Page 1,705«..1020..1,7041,7051,7061,707..1,7101,720..»

Integrative Medicine – Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, IA

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Integrative Medicine is a healing-oriented approach that takes the whole person into account, including all aspects of lifestyle. It combines cutting-edge, conventional medicine with evidence-based complementary and alternative approaches.

Whether treating chronic issues or exploring preventative wellness options, the overall goal of Mercy's Integrative Medicine Center is to identify and address the root of the condition, as opposed to only treating symptoms.

Integrative medicine goes beyond just getting your blood pressure in a certain range, for example. Although important, the Integrative Medicine Center focuses on the root issue affecting your whole being and the cause of high blood pressure. This could be a combination of stress, lack of exercise, poor nutrition, or relationship or spirituality issues. These core areas are addressed and appropriate therapies applied to the mind, body and spirit. Learn more from Dr. Bartlett in the videos below.

Mercys Integrative Medicine Center is physician-led under the direction of Suzanne Bartlett, MD, FACOG, FABOIM. Dr. Bartlett is board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN).

She completed a prestigious fellowship in Integrative Medicine with Dr. Andrew Weil at the University of Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine. She is Iowas first and the areas only University of Arizona fellowship-trained Medical Doctor (MD) practicing Integrative Medicine. Learn more about Dr. Bartlett.

The Integrative Medicine Center works in partnership with your primary care provider, melding conventional and complimentary, evidence-based therapies to each patients healing and wellness process.

Chronic disease

Cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, weight management and headaches

Gynecologic issues

Pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS), menstrual irregularities, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), pre-conceptual counseling, infertility, hormonal imbalances and menopause

Other hormonal issues

Low libido, fatigue, hair loss, adrenal/thyroid disorders

Mood disorders

Anxiety, depression, stress and sleep disturbances

Digestive conditions

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), acid reflux, diarrhea, constipation and food allergies/sensitivities

Pelvic floor dysfunction

Urinary/fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse

Natural management of symptoms and/or side effects of treatment

Read the original post:
Integrative Medicine - Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, IA

Posted in Integrative Medicine | Comments Off on Integrative Medicine – Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, IA

Integrative Medicine: About | Cleveland Clinic

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Integrative Medicine techniques support the body's natural ability to heal, reducing stress and promoting a state of relaxation that leads to better health. It can help you achieve optimal health when you engage in your own healing and feel empowered to make lifestyle changes. Incorporating one or more Integrative Medicine services into your healthcare regimen will help you regain control of your well-being.

Integrative Medicine uses modalities such as acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation and relaxation techniques to reduce pain; dietary and herbal approaches to manage diseases such as diabetes and fibromyalgia; and group support to change habits associated with obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Lifestyle Medicine is an evidence-based practice of assisting individuals and families adopt and sustain lifestyle behaviors that can improve your health and quality of life, such as eliminating tobacco use, improving diet, practicing stress relief techniques, and increasing physical activity. Poor lifestyle choices are the root cause of modern chronic diseases. Scientific evidence is clear - adults with common chronic conditions who adhere to a healthy lifestyle experience rapid, significant, clinically meaningful and sustainable improvements in their health.

The practices, techniques and services offered that most patients find helpful include:

Integrative & Lifestyle Medicine services have become very popular in the United States, with more than 70 percent of Americans using them in some form.

You may benefit from Integrative & Lifestyle Medicine if you suffer from a chronic illness and wish to reduce the severity or frequency of disease episodes, decrease stress related to chronic disease, and enjoy a better quality of life.

Integrative & Lifestyle Medicine can help patients relieve symptoms of a wide range of conditions, including:

Excerpt from:
Integrative Medicine: About | Cleveland Clinic

Posted in Integrative Medicine | Comments Off on Integrative Medicine: About | Cleveland Clinic

Integrative Medicine | The George Washington University

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Prior Academic Records:

Transcripts required from all colleges and universities attended, whether or not credit was earned, the program was completed, or the credit appears as transfer credit on another transcript. Transcripts must be forwarded in their original sealed envelopes.

If academic records are in a language other than English, a certified English language translation must be provided in addition to the original transcripts; translations alone will not be accepted.

Official transcripts from institutions outside the U.S. must be accompanied by an official transcript evaluation from an accredited independent evaluating agency. Please be sure you request a detailed evaluation that includes all course titles, credit hours, grades, U.S. degree equivalency, grade-point averages (GPA), and date of degree conferral. Please see thelist of acceptable foreign credential evaluation services.

Statement of Purpose:

Please include a 250-500 word essay describing your reasons for undertaking study at the George Washington University, your academic objectives, career development plan, and related qualifications, including collegiate, professional, and community activities, relevant to your program of interest. Include any substantial accomplishments not already mentioned on the application form.

Here is the original post:
Integrative Medicine | The George Washington University

Posted in Integrative Medicine | Comments Off on Integrative Medicine | The George Washington University

Integrative Medicine – Montefiore Medical Center

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Integrative medicine views health from a whole-person perspective and strives to address each persons physical, psychological, social and preventive health by combining treatments that have the highest likelihood of success for each person.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM)s 2009 Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public defined integrative medicine as healthcare that is patient-centered, healing-oriented and embraces the best application of conventional medicine together with evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine practices (Maizes et al 2009, Schultz et al 2009).

This might include standard treatments such as medication, together with approaches such as nutrition, exercise, relaxation techniques, support groups, acupuncture, massage therapy, and yoga.

The integrative approach speaks to the human side of health and healing and has been shown to have a positive impact on improving health and well-being in many ways. For example:

By incorporating the integrative approach, programs at Montefiore expand the treatment options available, while responding with sensitivity to peoples needs; offering additional ways to help manage symptoms and pain, alleviate anxiety and enhance quality of life; and championing the individuals capacity for self-knowledge and healing.

Continue reading here:
Integrative Medicine - Montefiore Medical Center

Posted in Integrative Medicine | Comments Off on Integrative Medicine – Montefiore Medical Center

Ethical Issues With Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic …

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Its not science fiction. Nowadays prospective parents cannot only know the sex of their unborn child but also learn whether it can supply tissue-matched bone marrow to a dying sibling and whether it is predisposed to develop breast cancer or Huntingtons disease all before the embryo gets implanted into the mothers womb. -Esthur Landhuis

Have you heard of designer babies? Or perhaps you saw or read My Sisters Keeper, a story about a young girl who was conceived through In Vitro Fertilization to be a genetically matched donor for her older sister with leukemia? The concept of selecting traits for ones child comes from a technology called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a technique used on embryos acquired during In Vitro Fertilization to screen for genetic diseases. PGD tests embryos for genetic abnormalities, and based on the information gleaned, provides potential parents with the opportunity to select to implant only the healthy, non-genetically diseased embryos into the mother. But this genetic testing of the embryo also opens the door for other uses as well, including selecting whether you have a male or female child, or even the possibility of selecting specific features for the child, like eye color. Thus, many ethicists wonder about the future of the technology, and whether it will lead to babies that are designed by their parents.

Todays post is an exploration of the ethical issues raised by prenatal and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, written by Santa Clara Professor Dr. Lawrence Nelson, who has been writing about and teaching bioethics for over 30 years. Read on to examine the many ethical issues raised by this technology.

Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

Background:

The overwhelming majority of people on earth, due to a wide range of reasons, beliefs, bodily motives, and attitudessome good, some bad, and some in the moral neutral zonereproduce. They are the genetic, gestational, and/or social (rearing) parents of a child. Birth rates in some countries are at a historic low (Japans is beneath replacement with the consequent deep graying of an entire society). In others, mostly in the developing part of the world where infant and maternal morbidity and mortality (not to mention poverty and disease) are quite high, birth rates remain similarly high.

In the economically developed part of the world, the process of making and having babies has become increasingly medicalized, at least for those fortunate enough to have ready access to the ever more sophisticated tools and knowledge of obstetrical medicine. From the time prior to pregnancy (fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization) to birth (caesarean delivery, high tech neonatal intensive care) and in between (fetal surgery), medical science and technology can help many to reach the goal any good parent should want: the live birth of a healthy child to a healthy mother.

Medical and biological sciences can together determine whether a fetus will (or might) have over a thousand different genetic diseases or abnormalities

Parallel to obstetrical medicine, science and technology have progressed immensely in another are over the last 30 or so years. The Human Genome Project (and the related research it has stimulated) has generated an amazing amount of knowledge about the nature and identity of normaland abnormalhuman genetic codes. Now the medical and biological sciences can together determine whether a fetus will (or might) have over a thousand different genetic diseases or abnormalities. Ultrasound examination can look into the womb (quite literally) and see developmental abnormalities in the fetus (such as neural tube defects like spina bifida and anencephaly). Even a simple blood test done on a pregnant woman can determine whether the fetus she is carrying has trisomy 21 (down syndrome), a genetic condition associated with mental retardation and, not infrequently, cardiac and other health problems.

Pregnant women who have health insurance that covers obstetrical care (and many millions of American women donot), particularly if they are older (>35 years), are more or less routinely offered prenatal genetic diagnosis by their obstetricians. Chorionic villus sampling is a medical procedure that takes a few fetal cells from the placenta and can be done around 10 weeks after the womans last menstrual period. These cells can then be analyzed to determine the presence of genetic abnormalities. Amniocentesis is a medical procedure that obtains fetal cells from the amniotic fluid and is usually done later in pregnancy, typically after 14 weeks following the womans last menstrual period. When done by experienced medical professionals, both procedures carry about a 0.5% risk of spontaneous abortion. The genetic analysis done on these fetal cells can determine the presence of fatal genetic diseases (such as Tay-Sachs, trisomy 13 and 18), disease that can cause the born child much suffering (children with Lesch-Nyan, for example, compulsively engage in self-destructive behavior like lip chewing, while children with spinal muscular atrophy have severe, progressive muscle-wasting), and conditions that typically cause mental retardation (such as Fragile-X and Emanuel syndrome).

Although tremendous strides have been made in genetic sciences ability to detect chromosomal abnormalities, precious little success has been achieved in treating genetic disorders directly either prenatally or postnatally. Some symptomatic treatment may well be available, but almost nothing that will actually cure or significantly ameliorate the effects of the disease. A pregnant woman who wishes to avoid the birth of a child with genetic disease has little alternative but to seek termination of the pregnancy.

The science and technology of assisted reproduction (in this case in vitro fertilization [IVF]) meets the science and technology of obstetrical medicine in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Embryos are created in vitro by mixing oocytes taken from the woman who intends to gestate one (or more) of them from a donor, and sperm taken from her partner or a donor. Genetic analysis is performed on one or few cells from each embryo, the loss of which does not affect the embryos ability to develop normally once implanted in a womb. Only those embryos free of detectable genetic abnormalities are then implanted in the womans womb in the hope that they will then attach to the uterine wall and develop normally. While success rates for implantation vary, many women have given birth following PGD. The main advantage of PGD over chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis for many women and couples is that it avoid the need for a surgical abortion to end an undesired pregnancy, although it does result in discarding the affected embryos.

What ethical issues are raised by Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis?

Prenatal genetic diagnosis (PrGD) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) both raise a number of serious ethical questions and problems.

What role does money play in ethical issues with PrGD and PGD?

1. Both services are quite expensive (especially PGD which is typically not covered by even private insurance and has the added cost of IVF) and are not available to all who might need or want them. This raises difficult questions ofsocial justice and equity, including whether coverage for these services is morally responsible when social resources for all health care services (those that are life-saving and preventive) are seriously limited.

2. As PGD is generally paid for directly by the persons who utilize it, ethical questions arise aboutthe means clinics use to attract patients and the information they provide them about its risks and benefits. Clinicians are in a fiduciary relationship with their patients and are obligated to act so as to deserve and maintain the patients trust and confidence that their wishes and best interests are being faithfully served. Consequently, the marketing of infertility services ought to place the good of patients above other interests (especially a clinicians or clinics own economic interests), should not induce patients to accept excessive, unneeded, or unproven services, and should adhere to high standards of honesty and accuracy in the information provided to prospective patients.

What is the moral status of an embryo?

3. Both PrGD and PGD result in the destruction of embryos and fetuses.If, as some contend, all human embryos and fetuses have the same moral status as live-born persons, then they are entitled to basic rights, including the right not to be killed arbitrarily or for the purpose of advancing the interests of other persons. On this view, both PrGD and PGD would be seriously morally wrong. The opposing view would hold that embryos and fetuses lack any moral status whatsoever as they lack any properties, such as sentience or other cognitive traits, that determine moral standing and so can be destroyed at will.

Perhaps the more commonly heldand more ethically defensibleposition is that human embryos and fetuses deserve some modest moral status because they are alive, have some degree of potential to become human persons, and are in fact valued by moral agents whose views deserve at least some respect and deference from others. Nevertheless, they do not possess the full and equal moral standing of persons because they lack interests and other moral claims to personhood. Having a modest level of moral status does not preclude the destruction of embryos and fetuses for a morally serious reason or purpose, and the informed and conscientious choice of the persons who created the embryos to prevent the birth of a child with a serious genetic disease or abnormality is widely (though by no means universally) considered to be such a reason

Does PrGD and PGD lead to discrimination against the disabled?

4. Recently disability activists have strongly challenged what they deem to be the basic assumption underlying PrGD and PGD: reducing the incidence of disease and disability is an obvious and unambiguous good. They rightly criticize certain views that support this assumption: that the disableds enjoyment of life is necessarily less than for nondisabled people; that raising a child with a disability is a wholly undesirable thing; and that selective embryo discard or abortion necessarily saves mothers from the heavy burdens of raising disabled children. However,the ethical critique of the disability activists goes much deeper than this quite proper debunking of broadly drawn and inaccurate assumptions about life with any disability. First, they contend that the medical system tends to exaggerate the burden associated with having a disability and underestimates the functional abilities of the disabled. The activists also point out how medical language reinforces the negativity associated with disability by using such terms as deformity or defective embryo or fetus. Second, and more importantly, the disability activists claim that the promotion and use of PGD and traditional prenatal diagnosis sends a message to the public that negatively affects existing disabled people and fosters an increase in the oppression and prejudice from which they regularly suffer.

Adults who wish to reproduce are ethically obligated to do so in a responsible manner, and this means gathering and assessing fair and accurate information about what the future might hold for them and the child they might produce.

Insofar as individual clinicians do, in fact, exaggerate the problems and burdens of living as an individual with a disability or of living with a disabled person as a parent or family member, then they are doing a moral disservice to the people they are duty bound to be helping. Adults who wish to reproduce are ethically obligated to do so in a responsible manner, and this means (insofar as it is possible in a world about which we have imperfect knowledge) gathering and assessing fair and accurate information about what the future might hold for them and the child they might produce. Clinicians (especially genetic counselors) should endeavor to provide this kind of information, supplementedif at all possibleby the firsthand information that comes from those who have actually lived with disabilities of various kinds as parents of the disabled or from the disabled individuals themselves. On the other hand, these conditions are simply not utterly benign or neutral as each mayand often doesinvolve what can fairly be described as an undesirable event such as pain, repeated hospitalizations and operations, paralysis, a shortened life span, limited educational and job opportunities, limited independence, and do forth. [1]

Discrimination against persons with disabilities is just as morally repugnant as discrimination against persons based on race, religion, or sex, but it is not at all clear that PrGD and PGD reinforce or contribute to this in any manner. Regardless of how society might change (as it surelyought to change) its attitudes and practices to decrease or, better, eliminate the socially created disadvantages wrongly placed on the disabledand regardless of how individual persons might change their views on the prospect of knowingly having a child with a serious disability, other persons will prefer not to have a child with a serious disability, no matter how wonderful the social services, no matter how inclusive the society. It is this individual choice that PGD preserves, although the clinicians who offer PGD have a moral obligation to explore their own and their patients attitudes about, and understanding of, disability so these individual decisions can be made fairly and responsibly with accurate information about the real world of life with and without disability.

Should people be able to select the sex of their baby?

5. Both PrGD and PGD identify the sex of the embryo or fetus. This raisesthe question of whether it is ethically permissible for an embryo to be discarded or a fetus to be aborted because of sex. The selection of an embryos sex via PGD is done for two basic reasons: (1) preventing the transmission of sex-linked genetic disorders; and (2) choosing sex to achieve gender balance in a family with more than one child, to achieve a preferred order in the birth of children by sex, or to provide a parent with a child of the sex he or she prefers to raise. [2] While little extended ethical debate exists regarding the former, sex selection for the purpose of preventing the transmission of sex-linked genetic disease, the latter is the subject of heated ethical disagreement.

The ethical objections to sex selection for nonmedical reasons can be grounded both in the very act of deliberately choosing one sex over the other and the untoward consequences of sex selection, particularly if it is performed frequently. Sex selection can be considered inherently ethically objectionable because it makes sex a determinative reason to value one human being over another when it ought to be completely irrelevant: females and males as such always ought be valued equally and never differentially. Sex selection can also be ethically criticized for the undesirable consequences it may generate. Choice by sex supports socially created assumptions about the relative value and meaning of male and female, with the latter almost universally being considered seriously inferior to the former. By supporting assumptions that hold femaleness in lower social regard, sex selection enhances the likelihood that females will be the targets of infanticide, unfair discrimination, and damaging stereotypes.

Proponents of the ethical acceptability of sex selection would argue that a parents desire for family balancing can beand typically ismorally neutral. The defense of family balancing rests on the view that once a parent has a child of one sex, he or she can properly prefer to have a child of the other sex because the two genders are different and generate different parenting experiences.

To insist [that the experience of parenting a boy is different from that of parenting a girl] is not the case seems breathtakingly simplistic, as if gender played no role either in a persons personality or relationships to others. Gender may be partly cultural (which does not make it less real), but it probably is partly biological. I see nothing wrong with wanting to have both experiences. [3]

An opponent of sex selection for family balancing can argue that good parentswhether prospective or actualought never to prefer, favor, or give more love to a child of one sex over the other. For example, a morally good and admirable parent would never love a male child more than a female child, give the male more privileges than a female, or give a female more material things than a male simply because of sex or beliefs about the childs propergender. A virtuous and conscientious parent, then, ought not to think that, or behave as if, a child of one sex is better than one of the other sex, nor should a good parent believe or act as if, at bottom, girls are really different than boys in the ways that truly matter.

Sex selection is at least strongly ethically suspect, if not outright wrong

The argument in favor of sex selection for family balancing has to assume that gender and gender roles exist and matter in the lived world. For if they did not, then no reason would exist to differentiate the experience of parenting a male child from that of a female. However, it is precisely the reliance upon this assumption to which the opponent of sex selection objects: acceptingand perpetuatinggender roles inevitably both harms and wrongs both males and females, although females clearly suffer much more from them than males. While some gender roles or expectations are innocuous (e.g., men dont like asking for directions), the overwhelming majority (e.g., males areand should beaggressive, women areand should beself-sacrificing) are not. Consequently, given that sex selection is inevitably gendered and most gender roles and expectations restrict the freedom of persons to be who they wish to be regardless of gender, sex selection is at least strongly ethically suspect, if not outright wrong.

Watch: Designer Babies Ethical? L.A.s Fertility Institute Says Prospective Parents Can Choose Physical Traits, Not Just Gender, from CBS NEWS:

Questions 1. Is it ethical to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select the sex of your child? 2. Consider the arguments presented about PGD and the ethical issues it poses in regards to disabilities. Does PGD reinforce a message about the disabled that, as disability activists claim, negatively affects existing disabled people and fosters an increase in the oppression and prejudice from which they regularly suffer? 3. In the video above, the doctor interviewed named Dr. Steinberg says, Of course, once Ive got this science (of PGD), am I not to provide this to my patients? Im a physician. I want to provide everything science gives me to my patients. Do you agree with Dr. Steinbergs reasoning? Why or why not?

See the original post here:
Ethical Issues With Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic ...

Posted in Genetic medicine | Comments Off on Ethical Issues With Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic …

UNL’s AgBiosafety for Educators

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

What is genetic engineering? Genetic engineering is the process of manually adding new DNA to an organism. The goal is to add one or more new traits that are not already found in that organism. Examples of genetically engineered (transgenic) organisms currently on the market include plants with resistance to some insects, plants that can tolerate herbicides, and crops with modified oil content.

Understanding Genetic Engineering: Basic Biology To understand how genetic engineering works, there are a few key biology concepts that must be understood.

Small segments of DNA are called genes. Each gene holds the instructions for how to produce a single protein. This can be compared to a recipe for making a food dish. A recipe is a set of instructions for making a single dish.

An organism may have thousands of genes. The set of all genes in an organism is called a genome. A genome can be compared to a cookbook of recipes that makes that organism what it is. Every cell of every living organism has a cookbook.

CONCEPT #2: Why are proteins important? Proteins do the work in cells. They can be part of structures (such as cell walls, organelles, etc). They can regulate reactions that take place in the cell. Or they can serve as enzymes, which speed-up reactions. Everything you see in an organism is either made of proteins or the result of a protein action.

How is genetic engineering done? Genetic engineering, also called transformation, works by physically removing a gene from one organism and inserting it into another, giving it the ability to express the trait encoded by that gene. It is like taking a single recipe out of a cookbook and placing it into another cookbook.

1) First, find an organism that naturally contains the desired trait.

2) The DNA is extracted from that organism. This is like taking out the entire cookbook.

3) The one desired gene (recipe) must be located and copied from thousands of genes that were extracted. This is called gene cloning.

4) The gene may be modified slightly to work in a more desirable way once inside the recipient organism.

5) The new gene(s), called a transgene is delivered into cells of the recipient organism. This is called transformation. The most common transformation technique uses a bacteria that naturally genetically engineer plants with its own DNA. The transgene is inserted into the bacteria, which then delivers it into cells of the organism being engineered. Another technique, called the gene gun method, shoots microscopic gold particles coated with copies of the transgene into cells of the recipient organism. With either technique, genetic engineers have no control over where or if the transgene inserts into the genome. As a result, it takes hundreds of attempts to achieve just a few transgenic organisms.

6) Once a transgenic organism has been created, traditional breeding is used to improve the characteristics of the final product. So genetic engineering does not eliminate the need for traditional breeding. It is simply a way to add new traits to the pool.

How does genetic engineering compare to traditional breeding? Although the goal of both genetic engineering and traditional plant breeding is to improve an organisms traits, there are some key differences between them.

While genetic engineering manually moves genes from one organism to another, traditional breeding moves genes through mating, or crossing, the organisms in hopes of obtaining offspring with the desired combination of traits.

genetic engineering

Using the recipe analogy, traditional breeding is like taking two cookbooks and combining every other recipe from each into one cookbook. The product is a new cookbook with half of the recipes from each original book. Therefore, half of the genes in the offspring of a cross come from each parent.

Traditional breeding is effective in improving traits, however, when compared with genetic engineering, it does have disadvantages. Since breeding relies on the ability to mate two organisms to move genes, trait improvement is basically limited to those traits that already exist within that species. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, physically removes the genes from one organism and places them into the other. This eliminates the need for mating and allows the movement of genes between organisms of any species. Therefore, the potential traits that can be used are virtually unlimited.

Breeding is also less precise than genetic engineering. In breeding, half of the genes from each parent are passed on to the offspring. This may include many undesirable genes for traits that are not wanted in the new organism. Genetic engineering, however, allows for the movement of a single, or a few, genes.

Read more here:
UNL's AgBiosafety for Educators

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on UNL’s AgBiosafety for Educators

Genetic Engineering – BiologyMad

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology, means altering the genes in a living organism to produce a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) with a new genotype. Various kinds of genetic modification are possible: inserting a foreign gene from one species into another, forming a transgenic organism; altering an existing gene so that its product is changed; or changing gene expression so that it is translated more often or not at all.

Genetic engineering is a very young discipline, and is only possible due to the development of techniques from the 1960s onwards. Watson and Crick have made these techniques possible from our greater understanding of DNA and how it functions following the discovery of its structure in 1953. Although the final goal of genetic engineering is usually the expression of a gene in a host, in fact most of the techniques and time in genetic engineering are spent isolating a gene and then cloning it. This table lists the techniques that we shall look at in detail.

1

cDNA

To make a DNA copy of mRNA

2

To cut DNA at specific points, making small fragments

3

DNA Ligase

To join DNA fragments together

4

Vectors

To carry DNA into cells and ensure replication

5

Plasmids

Common kind of vector

6

Gene Transfer

To deliver a gene to a living cells

7

Genetic Markers

To identify cells that have been transformed

8

To make exact copies of bacterial colonies on an agar plate

9

PCR

To amplify very small samples of DNA

10

DNA probes

To identify and label a piece of DNA containing a certain sequence

11

Shotgun *

To find a particular gene in a whole genome

12

Antisense genes *

To stop the expression of a gene in a cell

13

Gene Synthesis

To make a gene from scratch

14

Electrophoresis

To separate fragments of DNA

* Additional information that is not directly included in AS Biology. However it can help to consolidate other techniques.

Complementary DNA (cDNA) is DNA made from mRNA. This makes use of the enzyme reverse transcriptase, which does the reverse of transcription: it synthesises DNA from an RNA template. It is produced naturally by a group of viruses called the retroviruses (which include HIV), and it helps them to invade cells. In genetic engineering reverse transcriptase is used to make an artificial gene of cDNA as shown in this diagram.

Complementary DNA has helped to solve different problems in genetic engineering:

It makes genes much easier to find. There are some 70 000 genes in the human genome, and finding one gene out of this many is a very difficult (though not impossible) task. However a given cell only expresses a few genes, so only makes a few different kinds of mRNA molecule. For example the b cells of the pancreas make insulin, so make lots of mRNA molecules coding for insulin. This mRNA can be isolated from these cells and used to make cDNA of the insulin gene.

These are enzymes that cut DNA at specific sites. They are properly called restriction endonucleases because they cut the bonds in the middle of the polynucleotide chain. Some restriction enzymes cut straight across both chains, forming blunt ends, but most enzymes make a staggered cut in the two strands, forming sticky ends.

The cut ends are sticky because they have short stretches of single-stranded DNA with complementary sequences. These sticky ends will stick (or anneal) to another piece of DNA by complementary base pairing, but only if they have both been cut with the same restriction enzyme. Restriction enzymes are highly specific, and will only cut DNA at specific base sequences, 4-8 base pairs long, called recognition sequences.

Restriction enzymes are produced naturally by bacteria as a defence against viruses (they restrict viral growth), but they are enormously useful in genetic engineering for cutting DNA at precise places ("molecular scissors"). Short lengths of DNA cut out by restriction enzymes are called restriction fragments. There are thousands of different restriction enzymes known, with over a hundred different recognition sequences. Restriction enzymes are named after the bacteria species they came from, so EcoR1 is from E. coli strain R, and HindIII is from Haemophilis influenzae.

This enzyme repairs broken DNA by joining two nucleotides in a DNA strand. It is commonly used in genetic engineering to do the reverse of a restriction enzyme, i.e. to join together complementary restriction fragments.

The sticky ends allow two complementary restriction fragments to anneal, but only by weak hydrogen bonds, which can quite easily be broken, say by gentle heating. The backbone is still incomplete.

DNA ligase completes the DNA backbone by forming covalent bonds. Restriction enzymes and DNA ligase can therefore be used together to join lengths of DNA from different sources.

In biology a vector is something that carries things between species. For example the mosquito is a disease vector because it carries the malaria parasite into humans. In genetic engineering a vector is a length of DNA that carries the gene we want into a host cell. A vector is needed because a length of DNA containing a gene on its own wont actually do anything inside a host cell. Since it is not part of the cells normal genome it wont be replicated when the cell divides, it wont be expressed, and in fact it will probably be broken down pretty quickly. A vector gets round these problems by having these properties:

It is big enough to hold the gene we want (plus a few others), but not too big.

It is circular (or more accurately a closed loop), so that it is less likely to be broken down (particularly in prokaryotic cells where DNA is always circular).

It contains control sequences, such as a replication origin and a transcription promoter, so that the gene will be replicated, expressed, or incorporated into the cells normal genome.

It contain marker genes, so that cells containing the vector can be identified.

Many different vectors have been made for different purposes in genetic engineering by modifying naturally-occurring DNA molecules, and these are now available off the shelf. For example a cloning vector contains sequences that cause the gene to be copied (perhaps many times) inside a cell, but not expressed. An expression vector contains sequences causing the gene to be expressed inside a cell, preferably in response to an external stimulus, such as a particular chemical in the medium. Different kinds of vector are also available for different lengths of DNA insert:

Type of vector

Max length of DNA insert

10 kbp

Virus or phage

30 kbp

Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC)

500 kbp

Plasmids are by far the most common kind of vector, so we shall look at how they are used in some detail. Plasmids are short circular bits of DNA found naturally in bacterial cells. A typical plasmid contains 3-5 genes and there are usually around 10 copies of a plasmid in a bacterial cell. Plasmids are copied separately from the main bacterial DNA when the cell divides, so the plasmid genes are passed on to all daughter cells. They are also used naturally for exchange of genes between bacterial cells (the nearest they get to sex), so bacterial cells will readily take up a plasmid. Because they are so small, they are easy to handle in a test tube, and foreign genes can quite easily be incorporated into them using restriction enzymes and DNA ligase.

One of the most common plasmids used is the R-plasmid (or pBR322). This plasmid contains a replication origin, several recognition sequences for different restriction enzymes (with names like PstI and EcoRI), and two marker genes, which confer resistance to different antibiotics (ampicillin and tetracycline).

The diagram below shows how DNA fragments can be incorporated into a plasmid using restriction and ligase enzymes. The restriction enzyme used here (PstI) cuts the plasmid in the middle of one of the markergenes (well see why this is useful later). The foreign DNA anneals with the plasmid and is joined covalently by DNA ligase to form a hybrid vector (in other words a mixture or hybrid of bacterial and foreign DNA). Several other products are also formed: some plasmids will simply re-anneal with themselves to re-form the original plasmid, and some DNA fragments will join together to form chains or circles. Theses different products cannot easily be separated, but it doesnt matter, as the marker genes can be used later to identify the correct hybrid vector.

Vectors containing the genes we want must be incorporated into living cells so that they can be replicated or expressed. The cells receiving the vector are called host cells, and once they have successfully incorporated the vector they are said to be transformed. Vectors are large molecules which do not readily cross cell membranes, so the membranes must be made permeable in some way. There are different ways of doing this depending on the type of host cell.

Heat Shock. Cells are incubated with the vector in a solution containing calcium ions at 0C. The temperature is then suddenly raised to about 40C. This heat shock causes some of the cells to take up the vector, though no one knows why. This works well for bacterial and animal cells.

Electroporation. Cells are subjected to a high-voltage pulse, which temporarily disrupts the membrane and allows the vector to enter the cell. This is the most efficient method of delivering genes to bacterial cells.

Viruses. The vector is first incorporated into a virus, which is then used to infect cells, carrying the foreign gene along with its own genetic material. Since viruses rely on getting their DNA into host cells for their survival they have evolved many successful methods, and so are an obvious choice for gene delivery. The virus must first be genetically engineered to make it safe, so that it cant reproduce itself or make toxins. Three viruses are commonly used:

1. Bacteriophages (or phages) are viruses that infect bacteria. They are a very effective way of delivering large genes into bacteria cells in culture.

2. Adenoviruses are human viruses that causes respiratory diseases including the common cold. Their genetic material is double-stranded DNA, and they are ideal for delivering genes to living patients in gene therapy. Their DNA is not incorporated into the hosts chromosomes, so it is not replicated, but their genes are expressed.

The adenovirus is genetically altered so that its coat proteins are not synthesised, so new virus particles cannot be assembled and the host cell is not killed.

3. Retroviruses are a group of human viruses that include HIV. They are enclosed in a lipid membrane and their genetic material is double-stranded RNA. On infection this RNA is copied to DNA and the DNA is incorporated into the hosts chromosome. This means that the foreign genes are replicated into every daughter cell.

After a certain time, the dormant DNA is switched on, and the genes are expressed in all the host cells.

Plant Tumours. This method has been used successfully to transform plant cells, which are perhaps the hardest to do. The gene is first inserted into the Ti plasmid of the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and then plants are infected with the bacterium. The bacterium inserts the Ti plasmid into the plant cells' chromosomal DNA and causes a "crown gall" tumour. These tumour cells can be cultured in the laboratory and whole new plants grown from them by micropropagation. Every cell of these plants contains the foreign gene.

Gene Gun. This extraordinary technique fires microscopic gold particles coated with the foreign DNA at the cells using a compressed air gun. It is designed to overcome the problem of the strong cell wall in plant tissue, since the particles can penetrate the cell wall and the cell and nuclear membranes, and deliver the DNA to the nucleus, where it is sometimes expressed.

Micro-Injection. A cell is held on a pipette under a microscope and the foreign DNA is injected directly into the nucleus using an incredibly fine micro-pipette. This method is used where there are only a very few cells available, such as fertilised animal egg cells. In the rare successful cases the fertilised egg is implanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother and it will develop into a normal animal, with the DNA incorporated into the chromosomes of every cell.

Liposomes. Vectors can be encased in liposomes, which are small membrane vesicles (see module 1). The liposomes fuse with the cell membrane (and sometimes the nuclear membrane too), delivering the DNA into the cell. This works for many types of cell, but is particularly useful for delivering genes to cell in vivo (such as in gene therapy).

These are needed to identify cells that have successfully taken up a vector and so become transformed. With most of the techniques above less than 1% of the cells actually take up the vector, so a marker is needed to distinguish these cells from all the others. Well look at how to do this with bacterial host cells, as thats the most common technique.

A common marker, used in the R-plasmid, is a gene for resistance to an antibiotic such as tetracycline. Bacterial cells taking up this plasmid can make this gene product and so are resistant to this antibiotic. So if the cells are grown on a medium containing tetracycline all the normal untransformed cells, together with cells that have taken up DNA thats not in a plasmid (99%) will die. Only the 1% transformed cells will survive, and these can then be grown and cloned on another plate.

Replica plating is a simple technique for making an exact copy of an agar plate. A pad of sterile cloth the same size as the plate is pressed on the surface of an agar plate with bacteria growing on it. Some cells from each colony will stick to the cloth. If the cloth is then pressed onto a new agar plate, some cells will be deposited and colonies will grow in exactly the same positions on the new plate. This technique has a number of uses, but the most common use in genetic engineering is to help solve another problem in identifying transformed cells.

Excerpt from:
Genetic Engineering - BiologyMad

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Genetic Engineering – BiologyMad

Chapter 34: Stem Cells – The Hastings Center

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:45 pm

By Insoo Hyun, PhD Download as PDF

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the capacity to renew themselves and to specialize into various cell types, such as blood, muscle, and nerve cells. Embryonic stem cells, found in five-day-old embryos, eventually give rise to all the different cells and organ systems of the embryo. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent because they are capable of differentiating along each of the three germ layers of cells in the embryo, as well as producing the germ line (sperm and eggs). The three germ layers are the ectoderm (skin, nerves, brain), the mesoderm (bone, muscle), and the endoderm (lungs, digestive system).

During later stages of human development, minute quantities of more mature stem cells can be found in most tissue and organ systems, such as bone marrow, the skin, and the gut. These stem cells are responsible for renewing and repairing the bodys specialized cells. Although the lay public often refers to them as adult stem cells, researchers prefer to call them multipotent because they are less versatile than pluripotent stem cells. Most stem cell scientists believe multipotent stem cells can only differentiate into cells related to the tissue or organ systems from which they originated. For example, blood stem cells can develop into different types of blood cells, but not into nerve cells or brain cells.

While multipotent stem cell research has been around for more than 40 years and has led to clinical therapies for leukemia and other blood disorders, the field of human embryonic stem cell research is still relatively new, and basic discoveries have yet to be directly transitioned into clinical applications. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated and maintained in culture in 1998 by James Thomson and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin. Since then, more than a thousand different isolateslines of self-renewing embryonic stem cellshave been created and shared by researchers worldwide.

The main ethical and policy issues with stem cells concern the derivation and use of embryonic stem cells for research. A substantial minority of Americans objects to the destruction of embryos that occurs when stem cells are harvested. Embryonic stem cell research is especially controversial for those who believe that five-day-old preimplantation human embryos should not be destroyed no matter how valuable the research may be for society.

To bypass this ethical controversy, the Presidents Council on Bioethics recommended in 2005 that alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells be pursued. Some alternatives have been developedmost notably, the induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are human skin cells reprogrammed to behave like embryonic cells. But embryonic stem cell research will remain necessary because there are some questions only embryonic stem cells have the potential to answer.

Pluripotent Capable of differentiating into all cell types.

Multipotent Capable of differentiating into a limited variety of cells related to a particular tissue system.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) Research cloning; replacing the DNA of an unfertilized egg with the DNA of a cell from a patient.

Retrovirus A type of virus that is useful for transferring genes into cells.

Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells Normal body cells that are reprogrammed with retroviruses to behave like embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are necessary for several aims of scientific and biomedical research. They include addressing fundamental questions in developmental biology, such as how primitive cells differentiate into more specialized cells and how different organ systems first come into being. By increasing our knowledge of human development, embryonic stem cells may also help us better understand the causes of fetal deformations.

Other important applications lie in the areas of disease research and targeted drug development. By deriving and studying embryonic stem cells that are genetically matched to diseases such as Parkinson disease and juvenile diabetes, researchers hope to map out the developmental course of complex medical conditions to understand how, when, and why diseased specialized cells fail to function properly in patients. Such disease-in-a-dish model systems would provide researchers with a powerful new way to study genetic diseases. Furthermore, researchers can aggressively test the safety and efficacy of new, targeted drug interventions on tissue cultures of living human cells derived from disease-specific embryonic stem cells. This method of testing would reduce the risks associated with human subjects research.

To date, stem cell scientists have succeeded in producing a few disease-specific stem cell lines using unwanted fertility clinic embryos that had tested positive for serious genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. However, no methods exist to screen embryos for more complex diseases like Lou Gehrig and Alzheimer disease; thus scientists must develop their own disease-specific stem cell lines for these and many other diseases they wish to study.

One possible way of deriving disease-specific stem cells is through a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), otherwise known as research cloning. By replacing the DNA of an unfertilized egg with the DNA of a cell from a patients body, researchers may be able to produce embryonic stem cells that are genetically matched to the patient and his or her particular disease. SCNT has worked recently in nonhuman primates to produce cell-donor-matched primate stem cells, suggesting that it is possible for human research (see Chapter 6: Cloning ).

Another technique for creating disease-specific stem cells was pioneered in 2006 by Shinya Yamanaka and colleagues in Kyoto, Japan. They took mouse skin cells and used retroviruses to insert four genes into them to create iPS cells. In 2007, teams led by Yamanaka, James Thomson, and George Daley each used similar techniques to create human iPS cells. The iPS cell approach is promising because disease-specific stem cells can be created using skin samples from patients and because, unlike SCNT, it does not require the procurement of scarce human eggs for research.

However, despite these advances, scientists do not believe iPS cells can replace human embryonic stem cells in research. For one, embryonic stem cells must be used as controls to assess the behavior and full scientific potential of iPS cells. Furthermore, iPS cells may not be able to answer some important questions about early human development. And safety is a major issue for iPS cell research aimed at clinical applications, since retroviruses can cause harmful mutations in the stem cells, increasing the risk of cancer. In light of these and other concerns, iPS cells may perhaps prove to be most useful in their potential to expand our overall understanding of stem cell biology, the net effect of which will provide the best hope of discovering new therapies for patients.

Many who oppose embryonic stem cell research believe for religious or other personal reasons that all preimplantation embryos have a moral standing equal to living persons. On the other hand, those who support embryonic stem cell research point out that not all religious traditions grant full moral standing to early-stage human embryos. According to Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions, as well as many Western Christian views, moral standing arrives much later during the gestation process, with some views maintaining that the fetus must first reach a stage of viability where it would be capable of living outside the womb. Living in a pluralistic society such as ours, supporters argue, means having to tolerate differences in religious and personal convictions over such theoretical matters as when during development moral standing first appears.

Other critics of embryonic stem cell research believe that all preimplantation embryos have the potential to become full-fledged human beings and that they should never have this potential destroyed. In response, stem cell supporters argue that it is simply false that all early-stage embryos have the potential for complete human lifemany fertility clinic embryos are of poor quality and therefore not capable of producing a pregnancy (although they may yield stem cells). Similarly, as many as 7580% of all embryos created through intercourse alone fail to implant. Furthermore, no embryos have the potential for full human life until they are implanted in a womans uterus, and prior to this essential step an embryos potential exists only in the most abstract and hypothetical sense.

Despite the controversies, embryonic stem cell research continues to proceed rapidly around the world, with strong public funding in many areas. In this country, money for embryonic stem cell research has come mainly from states and private sources ever since the federal government limited its funding to research with embryonic stem cell lines derived before August 9, 2001. Scientists point out, however, that these presidential stem cell lines lack genetic diversity, have accrued genetic mutations, and are prone to infection from animal viruses introduced by the mouse feeder layers on which they were grown. The result is that these stem cell lines are not as scientifically useful as newer stem cell lines, many of which have been grown on feeder systems free of animal products. And as these newer stem cell lines age and begin to accrue their own mutations, more new stem cell lines will have to be created for research.

In light of the ethical concerns, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) established guidelines in 2005 for the conduct of human embryonic stem cell research. According to these guidelines, all privately and publicly funded scientists working with pluripotent stem cells should have their research proposals approved by local embryonic stem cell research oversight (ESCRO) committees. ESCRO committees are to include basic scientists, physicians, ethicists, legal experts, and community members to look at stem-cell-specific issues relating to the proposed research. These committees are also to work with local ethics review boards to ensure that the donors of embryos and other human materials are treated fairly and have given their voluntary informed consent to stem cell research teams. Although these guidelines are voluntary, universities and other research centers have widely accepted them.

At the global level, in 2007 the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released guidelines for pluripotent human stem cell research. Like the NAS, it also endorses the formation of local committees to oversee and maintain high ethical standards. However, the ISSCR guidelines add the further recommendation that stem cell lines be banked and freely distributed to researchers around the world to facilitate the fields progress on just and reasonable terms.

The potential for overcommercialization and restrictive patenting practices is a major problem facing the stem cell field today that may delay or reduce the broad public benefit of stem cell research. The promise of broad public benefit is one of the justifying conditions for conducting stem cell research; without the real and substantial possibility for public benefit, stem cell research loses one of its most important moral foundations.

However, providing useful stem-cell-based therapies in the future is not a simple proposition, either. Currently there are no international guidelines for researchers who wish to translate basic pluripotent stem cell research into effective clinical applications for patients. The ISSCR is drafting guidelines to fill this void. Developing a roadmap to bring stem cell research into the clinic will involve many complex steps. They include:

These and other difficult issues have to be sorted out soon if stem cell research in all its forms is to fulfill its promise.

Insoo Hyun, PhD, is an associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University.

Insoo Hyun, Stem Cells, in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, ed. Mary Crowley (Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, 2008), 159-162.

View post:
Chapter 34: Stem Cells - The Hastings Center

Posted in Wisconsin Stem Cells | Comments Off on Chapter 34: Stem Cells – The Hastings Center

Honey Bees and Blueberry Pollination – University of Maine

Posted: September 28, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Fact Sheet No. 629, UMaine Extension No. 2079

Replaces Honey Bees and Blueberry Pollination Cooperative Extension Bulletin 629. Frank Drummond Professor, University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Department of Biological Sciences. April 2002

The Honey Bee

Introduction Many species of insects visit flowers in search of nectar and pollen. In return for these foods, the insects inadvertently pollinate the flowers. The major groups of insect pollinators are the bees, moths, butterflies, flies, and beetles. Some of the common minor groups of insect pollinators are ants, wasps, thrips, and true bugs. Many native insect species are important pollinators of commercial food crops, especially the bees. About 25,000 species of bees are known throughout the world, and 2,000 species are native to the U.S.

In Maine, there are more than 50 species of native bees that are associated with lowbush blueberry. However, because of the alarming decline in native bee numbers over the past several decades (due to bee habitat loss, fragmentation, and pesticide use, farmers have relied more and more on managed bees (see the blueberry fact sheets onM anagement of the Alfalfa Leafcutting Bee, # 300; and Commercial Bumble Bees, # 302) for pollination of lowbush blueberry. Honey bees are the work horses of managed bees and some estimates suggest that honey bees account for 80% of the insect pollination in agricultural crops. The use of the honey bee in lowbush blueberry has increased tremendously over the past 40 years. In 1965, almost 500 honey bee colonies were brought into Maine for lowbush blueberry pollination. By 1985 about 25,000 honey bee colonies were brought into Maine for lowbush blueberry pollination, but by the year 2000, more than 60,000 colonies were brought into Maine for pollination of this crop.

The honey bee is the common name of the bee species, Apis mellifera L. This species, native to Mediterranean Europe, Asia, and Africa, was introduced into North America about 400 years ago for honey and wax production and crop pollination. This bee is different from many of our native bees in that it is social and lives in large colonies consisting of tens of thousands of sterile female worker bees, hundreds of male reproductives (drones), and usually a single female reproductive or queen. Most native bees are solitary (where individual female adult bees nest alone in the soil or in twigs), or primitively social (where female bees of the same species may share nests or even defense of the nest). There are some native bees that are social associated with lowbush blueberry in Maine. These species are represented by the bumble bees that live in small colonies, usually less than 100 individuals with a single reproductive queen.

While some native bees are specialists that have evolved as highly efficient pollinators of only one or two species of flowering plants, most are generalists that are capable of pollinating a number of native and introduced plant species. One of the strengths of the honey bee as a pollinator is that it is a very broad generalist and so it can be used for pollination of many different food crops. Other positive attributes of this bee for pollination are that: 1) it can be easily managed in artificial hives; 2) it can be moved into and out of crop fields during and after bloom; 3) it has excellent spatial memory capabilities and this in combination with its ability to communicate the location of nectar rich floral resources among worker bees, means that large numbers of honey bees can quickly take advantage of floral resources and pollinate crops that only flower for a short period; and 4) it can learn how to manipulate and thereby pollinate complex flowers that are not accessible to many species of generalists bees (although, see discussion of honey bees and blueberry flowers below). Some of the drawbacks of honey bees are that: 1) they are defensive around their colony and may sting; 2) having evolved in warmer climates, they usually do not fly on days where the air temperature is below 50 F; and 3) being broad generalists capable of learning and communicating, they can switch from foraging on the intended crop to other more rewarding resource-rich wild flowers.

Figure 1

What do honey bees look like? You are most likely to see an adult sterile female worker bee as it comes and goes from a hive or forages for nectar or pollen on a flower. Figure 1 shows a honey bee worker and a queen (larger bee).

The worker is about 1/2 inch in length and its color ranges from light brown to dark brown to almost black (there are various races and/or subspecies of honey bees in the U.S. such as Italians, Caucasians, Carniolans, and Africans with differing pigmentation). The large eyes are usually shiny black and the thorax (where the six legs and two pairs of wings are attached) is covered with a dense mat of brown hairs. The abdomen is long and quite often characterized by alternating light and dark bands or rings. There are very few species of large brown bees in lowbush blueberry fields in Maine and so there is little chance for confusion. However, there is a syrphid fly (flower or hover fly) that is a bee mimic and is a similar size and color to the honey bee. Close inspection reveals that this fly has only one pair of wings and that the wings at rest are held in a delta pattern, unlike honey bees that hold their two pairs of wings parallel to their body.

Aggressiveness is a variable trait in the honey bee that we normally use in Maine for pollination of lowbush blueberry. The arrival of Africanized honey bees in the U.S. in 1990 means that growers and beekeepers should realize that these more aggressive bees could make their way into Maine during the pollination season. It is not considered likely that Africanized bees can survive the winters in Maine. The African subspecies was introduced into Brazil in 1956, hybridized with the gentler European races and spread rapidly throughout northern South America, Central America, and into the U.S. The Africanized bees are now established in some southern regions of the U.S. including: Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Puerto Rico and St. Croix. These bees can be extremely defensive, stinging farm workers, passers-by, and livestock, especially after hives have been disturbed or managed. Growers are being warned of the potential for Africanized bees to end up in their fields and should inspect the defensive nature of all rented hives by walking around the hives (once settled in the location) and observe the bees during pollination. Any questions regarding the possibility of Africanized bees on Maine blueberry land should be forwarded to the state apiary inspector, Maine Department of Agriculture, Augusta, ME.

The Honey Bee Colony

The honey bee colony is usually composed of one queen, several thousand (5,000-75,000) workers, and several hundred drones. The wax that comprises the combs over which the bees cluster is secreted by the worker bees and comprised of adjacent six-sided cells for storing food and brood rearing. Brood refers to the immature stages of the honey bee.

Figure 2

The queen deposits a single, small, white egg in the bottom of a cell in a wax comb. She can be very fertile laying about 1,500 eggs per day. After three days, the egg hatches into a larva which is fed a mixture of pollen, nectar, and a rich protein secretion called royal jelly by worker bees for five to six days. Figure 2 shows both uncapped and capped (sealed) brood on a comb.

The cell is then sealed by the workers and the larva develops into a pupa (a non-feeding resting stage), and then develops into an adult bee. The adult sterile worker bee emerges from the cell as an adult bee 21 days after the egg is laid. Queen bees require about 16 days and drone bees about 24 days to develop to adult maturity.

Colony population buildup occurs through the reproductive efforts of a single queen and the nursing, feeding, foraging, and defensive efforts of the sterile workers. During lowbush blueberry bloom most honey bee colonies are in a phase of rapid population growth and so pollen and nectar foraging should be at a maximum (given that the colony has a strong and healthy foraging force of workers).

Swarming is a process of colony reproduction in which the colony splits. When a colony is crowded or if an old queen is failing, the workers will begin to raise a new queen. Just prior to emergence of the new adult queen, the majority of workers will issue from the hive with the old queen in search of a new location for the colony. First, this part of the colony will usually cluster in a large mass surrounding the old queen, typically, on a branch in a tree. Scout bees will leave the swarming colony and search for a protected nesting site (usually dark and dry, often a tree cavity). When scouts find a nest site they return to the swarm and direct the mass of bees and the queen to the new nest site. The part of the colony that remains in the hive will support the new queen that emerges. If one queen emerges before any other queens she will sting and kill the others so that only one queen usually heads the colony.

Workers visit flowers to collect both pollen and nectar (about 5-30% of flying honey bees are collecting pollen). Pollen is collected when it becomes entangled with the dense branched hair on the bee body. The bee combs the pollen from the body hair and packs it into pellets on specialized curved spines on the hind legs (pollen baskets) for transport to the hive. About 50-350 flowers are visited per pollen load brought back to the hive and a given bee will make between 1 and 50 pollen collecting trips per day. Pollen is necessary food (protein and lipid source) as is the honey made from nectar (carbohydrate source), for rearing brood. Pollen and honey are stored in the wax comb for the colonys use. The amount of food material collected and stored depends upon many factors, including: the available flora, colony strength, bee race or subspecies, weather, and available comb space.

Water is also essential for the welfare of the colony and is collected to dilute honey consumed by the bees and to regulate the colony temperature and humidity. On hot days colonies may be stressed and suffer if deprived of water even for only a few hours. Much energy is expended by honey bee workers when transporting food and water to the hive. A grower, using honey bees for pollination, will profit by placing the hives inside the field, but close to a water source. Colonies should be placed in a sunny location, near water (or supplied with artificial pools of water), and also placed in a location that is protected, as much as possible, from the wind since high winds reduce the frequency with which bees will leave the hive to forage.

Pollination of Lowbush Blueberry

Figure 3

The Blueberry Flower and Fruit Lowbush blueberry flowers grow in clusters on the last several inches of the stem. The white, greenish, or pink petals of the flower are united to form a tubular or bell shaped corolla, which hangs open-end downward. Ten stamens (stalks bearing the anthers containing the male germ cells or pollen) are inserted at the base of the corolla, around the style (female organ containing the female germ cells or ovules). The style extends beyond the stamens, out of the corolla and is receptive only on its tip, the stigma. Figure 3 shows a picture of a lowbush blueberry flower with petals removed to show the style and stigma (in green) and stamens surrounding style (in brown). The ovary is at the base of the style.

During the period of stigma receptivity, pollen is released through pores on the end of the anther (these unusual anthers are called poricidal and can be envisioned as a salt shaker; when the anthers are shaken or agitated by a bee they release pollen). Nectar is produced in nectaries at the base of the corolla. The amount and concentration of nectar increases from 0 to 48 hours after anthesis (onset of pollen release). Because the anthers are protected by the bell-shaped corolla and the pollen is relatively heavy and sticky, wind does not aid in the pollination process. Stigma receptivity may last five to eight days depending on the weather and clone genetics, among other factors (for instance, the plant micro-nutrient is believed to extend the period of stigma receptivity in blueberries). However, if pollination does not occur within two to three days after the flower opens, fruit set is less likely and by 7-8 days becomes improbable. As soon as fertilization occurs (fusion of pollen and ovule germ cells), the flower begins to lose its attractiveness and development of the ovary (fruit) begins.

The ovary matures into the many seeded (fertilized ovules) berry that ripens two to three months after flowering. The berry may contain as many as 65 small seeds which do not interfere with fruit palatability. The number of developing seeds per berry influences the size and rate of ripening of the fruit. More seeds result in larger and earlier maturing berries.

There is considerable variation between genetic clones, geographic regions, and between years (i.e.. weather) in the pollination of lowbush blueberry in the field. Many lowbush blueberry clones growing under favorable conditions are, typically, capable of setting up to 80-90 percent of their blossoms. Some may even reach 100 percent. However, in June there is often a drop of fruit by the plants. This June drop may range from slightly greater than 0% to 60% of the set fruit, depending upon weather and probably clone genotype. There is, however, considerable self-sterility (3-90% self-sterility reported in some studies) and some cross-sterility in lowbush blueberries (some of this might be due to clones that are completely male sterile, but some of this is due to inter-specific incompatibility). This sterility results in failure of fertilization or early abortion of fruits. There can be multiple species of Vaccinium, generally referred to as lowbush blueberry, as many as five species in some fields. In addition, in some fields, 45% of the lowbush blueberry clones produce scarce amounts of pollen. With so much self-sterility and pollen scarcity, free transfer of pollen between clones is essential to maximize fruit production. Therefore, it is critical that bees be locally abundant or be brought into fields to insure cross-pollination between clones. Since insect pollination is essential for maximum blueberry production, failure to produce good crops is frequently the result of poor pollination. The lowbush blueberry plant species diversity will be a major consideration in determining whether the additional expense of bringing in honey bees to maximize pollination is cost effective. This is discussed next.

Incompatibility Among Lowbush Blueberry Species As briefly mentioned above, some fields have many species that are commonly referred to as wild lowbush blueberries. These include, but are not limited to, the common lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), sour top blueberry (V. myrtilloides), dryland blueberry (V. pallidium) and huckleberry (Gaylussacia buccata). It is suspected that many of these species overlap in some of their flowering times and that in general, crosses between some species do not result in fruit. For instance, it has been found that pollen from sour top can pollinate and fertilize flowers of common lowbush blueberry, but several days after fertilization the ovary aborts and the berries drop off the plant. Because sour top pollen can fertilize V. angustifolium ovules causing them to abort, these ovules are prevented from being fertilized by compatible pollen, thus lowering fruit set in a field containing these incompatible species. This fact is believed to be the root of the controversy regarding the advantages of using honey bees for pollination. Some fields show a tremendous increase in yields when honey bees are placed in blueberry fields (sometimes as great as 1,000 lbs / acre increase in yield for every hive, up to five hives per acre, added in a field), whereas other fields show little, if any, increase in yield with an increase in honey bee stocking rate. It has been shown that fields with a large proportion of sour top (about 50% of the lowbush blueberry plants) have an expected fruit set, at best, of 50% no matter how many honey bees are placed in the field. Therefore, the decision to place honey bees in a lowbush blueberry field is a complex one that starts with knowledge of the composition of lowbush blueberry species that make up a given field. Ideally, it seems that it would be most desirable to manage fields that have few blueberry species, preferably only V. angustifolium, with a high diversity of cross-fertile clones. Another important criteria in determining whether one should use honey bees for pollination is the extent of the native bee pollinator force in a field. This is discussed next.

Insect Pollination of Lowbush Blueberry Growers may fertilize, prune, control insects, diseases and weeds, irrigate, and follow other cultural practices, yet without the insect pollinators, first among which are native bees, their crops may fail. No other cultural practice will cause blueberry fruit to set if its pollination is neglected. If native bees are not in adequate abundance then management practices should be implemented to conserve and increase native bee populations (see fact sheet # 301). Until native bee populations increase in size, commercial pollinators such as honey bees (see fact sheet #224), alfalfa leaf cutting bees (see fact sheet # 300), or commercially available bumble bees (see fact sheet # 302) MUST be used.

Blueberry pollination is performed naturally by native bumble bees and solitary bees. Fifty-nine species of native bees have been observed in native lowbush blueberry fields. Bumble bees, when present, play a major role in blueberry pollination. The bumble bee works a few blossoms in one spot, then flies and works another spot, thus facilitating cross-pollination between clones. Bumble bee queens forage up to 400 yards from their nest site. Because of their size, they can shake out and distribute a large quantity of pollen from blueberry flowers. What makes bumble bees especially efficient pollinators is that they work the bloom at a very high speed (10-20 flowers / minute vs. 5-9 flowers / minute for honey bees), in addition, bumble bees are buzz pollinators (i.e.. they vibrate the flower shaking the pollen from the poricidal anthers) unlike honey bees. Bumble bees can place more than 50 pollen grains upon a lowbush blueberry stigma in a single floral visit (0-10 for a honey bee). Another characteristic of bumble bees that make them an efficient pollinator of lowbush blueberry is that they possess long tongues. This allows them to extract nectar from flowers with long corollas such as some clones of lowbush blueberry. It has been observed that honey bees will not visit all clones of lowbush blueberry. Some of the clones with long corollas and narrow corollar openings do not allow honey bees access to the nectar rewards of the flower. However, one disadvantage of the bumble bee is that only over-wintered bumble bee queens are present during the majority of the lowbush blueberry bloom period in Maine. Usually queens are not numerous, although some small blueberry fields that are not managed intensively in Maine have more than adequate populations of queen bumble bees to ensure maximum pollination

Many other native bee species are also natural pollinators of lowbush blueberries. Many of these species are solitary, but some are primitively social living in loose multi-female aggregations. Native bees nest mostly in uncultivated, sparsely vegetated, sandy soils, or they are twig nesters in a variety of shrubs that exhibit soft pith within their branches. Their flight activity is usually confined to their nests (200-800 yards of their nest). These bees are from many families and are quite diverse in size and habits, digger bees (Family: Andrenidae), sweat bees (Family: Halictidae), cellophane bees (Family: Coletidae), and mason and leafcutting bees (Family: Megachilidae). Some of the species such as Osmia atriventris, commonly called the Maine blueberry bee, is very adept at pollinating blueberry. It drums the anthers with its forelegs in order to extract pollen from the lowbush blueberry plant. Many of these species are excellent pollinators of lowbush blueberry, but may be negatively impacted by weather from year to year, parasites and diseases, and many of the common lowbush blueberry production practices (especially insecticide applications). Because of the year to year fluctuations in native bee populations, many blueberry growers use honey bee colonies for pollination in order to reduce the risk of having a year of poor pollination due to low native bee densities. In other areas, native bee numbers are never high enough for adequate levels of pollination. This is often the case in the blueberry barrens in downeast Maine.

So how does one know whether honey bees are a good management option? It is important to not only know the lowbush blueberry plant species structure in your field (discussed above), but also the native bee population strengths in your field.

Determining The Need for Honey Bees native bee densities One rule of thumb for lowbush blueberry states that independent of bee species (native bee or honey bee), at least 1.0 bee per square yard is necessary for adequate pollination (good looking fruit set). A more refined estimate of fruit set suggests that in a period of one minute, 1.0 bee per square yard of blooming lowbush blueberry when it is sunny and calm, and the air temperature is above 65 F. A slightly different estimate (percent berry set) can be derived from a predictive model that Dr. Frank Drummond developed. A knowledge of the number of bees per square yard of lowbush blueberries in bloom will provide an estimate of the average expected percent berries at harvest. This predictor is derived from typical lowbush blueberry fields in Maine. This predictor is based upon the number of honey bees and native bees (recorded separately) counted per square yard of bloom in a one minute period. In all three of the estimates of adequate pollination mentioned above, counts on at least 10 different one square yard, marked quadrants of bloom should be made throughout the field to provide a representative average (for more detail see Fact Sheet # 204). The predictor model is based upon the premise that, on average, a single native bee is 2.3 times more efficient as a pollinator than an individual honey bee (derived from field measurements). The percent berries resulting from the percent of fruits (from pollinated flowers) remaining after June Drop (PB) is a function of the number of native bees (NB) and honey bees (HB) per square yard in a minute of observation:

PB = 14.5 + (7.8 * HB) + (17.7* NB)

Using the above predictive model, if on average 3 native bees are observed per minute in a square yard of bloom, then the expected percent berries (PB) will be 67.5% or ((17.7 * 3) + 14.5). Now, if no native bees are present, and honey bees are used so that an average of 5 honey bees are observed per minute in a square yard of bloom, then the expected percent berries is 53.5% or ((7.8 * 5) + 14.5). It is important to remember that percent berries is less than percent fruit setit is the proportion of berries remaining after June drop, or those fruit that will most likely mature into a harvestable crop. Forty to sixty percent berries (PB) is an average expectancy for a non-irrigated field in a year with adequate soil moisture. If one uses the above predictor, it must be realized that this is a linear model, and so it is possible to have bee densities which will yield greater than 100% PB. If this happens, just assume the prediction to be 100%.

All of the above estimates can be used to determine whether the bee foraging force (native bee or honey bee) is adequate for pollination, given that there are no serious problems with blueberry plant species incompatibility. However, the decision to invest in commercial pollination is more complicated than it appears. First of all, evaluating the native bee densities in a particular field in one year may not be a good index of the bee densities two years from that instance when the field is in bloom again. Native bee populations can fluctuate in lowbush blueberry fields considerably from one year to the next (from 2-10 times). At this point there is no means of accurately predicting the density of native bee populations into the future. Unfortunately, honey bee contracts usually have to be made during the fall or winter before bloom and so there isnt very much lead time for instantaneous decision making. There are two possible benefits to measuring your native bee densities. The first is to assess fields in the early bloom stage immediately before honey bee hives arrive. In this case, judgments can be made regarding the relative strength of native bee populations in each field and then honey bee hives can be apportioned to each field relative to the native bee strength, putting more hives in the fields that have the lowest native bee populations. This practice is only practical if hives are not placed in fields until 20-25% bloom (the recommendation). The second use of estimating native bee populations in a particular field is to gather long-term data on the bee populations for a given field (5-10 years) to establish the risk (1 year in 10 years or 3 years out of 10 years) that poor pollination will result in the absence of honey bees. This would be a good practice in small fields that may have high native bee densities most years.

However, the final analysis of any decision regarding capital expenditures to improve pollination should be based upon what the actual percent of berries on a stem are that have resulted from pollination. This is addressed below.

How to Assess Success of Pollination There are a few ways a blueberry grower can measure the actual effectiveness of crop pollination. Inadequately pollinated blueberry fields have a flower garden appearance, but if the flowers are being pollinated and fertilized about as rapidly as they are receptive, the flowers lose their corolla soon afterward, giving the field a greenish appearance. Other signs of adequate pollination include ease of separation (popping) of the corolla when flowers are brushed by a hand, or stems laden with symmetrical fruit. The best way to go about measuring pollination success is to measure it quantitatively. Measuring yields at harvest is not always indicative of pollination success since other factors such as disease, weed, and insect pressure, and weather conditions such as temperature and rainfall may have significant effects on yield. A good method involves marking stems with embroidery thread or ribbon at loose cluster, just before bloom starts. At this stage flowers can be counted above the thread tie before they open. The stems can then be revisited a week after bloom has ended to assess fruit set (the percent of set fruit relative to the initial number of flowers). Later, by the middle of June (2-3 weeks after bloom) after June drop, the percent of remaining berries held on the plant that should mature can be estimated by counting the fruit and determining the proportion of fruit relative to the initial number of flowers. At least 30 stems, representatively taken from clones throughout a field, should be used in these estimates. In addition, knowledge of any frost damage, and insect or disease damage should be taken into account in determining whether these estimates reflect pollination or whether they might also include other factors.

If honey bees are decided upon for pollination, the grower must decide whether to raise honeybees or to rent hives from a commercial beekeeper.

What a Grower Should Expect from Colonies

The advantage of honey bees as pollinators over other commercial pollinator species is that supplies are usually adequate and affordable. While honey bees may not be the most efficient bee for lowbush blueberry pollination on an individual bee basis, the reason that they are good pollinators is that hundreds of thousands or millions of foraging workers can be brought to a field with a scarcity of bees. The economic benefits of bringing honey bees to a field can be considerable. Although hive rentals can be one of the single most expensive management practices in blueberries, it might also result in a high return. Definitive data on the cost/benefit relationship for renting hives are not available for lowbush blueberry in Maine. Grower survey data suggests that, on average, a correlation exists between honey bee hive stocking density and yield such that for every one hive per acre placed in a field, one thousand pounds of increased yield results (the data only cover the range of 1-5 hives per acre). However, we must be cautious in drawing a definitive conclusion from this data, because it may be that other influences are involved. For example, perhaps those growers that place more hives on their fields also practice more intensive pest management, fertilization, and irrigation, etc. Until we have better data available, the best practice for a grower using honey bee hives is to measure pollination success as the number of hives are increased over time. In this way each grower can find their own cost/benefit ceiling.

Raising Your Own Having your own apiary is certainly a consideration that should be contemplated. The risks are not small (bee diseases, pests, overwintering losses), however, and it takes time to become a competent beekeeper. A grower considering this option is best advised to speak to the Maine State Apiculturist and to join a local chapter of the Maine State Beekeepers Association for expert advise.

Renting Hives Renting hives during the bloom period is the most direct option for securing additional pollination, but it is also maybe the most expensive. Usually, the beekeeper provides transportation, and unloading and loading of the hives. It may or may not be your responsibility to provide bear protection (electric fencing), protection from insecticide exposure, and access to water for the bees. Having a clear written agreement is very important before entering into a commercial pollination arrangement. More information on renting honey bee hives (list of commercial pollinators) can be found in the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet #224. Whenever the renting of honey bee colonies is referred to in this fact sheet, overwintered permanent hives either from Maine or from the southern U.S. are the focus. However, in some localities, disposable pollination units (DPUs) are commercially rented for pollination. These are temporary inexpensive hive units (generally made of polystyrene) with a free or caged queen and 3-6 lbs of bees. The sole purpose of these hives is for pollination of the crop. The hives are destroyed or left to die after bloom. Flight activity has usually been found to be higher in traditional hives, thus researchers recommend that growers use two to three times as many DPUs as traditional hives per acre. In general, DPUs are not a recommended for pollination if traditional hives are available.

Figure 4

Colony Strength Considerations To ensure that a good pollination service is being received, the grower needs to know about differences in colony strength. Colony strength refers to the number of bees in the hive and the population structure of the colony (does the colony have a queen and is the colony rearing brood, necessitating workers foraging for pollen. A strong colony has a minimum of 15,000 bees in each deep section (hive body or story). When the hive is opened, bees should immediately appear to boil over and cover the tops of the frames Figure 4. Beekeepers utilize different types of equipment in migratory operations. The width of the hives generally varies from 8 to 10 frame supers or boxes. Also, some beekeepers transport colonies in one deep and one shallow super. A colony for pollinating blueberry should be housed in at least a two-story hive (preferably two deep hive bodies), containing at least 30,000 bees, and have 6 to 10 full frames of brood in all stages of development. Remember that the physical size of the hive (number of boxes) is not a good indicator of the strength of the colony. It should be stressed that an accurate assessment of the pollinating strength of the colonies cannot be made merely by counting boxes. A hive might consist of several hive bodies, but the bee cluster size inside may fill only a single hive body.Some quick indications of colony strength can be obtained by watching the flight activity of the bees at the entrance. On a bright, warm day (greater than 55 F and winds less than 15 mph), dozens of bees should be constantly coming and going at each entrance as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Fewer flying bees in front of some colonies may indicate that the colonies are not strong. Keep in mind that an examination of the colony inside the hive gives the best indication of its strength. To obtain a very crude ball park estimate of the foraging bee strength, count the number of bees RETURNING to the hive in 15 seconds. Then multiply this number by 0.06 (a factor that represents the proportion of an individual foraging bees makeup on a well covered comb in one minute). This product (number of returning bees in 15 seconds x 0.06) will provide a crude estimate of the number of full frames in the hive well covered with bees. So, for example, if you count 125 bees returning to the hive in 15 seconds then 125 x 0.06 = 7.5 or the estimated number of full frames well covered with bees is 7.5, a good strong colony. If the number of bees returning to the hive in 15 seconds is too high to count, then count the bees returning in 10 seconds but multiply the number of bees by 0.09 instead of 0.06.

Determining Colony Strength based upon bees on the comb The best way to determine colony strength is to look inside the hive. Use a veil and gloves when opening the hive. Better yet, have the beekeeper open the hives for your inspection. The beekeeper will be skilled and knowledgeable in handling bees with minimum disturbance.

Figure 6

An additional and important way to estimate colony strength is by estimating the number of square inches of brood. This is because the presence of uncapped brood in a hive stimulates pollen collection the prerequisite to pollination. To get an estimate of the square inches of uncapped brood, count the number of full brood frames and roughly determine the proportion of the brood that is uncapped, then multiply the total number of full brood frames first by the average proportion of uncapped brood and then multiply this product by 100. A strong colony should have 600 to 1,200 square inches of uncapped brood. A blanket of bees should be seen covering the brood. Another measure is: seven frames that are at least 60% covered with brood in all stages and 25% in the egg or younger uncapped brood stage as shown in Figure 6.

Pollination Recommendations and Practices

Evidence indicates that the grower will profit most, in terms of quantity and quality of berries produced, earliness of harvest and concentrated ripening, if the highest possible honey bee populations are maintained during flowering time. Most growers make some attempt at having honey bees near their fields. However, this supply is seldom adequate. There should be sufficient strong colonies to provide at least one foraging honey bee per square yard of field area during good bee weather (at a bare minimum). When the bee population is high, the more attractive blossoms become pollinated and the corollas fall rapidly, forcing the bees to work the less attractive blossoms. Thus, the higher the bee density, the more effective they are in pollinating blueberries.

Number of Colonies to Use The greatest benefit in blueberry pollination is obtained when there are sufficient pollinators to distribute the pollen freely, not only from anthers to stigma of self-fertile flowers, but also between self-sterile clones.

Because of the wide variety of conditions that exist in an area, the exact number of bees that a blueberry grower will need cannot be given. The number of honey bees needed depends on: 1) the number of native pollinators already in the area; 2) the number of other flowering plants that bloom at the same time as lowbush blueberry and thereby compete for the pollinating insects; 3) weather conditions during bloom period; 4) the amount of available blueberry blossoms; 5) the lowbush blueberry plant species composition within a field; and 6) the growers expectation of yield.

The following are rule of thumb recommendations for the amount of honey bees needed:

Scheduling Delivery of Colonies Try to schedule the delivery of honey bee colonies to coincide with 10-25% bloom. Early contact with the beekeeper is helpful for both parties. If the bees arrive too early they may fix upon other flowering plants outside of the field and may not switch back to blueberry once the field comes into bloom. Of course, if the bees come in to a field too late (50% bloom or later), the earlier blooming clones will not be pollinated resulting in potential yield loss.

Distribution of Colonies in the Field Honey bees usually pollinate flowers more thoroughly within 100 yards of their colonies than they do flowers at greater distances. To get the best coverage, therefore, hives should be distributed in groups throughout the field. Distribute the bees in the center of the fields as conveniently as existing field roads allow. Or, place the colonies in the field in groups 0.1 mile (approximately 500 feet) apart in all directions. If it is not desirable to place hives evenly throughout the field (hives are often clustered on pallets and so this constrains distribution of hives), then grouping hives in clusters increases the competition for blueberry bloom in areas close to the hives and forces the foraging force of bees to fly farther out into fields to collect nectar and pollen.

The following table gives the number of colonies a grower could use in each cluster to obtain uniform distribution of bees in fields that are at least 7-10 acres in size.

The natural tendency of a colony is to spread its foraging activity over the full flight range (in excess of one mile) and to forage on flowers that give up plentiful nectar and pollen rewards The grower, however, would prefer honey bees from rented colonies to forage within the confines of a specific field and on blueberry flowers exclusively. A controversial strategy often suggested for improving pollination efficiency is to rotate colonies to restrict the flight range and disrupt any established foraging pattern on flowers other than blueberry.

The premise involved in the periodic moving of colonies from field to field is that the first day or so after a colony is moved, the bees forage only near the hive and on flowers in this localized area (most likely blueberry flowers). Whenever bees are moved to a new location, they go through a period of orientation during which they get used to their new surroundings. Throughout this time, they are most effective as pollinators of the flowers nearest the hive. Once fully oriented, their foraging extends further. According to this strategy, bees should be present for three or four days during the peak of blueberry bloom then moved to later blooming fields for more efficient use of their pollinating service. The moves must be to a new field at least 3-4 miles from the old field to avoid disorientation and loss of foragers. This strategy has been tested in New Jersey on highbush blueberry and resulted in increased numbers of honey bees foraging close to the hive on blueberry immediately after the move. Whether hive rotation is practical for most growers in Maine and whether yield increases result in lowbush blueberry is not known.

Requirements for Colonies The placement of honey bee hives in blueberry fields is important to increase the success of honey bees in pollinating the crop. The following points should be adhered to when possible:

Increasing the Impact of Honey Bee Hives Various management practices directed at honey bees or at the blueberry crop may have either positive or negative effects on the ability of honey bees to efficiently pollinate the blueberry crop. A few are discussed below.

The idea of removing competing bloom is controversial and has not always been shown to improve crop yields. Recent thinking by pollination research biologists is in favor of enhancing, NOT eliminating alternate bee forage since it often results in attracting bees to an area. Alternate forage also may encourage native bees to nest near the crop. This forage may also result in the increase of native pollinator populations. This is especially true for flowering plants that flower before and after blueberry bloom. Of course this has to be balanced with crop loss due to weedy plant species.

The use of attractant sprays has been evaluated for honey bees in a variety of crops. Attractants are designed to increase bee visitation to treated crops with the goal of increasing pollination. Several attractants have been developed and marketed, but most have had a doubtful performance record. One of these attractants, Fruit Boost, is based upon a specific formulation of a synthetic form of the honey bee queen mandibular pheromone. This product has been tested in Maine lowbush blueberry and it did result in the sprayed bloom attracting more foraging honey bees than the non-sprayed bloom. However, there were no significant increases in yield or berry weights due to the Fruit Boost spray. One possible use for this attractant that has not been evaluated is to treat fields in bloom when the associated honey bees are visiting non-crop flowering plants. This tactic would be in an attempt to get the bees to switch back to foraging in blueberry bloom, but it must be evaluated by growers.

Pollen traps attach to the entrances of hives and harvest pollen from bees returning to the hive. It has been thought that pollen traps induce a pollen deficit in the colony and thus increase the proportion of bees that forage for pollen. The results of this management strategy have been inconsistent and have not been evaluated in lowbush blueberry. The use of a pollen trap for the entire bloom period may also be detrimental to brood rearing.

Increased pollen collection is also believed to occur when colonies are fed sugar syrup. This results from a rapid change in the behavior of individual foragers from collecting nectar to collecting pollen. The experiments aimed at documenting this phenomenon are also not consistent and need to be performed in lowbush blueberry fields.

Blueberry production practices with negative impacts on bee foraging and pollination are: 1) exposure of bees to irrigation and 2) exposure of bees to pesticides. Irrigation during the day may prohibit bees from foraging on flowers, irrigation water can knock bees out of the air while flying and wet flowers are not usually visited by honey bees. Irrigation during bloom should be restricted to night applications. Of the pesticides used in lowbush blueberry, the insecticides have the potential for major impacts. Insecticides act as repellents, they can disorient the bee so that it can not find its way back to the hive, and insecticides can lead to outright bee mortality or a more insidious weakening of the colony. The University of Maine Cooperative Extension Wild Blueberry Fact Sheet # 209 lists the relative honey bee toxicity of insecticides that are recommended by the University of Maine Cooperative Extension for lowbush blueberry production.

Honey bees should be removed from fields when flowering has ceased so as to avoid over-exploitation of the wild flora to the detriment of native bees.

Knowing and Understanding the Beekeeper

If growers plan to use honey bees, they should have some basic knowledge about honey bees and beekeeping. A better knowledge by the grower of the beekeepers viewpoint and some of the problems associated with the rental of bees for pollination improves communication between the grower and the beekeeper leading to better pollination service. The grower usually considers only the fee and the potential value of the bees to the crop, along with associated problems of having the beekeeper, extra vehicles, crew, and the bees in the field.

Renting Honey Bee Colonies the beekeepers view

The beekeeper usually sees the deal from an entirely different viewpoint. The advantages of renting hives to the beekeeper include:

However, the beekeeper also must consider such disadvantages as:

Some beekeepers operate their colonies in the same location year after year. Others move their colonies between states. Most beekeepers begin their move after nightfall when all the bees are in the hive. The entrance of the colonies may be closed for the period of the move or left open. The entire load is usually covered with a net to prevent the escape of bees. Most beekeepers attempt to deliver colonies at night so that the bees remain inside the hive while it is being positioned in the field.

Unfamiliarity with the area combined with poor night visibility can prove hazardous for the beekeeper. A simple, safe and fast method of distributing colonies within the field will greatly reduce the problem of delivering bees. Growers are advised to contribute in this regard by clearly marking where they want to place the colonies in the field. Providing a guide for the bee truck or a tractor and a trailer with driver to aid in distributing the colonies is usually appreciated by the beekeeper.

Renting Honey Bee Colonies the contract

Whenever you rent bee colonies for pollination service, obtain a written contract or agreement that covers at least the following points:

An example of a written contract can be found in the book, The Hive and the Honey Bee.

Bee Stings

Some growers hesitate to use honey bees for blueberry pollination because they fear being stung. Some knowledge of the bee and its venom may reduce this fear. The sting is the mechanism of defense for the colony.

Figure 7

The stinger is torn from the body of the bee after it is imbedded in the victim because the stinger has barbs on it similar to a fishing hook Figure 7. The worker bee usually dies within an hour after the stinger is lost. The queen does not lose her stinger (but she is not likely to sting), which is used only to destroy other queens and lay eggs. The drone, the male bee, has no stinger.

Bee venom is a protein that acts as an antigen in your body resulting in your bodys manufacture of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies. If you have been stung before, the bee venom reacts with the antibodies which are attached to tissue cells called mast cells. These mast cells contain numerous vesicles filled with histamine and other substances that promote inflammation, swelling, burning and itching. If you are not allergic to bee stings your bodys reaction is confined to the area of the sting. If you are hypersensitive to bee venom (allergic) or you receive a lethal dose of bee stings (about 10 bee stings per pound of body weight) a systemic reaction can occur in which large amounts of histamine are released from the mast cells and dilation of blood vessels and the constriction of your respiratory passages can result in death unless the victim receives treatment at a hospital (administration of an antihistamine or adrenaline). Hypersensitive people can be desensitized by seeing an allergist.

Preventing Honey Bee Stings There is no practical way to completely avoid bee stings while conducting normal activities on a farm, particularly where numerous colonies are involved. Some steps can be taken to reduce the possibility of being stung.

Removing the Stinger Because venom is forced into the blood stream for some minutes after the sting is received by the involuntary muscles associated with the bees poison gland which is attached to the end of the stinger. The stinger should be removed as quickly as possible. Attempting to pick the stinger out with the fingers is slow, and may press more venom out of the poison sac. Instead, scrape the stinger up and away very quickly with the edge of your thumb nail. Topical applications of the following substances, immediately after being stung, can relieve the pain and itching: raw onions, meat tenderizer (made into a paste), baking soda, ammonia, ice, vinegar, and honey. If you are allergic to bee stings carry an emergency kit, and if you are stung, seek medical attention at once.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank a friend, Vivian Butz Huryn, an experienced commercial beekeeper and queen breeder, for reviewing this fact sheet and making suggestions for its improvement.

Additional Reading

Some additional references that you might be interested in are:

Crop Pollination by Bees, by Keith S. Delaplane and Daniel F. Mayer. 2000, CABI Publishing.

Insect Pollination of Crops, by John B. Free. 1993. Academic Press.

Bees and Crop Pollination Crisis, Crossroads, Conservation, edited by Constance Stubbs and Francis Drummond. 2001, Thomas Say Publications in Entomology.

The Biology of the Honey Bee, by Mark L. Winston. 1987. Harvard University Press.

The Beekeepers Handbook, by Diana Sammataro and Alphonse Avitabile. 1998. Cornell University Press.

The Hive and the Honey Bee, edited by Joe M. Graham. 1992. Dadant & Sons.

Information in this publication is provided purely for educational purposes. No responsibility is assumed for any problems associated with the use of products or services mentioned. No endorsement of products or companies is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products or companies implied.

2002 Published and distributed in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914, by the University of Maine and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. CooperativeExtension and other agencies of the USDA provide equal opportunities in programs and employment. Call800.287.0274or TDD800.287.8957(in Maine), or207.581.3188, for information on publications andprogram offerings from University of Maine Cooperative Extension, or visitextension.umaine.edu.

The University of Maine does not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, including transgender status and gender expression, national origin, citizenship status, age, disability, genetic information or veterans status in employment, education, and all other programs and activities. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies: Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, 101 North Stevens Hall,207.581.1226.

Read this article:
Honey Bees and Blueberry Pollination - University of Maine

Posted in Maine Stem Cells | Comments Off on Honey Bees and Blueberry Pollination – University of Maine

Stem Cell Basics I. | stemcells.nih.gov

Posted: September 27, 2016 at 8:45 am

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

Stem cells are distinguished from other cell types by two important characteristics. First, they are unspecialized cells capable of renewing themselves through cell division, sometimes after long periods of inactivity. Second, under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become tissue- or organ-specific cells with special functions. In some organs, such as the gut and bone marrow, stem cells regularly divide to repair and replace worn out or damaged tissues. In other organs, however, such as the pancreas and the heart, stem cells only divide under special conditions.

Until recently, scientists primarily worked with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic "somatic" or "adult" stem cells. The functions and characteristics of these cells will be explained in this document. Scientists discovered ways to derive embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos more than 30 years ago, in 1981. The detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of a method to derive stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory. These cells are called human embryonic stem cells. The embryos used in these studies were created for reproductive purposes through in vitro fertilization procedures. When they were no longer needed for that purpose, they were donated for research with the informed consent of the donor. In 2006, researchers made another breakthrough by identifying conditions that would allow some specialized adult cells to be "reprogrammed" genetically to assume a stem cell-like state. This new type of stem cell, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), will be discussed in a later section of this document.

Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, the inner cells give rise to the entire body of the organism, including all of the many specialized cell types and organs such as the heart, lungs, skin, sperm, eggs and other tissues. In some adult tissues, such as bone marrow, muscle, and brain, discrete populations of adult stem cells generate replacements for cells that are lost through normal wear and tear, injury, or disease.

Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease, which is also referred to as regenerative or reparative medicine.

Laboratory studies of stem cells enable scientists to learn about the cells essential properties and what makes them different from specialized cell types. Scientists are already using stem cells in the laboratory to screen new drugs and to develop model systems to study normal growth and identify the causes of birth defects.

Research on stem cells continues to advance knowledge about how an organism develops from a single cell and how healthy cells replace damaged cells in adult organisms. Stem cell research is one of the most fascinating areas of contemporary biology, but, as with many expanding fields of scientific inquiry, research on stem cells raises scientific questions as rapidly as it generates new discoveries.

I.Introduction|Next

See the original post:
Stem Cell Basics I. | stemcells.nih.gov

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem Cell Basics I. | stemcells.nih.gov

Page 1,705«..1020..1,7041,7051,7061,707..1,7101,720..»