were collected for enzyme activity assays described below. Total protein concentration of each enzyme extraction sample was measured by Bradford protein assay kit [34] (ThermoScientific. Waltham, MA).

2.4.3. Esterase activity assay.

Esterase activity against α-naphthyl acetate was measured using the assay method of Zhu and Gao [35]. The homogenate was diluted by 5 fold with 0.1 M phosphate buffer pH7.5. The reaction solution consisted of 15 μl diluted enzyme and 135 μl 0.3 M α-naphthyl acetate. The reaction solution was incubated at 37°C for 30 min and the reaction was stopped by adding 50 μl fast Blue-SDS. Absorbance was recorded at 600 nm using a Synergy HTX plate reader (Bio-Tek Instruments Inc. Winooski, VT). The esterase activity was calculated based on a standard linear relationship established using α-naphthol.

2.4.4. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity assay.

GST activities were determined using the protocols of Yu [36] with some modifications. The reaction solutions (200 μl) contained 10 mM GSH, 2 mM CDNB, and 10 μl enzyme extraction. The optical density (OD) was continuously measured at 340 nm every 15 sec for a total of 10 min on Synergy HTX plate reader. The specific GST activity was calculated to nmol CDNB conjugation/min/mg protein using experimentally derived “extinction coefficients” of 5.3 mM^-1cm^-1 [37].

2.4.5. Invertase activity assay.

Invertase activity was determined using sucrose as substrate according to Lever [38] with some modification [39]. The reaction mixture of 100 μl enzyme extract and 900 μl 1% sucrose in 0.1 M pH4.5 acetate buffer were incubated at 55°C for 20 min in water bath. The reaction was stopped by mixing 50 μl reaction mixture with 1.45 ml 1% PAHBAH in 0.5 M sodium hydroxide solution and heated the mixture at 95°C for 5 min. The absorbance was measured at 410 nm. The activity of invertase was determined by hydrolyzing 1.0 μmole of sucrose to glucose and fructose per minute per mg protein at 55°C, pH 4.5.

2.4.6. Phenoloxidase activity assay.

The reaction solution contained 20 μl enzyme solution and 2 mM dopamine hydrochloride in pH 6.5 phosphate buffer. Phenoloxidase activity was measured at 490 nm for 30 min with 30-sec reading interval [40]. The activity of phenoloxidase was defined as the amount of enzyme which causes a change of OD 490 per minute per mg of protein in the reaction (units/min/mg protein).

2.4.7. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity assay.

AChE activity was measured using acetylthiocholine (ATC) according to the method of Ellman et al. [41] with some modifications. Each reaction mixture included 50 μl enzyme extract, 0.25 mM ATC, and 0.4 mM DTNB in 150 μl of 0.1 M phosphate buffer pH7.5. The enzyme activity expressed by Vmax mOD/min was determined kinetically at 405 nm using Synergy HTX plate reader. AChE activities were expressed as nmol ATC hydrolyzed per min per mg protein using the extinction coefficient of 1.36×10⁴ M⁻¹ cm⁻¹.

2.5. Data processing and statistical analysis

SAS (version 9.2) [42] was used for analysis of variance (ANOVA). Proc GLM (general linear model) procedure was applied with option of Fisher’s LSD (least significant difference) method for mean separation at P = 0.05.

Results

3.1 Synergistic/additive toxicity of Advise (imidacloprid) with other pesticides

Toxicities of Advise were examined in binary mixtures with seven selected pesticides from different pesticide classes, all tested at LC₂₀ levels except Domark and Roundup that were tested at 2,500 mg/L because they are not acutely toxic to honey bees [30]. Results showed that no bee died after 48 h in water-only control. Additive/synergistic toxicity was not detected from mixtures of Advise+Roundup and Advise+Belay (Fig 1). Synergistic toxicity was detected from binary mixtures of Advise+Domark, Advise+Transform, and Advise+Vydate, and mortality was significantly increased by 20%, 15%, and 26% compared to the added mortality of individual treatments, respectively. The mixtures of Advise+Bracket and Advise+Karate had additive toxicity with 10% and 4% higher mortality than the added of mortality of individual treatments, respectively. Roundup (glyphosate) at 2,500 mg/L did not kill bees, and the toxicity of the binary mixture of Advise+Roundup was not different from that of Advise-only treatment. The mixture of Advise with 7 other pesticides together killed 100% test bees, significantly higher than any individuals and binary mixtures and 6% higher than the added mortality of all 8 pesticides (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Acute toxicity of Advise (imidacloprid) and seven binary pesticide mixtures to honey bees.

All concentrations used are listed in Table 1 as LC₂₀ determined in a previous study [30]. Advi, Brac, Kara, Vyda, Doma, Roun, Tran, and Bela were used as abbreviations for the same order of eight pesticides listed in Table 1. Same letters above the error bars indicate no significant difference: lower case letters are for within-group comparisons; capital letters refer to comparisons among all treatments. The corrected mortality from Advise only was reused in each group for within-group comparison and statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.g001

3.2 Effect of Advise and its binary mixtures on honey bee physiology

3.2.1 Effects on insecticide-interacting enzymes: esterase (EST), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and acetylcholinesterase (AChE).

To make data comparable, enzymatic activities were converted to ratios of treatment to control. Results showed that most individual pesticide treatments and binary mixtures of Advise with six other pesticides had similar or higher esterase activities than untreated control, except for Bracket (acephate)-only and mixture of Advise+Bracket (Fig 2A). Bracket-only treatment reduced esterase activity by 40%, and the mixture of Advise+Bracket suppressed esterase activity by 45%. The mixture of Advise+Domark (fungicide) significantly induced 1.34- and 1.32-fold higher esterase activities than Advise- and Domark-only, respectively. Similarly, the mixture of Advise+Belay (clothianidin) significantly increased esterase activities by 1.41- and 1.23-fold than Advise- and Belay-only (Fig 2A).

Download:

Fig 2. Impact of Advise and mixtures with seven representative pesticides on three insecticide-interacting enzymes, esterase (A), glutathione S-transferase (B), and acetylcholinesterase (C), activities in honey bee survivors after spray treatments.

All concentrations used are listed in Table 1 as LC₂₀ determined in a previous study [30]. Advi, Brac, Kara, Vyda, Doma, Roun, Tran, and Bela were used as abbreviations for the same order of eight pesticides listed in Table 1. Same letters above the error bars indicate no significant difference: lower case letters are for within-group comparisons; capital letters refer to comparisons among all treatments. The enzyme activity from Advise only was reused in each group for within-group comparison and statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.g002

Glutathione S-transferase (GST) activities were similar to that of the control in all cases except for the individual Karate (lambda-cyhalothrin) treatment that had significantly lower GST activity than control (Fig 2B). None of the mixtures had additive/synergistic or antagonistic effect on GST activity.

Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activities were similar to that of the control in all cases except for both Bracket (organophosphate) treatments, individual and mixture with Advise, that had significantly lower AChE activity than control (Fig 2C). None of the binary mixtures of Advise with others produced significant additive/synergistic or antagonistic influence on AChE activity.

3.2.2 Influences on invertase (INV: honey-making enzyme), and phenoloxidase (PO: immunity enzyme).

Most treatments of Advise and binary mixtures with 7 representative pesticides produced slightly higher INV activities, and no treatment produced significantly lower INV activities than control (Fig 3A). Two treatments, Bracket-only and Advise+Karate, produced significantly higher INV activities than control. Similarly, none of the binary mixtures of Advise with other pesticides induced significant additive/synergistic or antagonistic effect on INV activity.

Download:

Fig 3. Impact of Advise and binary mixtures with seven representative pesticides on two non-pesticide-interacting enzyme, invertase (A) and phenoloxidase (B), activities in honey bee survivors after spray treatments.

All concentrations used are listed in Table 1 as LC₂₀ determined in a previous study [30]. Advi, Brac, Kara, Vyda, Doma, Roun, Tran, and Bela were used as abbreviations for the same order of eight pesticides listed in Table 1. Same letters above the error bars indicate no significant difference: lower case letters are for within-group comparisons; capital letters refer to comparisons among all treatments. The enzyme activity from Advise only was reused in each group for within-group comparison and statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.g003

Phenoloxidase activities in most treatments were slightly (but not significantly) lower than control, and only one treatment (Advise+Vydate) significantly reduced PO activities (Fig 3B). Slight (but not significant) increase of PO activities than control were seen only in 4 treatments, Advise+Karate, Karate, Roundup, and Belay. Similarly, none of the binary mixtures of Advise with others induced significant additive/synergistic or antagonistic impact on PO activity (Fig 3B).

3.3 Revealing of specific Advise-detoxification enzymes in honey bees using enzyme inhibitors

Three specific enzyme inhibitors were applied to reveal the role of each enzyme in detoxifying Advise. Results (Fig 4) showed that PBO (piperonyl butoxide, P450 inhibitor”, synergistically enhanced Advise toxicity by 5.2-fold. TPP (triphenyl phosphate, esterase inhibitor) and DEM (diethyl maleate, GST inhibitor) did not synergize Advise’s toxicity against honey bees (Fig 4). The data indicated that P450 oxidases were involved in enhancing the toxicity of imidacloprid, while esterases and GSTs were not actively involved in Advise detoxification.

Download:

Fig 4. Roles of three major detoxification enzymes in detoxifying Advise (imidacloprid) in honey bees.

PBO (piperonyl butoxide) is a cytochrome P450 oxidase inhibitor; TPP (triphenyl phosphate) is an esterase inhibitor; and DEM (diethyl maleate) is a glutathione S-transferase inhibitor. Same letters above the error bars indicate no significant difference: lower case letters are for within-group comparisons; capital letters refer to comparisons among all treatments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.g004

Discussion

To achieve better control of multiple pests, farmers commonly mix formulated insecticides to simultaneously attack multiple targets [31,43]. The use of imidacloprid has been significantly increased since 2010 based on U.S. Geological Survey (https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php). The increase may be related to the increases of treatments (seed treatment [44] and foliar spray [45]) and growing areas, and more than half of the imidacloprid was used on soybean and cotton. Up to 17 sprays were applied to cotton in 2015 in Mississippi Delta (http://www.entomology.msstate.edu/resources/cottoncrop.asp) for control of a variety of insects. Then honey bees may be exposed to mixtures of different pesticides in both in-hive and field situations. In this study, we focused on a neonicotinoid insecticide Advise, a formulation of imidacloprid which was one of the most concerning insecticides potentially related to honey bee declining and/or death [46–47]. To make binary mixtures with Advise, seven representative, also commonly used, pesticides for organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates, fungicides, herbicides, sulfoximines, and neonicotinoids were selected and applied to bees using spray tower to closely simulate field conditions. Subsequently, detecting additive/synergistic toxicities or interactions in some pesticide mixtures, revealing physiological responses to pesticide mixtures, and clarifying the importance of P450 monooxygenases in imidacloprid detoxification in this study contributed valuable information for guiding pesticide selections in order to reduce toxicity risk to bees by avoiding uses of toxicity synergizers.

Firstly, we provided a warning of potential toxicity increase to bees if certain pesticides are used in tank mixing with Advise (imidacloprid) after detections of significantly higher (synergistic) mortality than both individual pesticides from the mixtures of Advise with formulated Vydate (carbamate), Domark (fungicide), and Transform (sulfoximines). Besides these, Advise+Bracket (organophosphate) and Advise+Karate (pyrethroid) also produced higher mortality than either of the individual insecticides and this additive interaction need to be avoided during plant blooming stage. Advise+Roundup (herbicide) and +Belay (neonicotinoid) produced similar mortality to those produced by individual pesticides, therefore, these pesticides did not show any additive/synergistic interaction with Advise. However, detecting no significantly higher mortality in honey bees from these mixtures also demonstrated that pesticide mixtures or tank mixing are still feasible in synergizing toxicity and expanding control spectrum against crop pests without incurring further adverse impact on honey bees. All these interactions were obtained from mixtures prepared by mixing two individual chemicals both at LC₂₀ concentrations. We do not exclude that these interactions may change if individual chemical concentration change or the ratio of two chemicals changes.

How other insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides interact with imidacloprid has not been well studied. Detection of potential synergistic toxicity at LC₂₀ or higher concentration, while no detection of synergistic toxicity at lower (sublethal) concentration (data not shown), from the binary mixtures of Advise with other representative pesticides in this study indicated that individual chemical concentration have to reach certain threshold level to achieve intoxication together or facilitate the intoxication of the other party of the mixture, called “joint action” or “response addition” [48–49]. There are several commercialized formulated binary mixtures of neonicotinoids with pyrethroids, such as Endigo 2.06ZC (12.6% thiamethoxam +9.84% l-cyhalothrin) from Syngenta and Leverage 360EC (21% imidacloprid +10.5% b-cyfluthrin) from Bayer CropScience. These type of mixtures of two different insecticide classes may expand control spectrum to both lepidopterans and sucking insect pests. Pyrethroids produce excess nerve excitations by changing nerve membrane permeabilities to sodium and potassium ions, which is different from the competitive binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor by neonicotinoids [31]. Although we did not determine if the mixture of Advise with Karate (lambda-cyhalothrin) show any synergistic toxicity to crop pests, detecting no distinct synergistic toxicity to honey bees in this study would make this binary mixture more desirable for lessening risk to non-target pollinators.

Secondly, our in vitro examinations of activities of two detoxification enzymes (EST and GST), one insecticide-target enzyme (AChE), one metabolic enzyme (INV), and one immunity enzyme (PO) in surviving bees after treatments with Advise (imidacloprid) and mixtures added substantial knowledge on how pesticides impact honey bee physiology. Esterases (EST) are frequently implicated in the detoxification or resistance of insects to organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids mainly through gene amplification and upregulation [50]. Glutathione S-transferase (GSTs) catalyze the secondary metabolism of a vast array of compounds oxidized by the cytochrome P450 family [51]. The catalytic reactions transform a wide range of endogenous and xenobiotic compounds, including herbicides and insecticides [52]. In this study, we detected no significant reduction of GST activities in survivors after bees were sprayed with LC₂₀ concentrations of individual and binary mixtures of Advise with 7 representative pesticides (Fig 2). Except for the significant reduction of esterase activity by Bracket and Advise+Bracket, most esterase activities remained unchanged after being treated with individual and binary mixtures of Advise with other pesticides. Although most treatments of Advise and binary mixtures did not affect detoxification enzymes, our data also indicated that EST and GST played relatively less important roles in detoxifying neonicotinoids [53]. However, the roles of EST and GST in organophosphate toxicology cannot be ignored. Because it has both contact and systemic toxicities, Bracket (acephate) remains a preferred insecticide for tarnished plant bug control [10]. Thus, the decrease of detoxification enzyme activity (EST) by Bracket exposure in the field could weaken honeybee defense responses to other toxic chemicals, such as increased bee mortality in the treatment of Advise+Bracket in this study. Future studies are needed to understand how to reduce synergistic toxicity in honey bees by mixing with different insecticides or with different proportion of each pesticide in mixtures.

Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inactivates the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the synapses of the insect’s central nervous system [54–55]. In this study, we detected significantly lower AChE activity in Bracket-only- and Advise+Bracket-treated bees, and confirmed the inhibitory effects of organophosphate insecticides on AChE activity [55]. The AChE-suppression property, together with the EST-suppression and additive toxicity with Advise added further toxicity risk of Bracket to honey bees.

Invertase, the most important metabolic enzyme in honey, hydrolyzes nectar sucrose into fructose and glucose [56]. Our data indicated that invertase activity in survivors was not adversely influenced by Advise and mixtures with 7 representative pesticides at LC₂₀ levels. It seemed that the eight pesticides tested in this study did not interfere with the sucrose-honey pathway (Fig 3A). The last enzyme we examined in this study was phenoloxidase, which is a key component of the insect immune system [57]. Overall, phenoloxidase activities in survivors were slightly (not significantly) reduced (Fig 3B), even though the same enzyme preparations were used for all five enzymes. The significant decrease of PO activities plus significant increase of mortality in Advise+Vydate-treated bees, necessitates a further investigations to understand any other factors that may affect PO regulation in treated bees and to understand how the interaction of Vydate with Advise influences PO activity pathway.

Finally, the confirmation of cytochrome P450 oxidases in honey bees as the major enzymes in detoxifying Advise (imidacloprid) established a mechanistic foundation for further investigations to sort out P450-inhibiting pesticides that need to be avoided in crop pest management program. We also confirmed that esterases (ESTs) and glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) played insignificant role in detoxifying Advise. However, we did not exclude the possible role of ESTs and GSTs in detoxification of other pesticides and the secondary metabolic compound of insecticides. The function of most P450 enzymes includes catalyzing the oxidation of organic substances to fulfill many important tasks, from the synthesis, degradation, and metabolic intermediations of lipids, ecdysteroids and juvenile hormones to the metabolism of xenobiotic substances of natural or synthetic origin [58]. P450 genes are also responsible in development of metabolic resistance to insecticides [59–60]. The inhibition on P450 may interfere these important biological and molecular processes in honey bees. However, how P450 genes are associated with imidacloprid detoxification has not been well established using P450 inhibitors, although P450 inhibitors effectively increased toxicity of cyano-group neonicotinoids to honey bees [53], but they did not effectively impact imidacloprid (nitro-group) [61]. It is possible that imidacloprid metabolites (5- hydroxyimidacloprid and olefin) have high affinity for the honey bee nAChR to induce bee mortality [61–62], and P450s may be still responsible for the production of these metabolites, although the metabolic process took longer than that for cyano-group neonicotinoids [53,55]. Nevertheless, any pesticide inducing P450s in honey bees and inhibiting P450s in target pests would be a desirable candidate for tank mixing or formulating premixtures.

Avoiding use of P450-inhibiting (to bees) pesticide in tank mixing is also an alternative and practical approach for reducing pesticide toxicity risk to bees. Domark (tetraconazole), belongs to the triazoles chemical group, is a broad spectrum fungicide that inhibits the metabolic pathway. Domark itself had relatively low spray toxicity to honey bees [30], and did not show distinct negative impact on five tested enzymes (Figs 2 and 3). However, we found Domark significantly synergized Advise toxicity to honey bees (Fig 1). The enhanced bee toxicity might be caused by the inhibition on cytochrome P450 enzyme from Domark [63]. Other studies [64–65] also reported that an imidazole fungicide, by inhibiting P450 enzymes, delayed the metabolism, detoxification, and excretion of λ-cyhalothrin, thereby effectively enhanced the toxicity of the pyrethroid to the honey bee. Our data provided a caution against the tank mixing of Domark with Advise and pyrethroid insecticides during plant blooming season due to its inhibitions to P450s, important detoxification enzymes in honey bees.

Supporting information

S1 Data. SupDataSpray8Pestc.pdf.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176837.s001

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. Lilia De Guzman of USDA-ARS (Baton Rouge, LA) and Dr. Zibiao Guo of University of Memphis (Memphis, TN), and many anonymous journal reviewers and editors for valuable comments and suggestions that improved an early version of this manuscript. The authors also appreciate Dr. Nathan Schiff of USDA Forest Service (Stoneville, MS) for providing space for bee yard, and Joel Caren, John Wiltcher, and Kenneth Adam Wells for their Laboratory assistance. Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement by the USDA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: YCZ JY JA.
Data curation: YCZ JY.
Formal analysis: YCZ.
Investigation: YCZ JY.
Methodology: YCZ JY.
Project administration: YCZ.
Resources: YCZ.
Software: YCZ.
Supervision: YCZ.
Validation: YCZ.
Visualization: YCZ.
Writing – original draft: YCZ.
Writing – review & editing: YCZ JY JA RL.

References

1. USDA-NASS, Honey (March 2015) 5 ISSN: 1949-1492. National Agricultural Statistics Service.
2. Calderone NW. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5): e37235. pmid:22629374
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Johnson R, Corn ML. Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service 7–5700. 2014. www.crs.gov%20R43191.
4. vanEngelsdorp D, Cox-Foster D, Frazier M, Ostiguy N, Hayes J. Colony Collapse Disorder Preliminary Report. Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium (MAAREC)–CCD Working Group. 2006. pp. 22. http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/ccd.pdf
5. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(6):345–353. pmid:20188434
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347(6229):1255957. pmid:25721506
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Greene JK, Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ, Herzog GA. Boll damage by southern green stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) caged on transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 1999;92: 941–944.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Lu YH, Qiu F, Feng HQ, Li HB, Yang ZC, Wyckhuys KAG, et al. Species composition and seasonal abundance of pestiferous plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton in China. Crop Prot. 2008;7: 465–472.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Zhu YC, Snodgrass GL, Chen MS. Enhanced esterase gene expression and activity in a malathion-resistant strain of the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2004;34: 1175–1186. pmid:15522613
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Zhu YC, Guo Z, He Y, Luttrell R. Microarray analysis of gene regulations and potential association with acephate-resistance and fitness cost in Lygus lineolaris. PLoS ONE. 2012;7 (5), e37586. pmid:22655059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Brandon H, Robinson E. Delta Agricultural Digest. Farm Press, Clarksdale, MS. 2015.
12. Catchot A, Allen C, Cook D, Dodds D, Gore J, Irby T, et al. Insect control guide for agronomic crops. Insect Control Guide Committee, Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2471. 2016.
13. Krupke CH, Obermeyer JL, Bledsoe LW. Corn Insect Control Recommendations– 2016. Purdue University Extension Publication E-219-W. 2016. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/E-219.pdf
14. Altmann R. Poncho^®: a new insecticidal seed treatment for the control of major maize pests in Europe. Pfanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer (English edition); 2003. 56:102–110.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial Arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 2007;52: 81–106. pmid:16842032
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Sánchez-Bayo F, Goulson D, Pennacchio F, Nazzi F, Goka K, Desneux N, Are bee diseases linked to pesticides?—A brief review. Environ Int, 2016;89–90:7–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Decourtye A, Henry M, Desneux N. Environment: overhaul pesticide testing on bees. Nature 2013. 497:188.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Larson JL, Redmond CT, Potter DA. Assessing insecticide hazard to bumble bees foraging on flowering weeds in treated lawns. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66375. pmid:23776667
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Sanchez-Bayo F, Goka K. Pesticide residues and bees—A risk assessment. PLoS ONE 2014;9(4): e94482. pmid:24718419
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine ME, Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 2012;491:105–119. pmid:23086150
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Decourtye A, Devillers J, Cluzeau S, Charreton M, Pham-Delègue M-H, Effects of imidacloprid and deltamethrin on associative learning in honeybees under semi-field and laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 2004;57:410–419. pmid:15041263
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Pistorius J, Bischoff G, Heimbach U, Stähler M, 2009. Bee poisoning incidents in Germany in spring 2008 caused by abrasion of active substance from treated seeds during sowing of maize. Julius Kühn Archiv.423, 118–126.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Marzaro M, Vivan L, Targa A, Mazzon L, Mori N, Greatti M, et al. (2011) Lethal aerial powdering of honey bees with neonicotinoids from fragments of maize seed coat. B Insectol 64:119–126
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD. Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has no long-term impact on honey bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007;100: 765–772. pmid:17598537
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Pilling E, Campbell P, Coulson M, Ruddle N, Tornier I. A four-year field program investigating long-term effects of repeated exposure of honey bee colonies to flowering crops treated with thiamethoxam. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e77193. pmid:24194871
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD, Sultan M, McFarlane AD, Brewer L. A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola on honey bee colony health, development, and overwintering success. Peer J. 2014;2:e652 pmid:25374790
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Zhu W, Schmehl DR, Mullin CA, Frazier JL. Four common pesticides, their mixtures and a formulation solvent in the hive environment have high oral toxicity to honey bee larvae. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1): e77547. pmid:24416121
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Yamamoto I. Nicotine to Nicotinoids: 1962 to 1997, in nicotinoid insecticides and the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Casida J. Springer-Verlag press; Tokyo, Japan. pp. 3–27. 1999.
29. Williams MR, Cotton Insect Losses– 2015. http://www.biochemistry.msstate.edu/resources/croplosses/2015loss.asp
30. Zhu YC, Adamczk J, Rinderer T, Yao J, Danka R, Luttrell R, et al. Spray toxicity and risk potential of 42 commonly used formulations of row crop pesticides to adult honey bees (Hymenoptera:Aphidae). J Econ. Entomol. 2015;108(6):2640–2647. pmid:26352753
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, Version 8.0. 2015. www.irac-online.org.
32. Bossche HV, Marichal P. Mode of action of anti-Candida drugs: focus on terconazole and other ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(4 Pt 2):1193–9. pmid:1951574
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Becerril JM, Duke SO, Lydon J, Glyphosate effect on shikimate pathway products in leaves and flowers of velvetleaf. Phytochemistry 1989;28, 695–699.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Bradford MM. Rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976;72:248–254. pmid:942051
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Zhu K-Y, Gao JR. Increased activity associated with reduced sensitivity of acetylcholinesterase in organophosphate-resistant greenbug, Schizaphis graminum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pestic Sci. 1999;55:11–17.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Yu SJ. Host plant induction of glutathione S-transferases in the fall armyworm. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 1982;18:101–106.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Van Leeuwen T, Van Pottelberge S, Tirry L. Biochemical analysis of a chlorfenapyr-selected resistant strain of Tetranychus urticae Koch. Pest Manag Sci. 2006;62(5):425–433. pmid:16550506
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Lever M. A new reaction for colorimetric determination of carbohydrates. Analytic. Biochem. 1972;47(1): 273–279.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Khandekar DC, Palai T, Agarwal A, Bhattacharya PK. Kinetics of sucrose conversion to fructo-oligosaccharides using enzyme (invertase) under free condition. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2014;37(12):2529–2537. pmid:24938994
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Schmid MR, Brockmann A, Pirk CWW, Stanley DW, Tautz J. Adult honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) abandon hemocytic, but not phenoloxidase-based immunity. J Insect Physiol. 2008;54(2):439–444. pmid:18164310
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Ellman GL, Courtney KD, Andres VJR, Featherstone RM. A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1961;7:88–95. pmid:13726518
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. SAS Institute Inc. 2008. SAS/STAT^® 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
43. Palumboa JC, Horowitzb AR, Prabhakerc N, Insecticidal control and resistance management for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protection, 2001;20:739–765.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Douglas MR, and Tooker JF, Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015;49(8), 5088–5097. pmid:25793443
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Musser FR, Catchot A, Davis JA, Herbert DA, Leonard BR, Lorenz GM, et al. 2011 Soybean Insect Losses in the Southern US. Midsouth Entomologist 2012;5:11–22.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Girolami V, Mazzon L, Squartini A, Mori N, Marzaro M, Di bernardo A, et al. Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009;102(5):1808–1815. pmid:19886445
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Girolami V, Marzaro M, Vivan L, Mazzon L, Greatti M, Giorio C, et al. Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication. J Appl Entomol. 2011.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Pape-Lindstrom PA, Lydy MJ. Synergistic toxicity of atrazine and organophosphate insecticides contravenes the response addition mixture model. Environ Toxicol Chem. 1997; 16(11):2415–2420.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Cedergreen N. Quantifying Synergy: A Systematic Review of Mixture Toxicity Studies within Environmental Toxicology. PLoS One. 2014;9(5): e96580. pmid:24794244
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Li XC, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007;52:231–253. pmid:16925478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Wilce MC, Parker MW. Structure and function of glutathione S-transferases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1994;1205:1–18. pmid:8142473
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Armstrong RN. Structure, catalytic mechanism, and evolution of the glutathione transferases. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1997;10:2–18. pmid:9074797
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Iwasa T, Motoyama N, Ambrose JT, Roe MR. Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Protect. 2004;23:371–378.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Casida JE, Durkin KA. Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013;58:99–117. pmid:23317040
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Johnson RM. Honey bee toxicology. Annu Rev Entomol. 2015;60:415–434. pmid:25341092
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Doner LW. The sugars of honey ----a review. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 1977;28:443–456.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. González-Santoyo I, Córdoba-Aguilar A. Phenoloxidase: a key component of the insect immune system. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2012;142: 1–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Feyereisen R. Insect P450 enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999;44:507–533. pmid:9990722
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Agosin M. Role of microsomal oxidations in insecticide degradation. Comp Insect Physiol, Biochem. Pergamon press; Oxford, UK. 1985. Vol 12, pp. 647–712.
60. Hodgson E. Microsomal monooxygenases. Comp insect physiol, biochem. Pergamon press; Oxford, UK. 1985. Vol 12, pp. 225–321.
61. Suchail S, De Sousa G, Rahmani R, Belzunces LP. In vivo distribution and metabolisation of 14C-imidacloprid in different compartments of Apis mellifera L. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004;60(11):1056–1062. pmid:15532678
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Nauen R, Ebbinghaus-Kintscher U, Schmuck R. Toxicity and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor interaction of imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Pest Manag Sci. 2001;57: 577–586. pmid:11464788
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Riviere JE, Papich M. Veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. 2008. 9th edition. pp. 1019–1020.
64. Pilling ED, Jepson PC. Synergism between EBI fungicides and a pyrethroid insecticide in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pest Management Sci. 1993;39(4): 293–297.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Pilling ED, Bromleychallenor KAC, Walker CH, Jepson PC. Mechanism of synergism between the pyrethroid insecticide λ-cyhalothrin and the imidazole fungicide prochloraz, in the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pesticide Bichem. Physiol. 1995;51 (1):1–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. USDA-NASS, Honey (March 2015) 5 ISSN: 1949-1492. National Agricultural Statistics Service.

[ref2] 2. Calderone NW. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5): e37235. pmid:22629374
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] PubMed/NCBI

[5] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Johnson R, Corn ML. Bee Health: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service 7–5700. 2014. www.crs.gov%20R43191.

[ref4] 4. vanEngelsdorp D, Cox-Foster D, Frazier M, Ostiguy N, Hayes J. Colony Collapse Disorder Preliminary Report. Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium (MAAREC)–CCD Working Group. 2006. pp. 22. http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/ccd.pdf

[ref5] 5. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(6):345–353. pmid:20188434
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] PubMed/NCBI

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347(6229):1255957. pmid:25721506
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Greene JK, Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ, Herzog GA. Boll damage by southern green stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) caged on transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 1999;92: 941–944.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Lu YH, Qiu F, Feng HQ, Li HB, Yang ZC, Wyckhuys KAG, et al. Species composition and seasonal abundance of pestiferous plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton in China. Crop Prot. 2008;7: 465–472.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Zhu YC, Snodgrass GL, Chen MS. Enhanced esterase gene expression and activity in a malathion-resistant strain of the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2004;34: 1175–1186. pmid:15522613
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Zhu YC, Guo Z, He Y, Luttrell R. Microarray analysis of gene regulations and potential association with acephate-resistance and fitness cost in Lygus lineolaris. PLoS ONE. 2012;7 (5), e37586. pmid:22655059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Brandon H, Robinson E. Delta Agricultural Digest. Farm Press, Clarksdale, MS. 2015.

[ref12] 12. Catchot A, Allen C, Cook D, Dodds D, Gore J, Irby T, et al. Insect control guide for agronomic crops. Insect Control Guide Committee, Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2471. 2016.

[ref13] 13. Krupke CH, Obermeyer JL, Bledsoe LW. Corn Insect Control Recommendations– 2016. Purdue University Extension Publication E-219-W. 2016. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/E-219.pdf

[ref14] 14. Altmann R. Poncho^®: a new insecticidal seed treatment for the control of major maize pests in Europe. Pfanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer (English edition); 2003. 56:102–110.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial Arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 2007;52: 81–106. pmid:16842032
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Sánchez-Bayo F, Goulson D, Pennacchio F, Nazzi F, Goka K, Desneux N, Are bee diseases linked to pesticides?—A brief review. Environ Int, 2016;89–90:7–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Decourtye A, Henry M, Desneux N. Environment: overhaul pesticide testing on bees. Nature 2013. 497:188.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Larson JL, Redmond CT, Potter DA. Assessing insecticide hazard to bumble bees foraging on flowering weeds in treated lawns. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66375. pmid:23776667
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Sanchez-Bayo F, Goka K. Pesticide residues and bees—A risk assessment. PLoS ONE 2014;9(4): e94482. pmid:24718419
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine ME, Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 2012;491:105–119. pmid:23086150
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Decourtye A, Devillers J, Cluzeau S, Charreton M, Pham-Delègue M-H, Effects of imidacloprid and deltamethrin on associative learning in honeybees under semi-field and laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 2004;57:410–419. pmid:15041263
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Pistorius J, Bischoff G, Heimbach U, Stähler M, 2009. Bee poisoning incidents in Germany in spring 2008 caused by abrasion of active substance from treated seeds during sowing of maize. Julius Kühn Archiv.423, 118–126.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Marzaro M, Vivan L, Targa A, Mazzon L, Mori N, Greatti M, et al. (2011) Lethal aerial powdering of honey bees with neonicotinoids from fragments of maize seed coat. B Insectol 64:119–126
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD. Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has no long-term impact on honey bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007;100: 765–772. pmid:17598537
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Pilling E, Campbell P, Coulson M, Ruddle N, Tornier I. A four-year field program investigating long-term effects of repeated exposure of honey bee colonies to flowering crops treated with thiamethoxam. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e77193. pmid:24194871
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Cutler GC, Scott-Dupree CD, Sultan M, McFarlane AD, Brewer L. A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola on honey bee colony health, development, and overwintering success. Peer J. 2014;2:e652 pmid:25374790
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Zhu W, Schmehl DR, Mullin CA, Frazier JL. Four common pesticides, their mixtures and a formulation solvent in the hive environment have high oral toxicity to honey bee larvae. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1): e77547. pmid:24416121
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Yamamoto I. Nicotine to Nicotinoids: 1962 to 1997, in nicotinoid insecticides and the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Casida J. Springer-Verlag press; Tokyo, Japan. pp. 3–27. 1999.

[ref29] 29. Williams MR, Cotton Insect Losses– 2015. http://www.biochemistry.msstate.edu/resources/croplosses/2015loss.asp

[ref30] 30. Zhu YC, Adamczk J, Rinderer T, Yao J, Danka R, Luttrell R, et al. Spray toxicity and risk potential of 42 commonly used formulations of row crop pesticides to adult honey bees (Hymenoptera:Aphidae). J Econ. Entomol. 2015;108(6):2640–2647. pmid:26352753
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] PubMed/NCBI

[89] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, Version 8.0. 2015. www.irac-online.org.

[ref32] 32. Bossche HV, Marichal P. Mode of action of anti-Candida drugs: focus on terconazole and other ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(4 Pt 2):1193–9. pmid:1951574
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Becerril JM, Duke SO, Lydon J, Glyphosate effect on shikimate pathway products in leaves and flowers of velvetleaf. Phytochemistry 1989;28, 695–699.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Bradford MM. Rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976;72:248–254. pmid:942051
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Zhu K-Y, Gao JR. Increased activity associated with reduced sensitivity of acetylcholinesterase in organophosphate-resistant greenbug, Schizaphis graminum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pestic Sci. 1999;55:11–17.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Yu SJ. Host plant induction of glutathione S-transferases in the fall armyworm. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 1982;18:101–106.
View Article
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Van Leeuwen T, Van Pottelberge S, Tirry L. Biochemical analysis of a chlorfenapyr-selected resistant strain of Tetranychus urticae Koch. Pest Manag Sci. 2006;62(5):425–433. pmid:16550506
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Lever M. A new reaction for colorimetric determination of carbohydrates. Analytic. Biochem. 1972;47(1): 273–279.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Khandekar DC, Palai T, Agarwal A, Bhattacharya PK. Kinetics of sucrose conversion to fructo-oligosaccharides using enzyme (invertase) under free condition. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2014;37(12):2529–2537. pmid:24938994
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Schmid MR, Brockmann A, Pirk CWW, Stanley DW, Tautz J. Adult honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) abandon hemocytic, but not phenoloxidase-based immunity. J Insect Physiol. 2008;54(2):439–444. pmid:18164310
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Ellman GL, Courtney KD, Andres VJR, Featherstone RM. A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1961;7:88–95. pmid:13726518
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. SAS Institute Inc. 2008. SAS/STAT^® 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

[ref43] 43. Palumboa JC, Horowitzb AR, Prabhakerc N, Insecticidal control and resistance management for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protection, 2001;20:739–765.
View Article
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Douglas MR, and Tooker JF, Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015;49(8), 5088–5097. pmid:25793443
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Musser FR, Catchot A, Davis JA, Herbert DA, Leonard BR, Lorenz GM, et al. 2011 Soybean Insect Losses in the Southern US. Midsouth Entomologist 2012;5:11–22.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Girolami V, Mazzon L, Squartini A, Mori N, Marzaro M, Di bernardo A, et al. Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009;102(5):1808–1815. pmid:19886445
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Girolami V, Marzaro M, Vivan L, Mazzon L, Greatti M, Giorio C, et al. Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication. J Appl Entomol. 2011.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Pape-Lindstrom PA, Lydy MJ. Synergistic toxicity of atrazine and organophosphate insecticides contravenes the response addition mixture model. Environ Toxicol Chem. 1997; 16(11):2415–2420.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Cedergreen N. Quantifying Synergy: A Systematic Review of Mixture Toxicity Studies within Environmental Toxicology. PLoS One. 2014;9(5): e96580. pmid:24794244
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Li XC, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007;52:231–253. pmid:16925478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Wilce MC, Parker MW. Structure and function of glutathione S-transferases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1994;1205:1–18. pmid:8142473
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Armstrong RN. Structure, catalytic mechanism, and evolution of the glutathione transferases. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1997;10:2–18. pmid:9074797
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Iwasa T, Motoyama N, Ambrose JT, Roe MR. Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Protect. 2004;23:371–378.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Casida JE, Durkin KA. Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013;58:99–117. pmid:23317040
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Johnson RM. Honey bee toxicology. Annu Rev Entomol. 2015;60:415–434. pmid:25341092
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Doner LW. The sugars of honey ----a review. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 1977;28:443–456.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. González-Santoyo I, Córdoba-Aguilar A. Phenoloxidase: a key component of the insect immune system. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2012;142: 1–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Feyereisen R. Insect P450 enzymes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999;44:507–533. pmid:9990722
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Agosin M. Role of microsomal oxidations in insecticide degradation. Comp Insect Physiol, Biochem. Pergamon press; Oxford, UK. 1985. Vol 12, pp. 647–712.

[ref60] 60. Hodgson E. Microsomal monooxygenases. Comp insect physiol, biochem. Pergamon press; Oxford, UK. 1985. Vol 12, pp. 225–321.

[ref61] 61. Suchail S, De Sousa G, Rahmani R, Belzunces LP. In vivo distribution and metabolisation of 14C-imidacloprid in different compartments of Apis mellifera L. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004;60(11):1056–1062. pmid:15532678
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] PubMed/NCBI

[190] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Nauen R, Ebbinghaus-Kintscher U, Schmuck R. Toxicity and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor interaction of imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Pest Manag Sci. 2001;57: 577–586. pmid:11464788
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] PubMed/NCBI

[194] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Riviere JE, Papich M. Veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. 2008. 9th edition. pp. 1019–1020.

[ref64] 64. Pilling ED, Jepson PC. Synergism between EBI fungicides and a pyrethroid insecticide in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pest Management Sci. 1993;39(4): 293–297.
View Article
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Pilling ED, Bromleychallenor KAC, Walker CH, Jepson PC. Mechanism of synergism between the pyrethroid insecticide λ-cyhalothrin and the imidazole fungicide prochloraz, in the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pesticide Bichem. Physiol. 1995;51 (1):1–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[200] View Article

[201] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Methods and materials

2.1. Honey bee colony

2.2. Pesticides and test concentrations

2.3. Bioassay methods

2.4. Enzyme activity assays

2.4.1. Chemicals.

2.4.2. Protein preparation.

2.4.3. Esterase activity assay.

2.4.4. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity assay.

2.4.5. Invertase activity assay.

2.4.6. Phenoloxidase activity assay.

2.4.7. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity assay.

2.5. Data processing and statistical analysis

Results

3.1 Synergistic/additive toxicity of Advise (imidacloprid) with other pesticides

3.2 Effect of Advise and its binary mixtures on honey bee physiology

3.2.1 Effects on insecticide-interacting enzymes: esterase (EST), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and acetylcholinesterase (AChE).

3.2.2 Influences on invertase (INV: honey-making enzyme), and phenoloxidase (PO: immunity enzyme).

3.3 Revealing of specific Advise-detoxification enzymes in honey bees using enzyme inhibitors

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 Data. SupDataSpray8Pestc.pdf.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References