Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Apr 11;19(4):e0300025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300025

Identification and pathogen detection of a Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of Korea

Thi-Thu Nguyen 1,2,#, Mi-Sun Yoo 1,#, Jong-Ho Lee 3, A-Tai Truong 1,4, So-Youn Youn 1, Se-Ji Lee 1, Soon-Seek Yoon 1, Yun Sang Cho 1,*
Editor: Wolfgang Blenau5
PMCID: PMC11008822  PMID: 38603704

Abstract

In this study, we identified a new strain of the genus Neocypholaelaps from the beehives of Apis mellifera colonies in the Republic of Korea (ROK). The Neocypholaelap sp. KOR23 mites were collected from the hives of honeybee apiaries in Wonju, Gangwon-do, in May 2023. Morphological and molecular analyses based on 18S and 28S rRNA gene regions conclusively identified that these mites belong to the genus Neocypholaelaps, closely resembling Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010 that was first isolated from the United States. The presence of 9 of 25 honeybee pathogens in these mite samples suggests that Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite may act as an intermediate vector and carrier of honeybee diseases. The identification of various honeybee pathogens within this mite highlights their significance in disease transmission among honeybee colonies. This comprehensive study provides valuable insights into the taxonomy and implications of these mites for bee health management and pathogen dissemination.

Introduction

During the current honeybee disease outbreak, parasites played a significant role in contributing to the sudden collapse of the colony. Several species of bee mites can coexist with honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies for extended periods. In A. mellifera, some mite species may be not exhibit parasitic behavior (e.g. Forcellinia faini, Melichares dentriticus, Afrocypholaelaps africana mites) [14] or transmit diseases to bees (e.g. Varroa and Tropilaelaps mites) [57], a considerable number of mite species can cause stress to bees (e.g. Neocypholaelaps indica and Carpoglyphus lactis mites) [8, 9], resulting in reduced flight capacity and foraging efficiency. Additionally, certain parasitic mite species infest bees, causing injury or mortality in their hosts and facilitating the spread of harmful diseases. Obligate honeybee parasites like Varroa (Varroidae, Mesostigmata), Euvarroa (Varroidae, Mesostigmata), Tropilaelaps (Laelapidae, Mesostigmata), and Acarapis (Tarsonemidae, Prostigmata inflict direct harm and facilitate disease spread [1012]. These mites have co-evolved with their hosts, developing an intimate dependence on honeybees for survival. While Varroa mites primarily parasitize bees in their brood cells [6, 13], Euvarroa and Tropilaelaps demonstrate host specificity towards Dwarf honeybees (Apis florea) and giant honeybees (Apis dorsata), respectively [7, 1417]. The most pathogenic species within the genus Acarapis primarily parasitize A. mellifera but have also been found in Asian honeybee species [1822]. Interestingly, the genus Tyrophagus (Acaridae: Sarcoptiformes) adds to the list of potentially detrimental mites, displaying parasitic behavior detrimental to both honeybees and bumblebees [23, 24].

The genus Neocypholaelaps, encompassing 22 species primarily concentrated in tropical regions, continues to pique the interest of researchers due to its diverse interactions with honeybees [2540]. These Neocypholaelaps mites, belonging to the family Ameroseiidae, exhibit a relationship with their bee hosts, often associating with them both externally on their bodies and internally within their nests and hives [31]. Meanwhile, several Neocypholaelaps species, including N. favus Ishkawa, 1968, N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, N. geonomae Moraes & Narita, 2010, and N. indica Evans, 1963 have been identified in honeybee colonies across various geographical locations, spanning Europe, India, China, and even regions beyond the tropics, highlighting their adaptability [27, 3235]. N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983 was reported on the bodies of bees and within honeybee colonies in multiple European countries such as Greece [35], Denmark [36], Belgium [33], Slovakia [37], and Hungary [38], demonstrating its wider distribution. Another species, N. indica Evans, 1963, has been reported in both A. mellifera and A. cerana in Fuzhou, China, and southern Karnataka, India [39]. N. stridulans Evans, 1955 interacts with mason bees and coconut flower clusters in India [40]. In the Republic of Korea (ROK), the detection of Neocypholaelaps mites in honeybee colonies has also been reported in Gangwon and Gyeonggi provinces; however, species classification remains unclear.

Based on morphological characteristics, it is possible to determine the family to which a species belongs; however, accurate species-level identification can be challenging. Molecular methods, particularly DNA sequence-based identification, have proven to be the most reliable approaches for precise species determination. The cytochrome oxidase subunit I (CO1) gene has been successfully used in phylogenetic studies on mites [4144]. However, these genes offer limited information for classifying Neocypholaelaps species within the genus and often have limited data in GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and BOLD systems (https://boldsystems.org). The nuclear ribosomal DNA genes, specifically 18S and 28S, hold promise for resolving higher-level mite phylogenies due to their combination of conserved and variable regions [4548]. These genes contain conserved regions for identifying deeper branches and variable regions that can be used to discern relationships between closely related taxonomic units [45]. Furthermore, the combination of information from the 18S and 28S genes aids in a more accurate phylogenetic classification than using individual genes alone [47].

In this study, we employed morphological identification methods in conjunction with sequences of the 18S and 28S genes to elucidate the phylogenetic relationships between members of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 and their related groups. Additionally, we provided insights into the potential pathogen reservoirs and transmission capabilities of these mites in honeybee colonies. This information offers a comprehensive perspective on the escalating disease prevalence in South Korean honeybees as well as its implications on a global scale.

Materials and methods

Neocypholaelaps mite collection and morphological identification

Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mites were observed on beehive A. mellifera colonies in Wonju City, Gangwon Province, ROK, in 2023. Nine colonies from three apiaries were used to collect Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mites. These mites were gathered from hive debris and stored in 50 mL tubes (Falcon) containing 95% ethanol that was labeled with hive number. The sample was immediately subjected to total nucleic acid extraction upon arrival the laboratory. The Neocypholaelaps mites were identified and imaged using a stereomicroscope (Discovery V8 Stereo, Germany) and a Leica DM1750M microscope (Figs 1 and S1). Identification at the genus level requires that genus classification characteristics are identified according to Delfinado and Baker (1983) [15] and Narita et al. (2013) [30].

Fig 1. Morphological characteristics of Neocypholaelaps sp. female mite.

Fig 1

Identity of acaroid mites was determined by analyzing morphological characteristics using a phase contrast microscope. (A) Dorsal view of the mite. (B) Ventral view of the mite.

Total nucleic acid extraction and amplification of CO1, 18S, and 28S regions

The total nucleic acid (TNA) of the mites were extracted using the Maxwell RSC Viral Total Nucleic Acid Purification Kit (Promega, USA) [14]. The hive debris samples were observed and pooled to collect Neocypholaelaps mites under a Discovery V8 Stereo microscope. Three Neocypholaelaps mite samples were collected from three apiaries. Ten adult mites from each apiary were transferred onto a Petri dish containing UltraPure™ distilled water (Invitrogen, USA) for washing. Mites were manually collected for extraction of TNA using a mounting needle under a dissecting microscope. Those mites were pooled and placed in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes containing 300 μL phosphate-buffered saline (1x) and 2.381 mm steel beads (Hanam, ROK) and used for TNA extraction [24]. The extracted TNA of Neocypholaelaps mite was stored at –20°C for PCR amplification of CO1, 18S, and 28S regions and checking honeybee pathogens.

Primers for the amplification of CO1, 18S, and 28S ribosomal DNA genes were designed based on the available sequences in GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and BOLD systems (https://boldsystems.org). Based on the morphological characteristics results observed under the microscope, the Neocypholaelaps mite was identified in this study. Then, the genetic analysis of CO1, 18S, and 28S genes was done for further identification of collected mites. Primers were designed based on the sequence information of Neocypholaelaps species available on GenBank and BOLD systems (Table 1). The available primers of CO1 gene were designed for N. indica Evans (1963), N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, and Neocypholaelaps sp. (NCBI accession nos.: LC522089.1, KP966315.1, and MF911280); The 18S and 28S gene were designed for Neocypholaelaps sp. (NCBI accession nos.: FJ911807.1 and FJ911742.1). These primers are listed in Table 1. The PCR reaction was performed in 50 μL of AccuPower® PCR preMix and Master Mix (Bioneer, ROK) containing 10 pmol of each primer and 20 ng of DNA as a template. The total volume was increased up to 50 μL with distilled water. The thermocycler protocol by Nguyen et al. was applied [24]. PCR amplification products were visualized by electrophoresis on a 1% agarose gel. The bands were excised under UV light and purified using a QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, USA). Purified PCR products were sequenced by Cosmogentech (ROK).

Table 1. List of primers used for the amplification of CO1, 18S, and 28S genes in this study.

Strains Genes Primers Sequence (5’ → 3’) Size (bp)
Neocypholaelaps sp. 18S Neo18-For GGATGTGATTAGTTAATTGG 1590
Neo18-Rev CTTCATTGCAAATAATACAGG
28S Neo28-For TTAAATACAACAAGAGATGA 1258
Neo28-Rev CCTGCTGTCTTCAGCACTAAC
N. indica CO1 Neo1-For GGTACTTTATATTTTATTT 675
Neo1-Rev GGTGACCAAAAAATCAAAAT
N. apicola CO1 Neo2-For GCTCATGCTTTTATTATAAT 326
Neo-Rev AATAGTACAAATAAAATTAA
Neocypholaelaps sp. CO1 Neo3-For TTATGGTGATGCCTGCTATA 300
Neo-Rev AATAGTACAAATAAAATTAA

Detection of honeybee pathogens

The total nucleic acid extracted from the mite samples was tested for honeybee pathogens [24, 49]. The honeybee pathogens that were detected in Korean honeybee colonies were employed to assess their presence in Neocypholaelaps mite. These pathogens include the following viral pathogens: AFB (American foulbrood), EFB (European foulbrood), ASCO (Ascosphaera apis), ASP (Aspergillus flavus), Nosema ceranae, Nosema apis, Spiroplasma (Spiroplasma sp. and S. apis), Trypanosoma spp., SBV (sacbrood virus), KSBV (Korea sacbrood virus), DWV (deformed wing virus), BQCV (black queen cell virus), KBV (Kashmir bee virus), ABPV (acute bee paralysis virus), IAPV (Israeli acute paralysis virus), AmFV (Apis mellifera filamentous virus), species of Lake Sinai virus (LSV1, LSV2, LSV3, and LSV4), VDV-1 (Varroa destructor virus 1), and VDV1-DWV (recombinant Varroa destructor virus 1 and deformed wing viruses). Honeybee pathogens were detected using RT-qPCR Kits [iNtRON Biotechnology, Inc., ROK], Pobgen bee pathogen detection Kit [Postbio, ROK], SsoAdvanced Universal SYBR Green Supermix [Bio-Rad, USA], and iTaq Universal SYBR Green One-Step Kit [Bio-Rad, USA]. The sequences of primers targeting honeybee pathogens for detection in Neocypholaelaps mite samples are provided in S1 Table. Melt-curve dissociation analysis was performed to verify the specificity of the PCR amplification. Negative and positive controls were included for each run. Samples with a Ct value of ≤ 35 and consistent melting curves were considered positive.

Phylogenetic analysis

The amplified 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA gene sequences of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 obtained in this study were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database under accession numbers OR576776.1 and OR576780.1, respectively. Those sequences were searched and compared using the nucleotide Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTn). The identified sequences of Neocypholaelaps mite were compared with those of the Mesostigmata mite family deposited in the NCBI database. Nucleotide sequences were aligned using ClustalW alignment in BioEdit version 7.0.0 software [50]. Sequence alignment was performed using the Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis software (MEGA, version 11.0.13), and a phylogenetic tree was constructed based on the neighbor-joining method and a bootstrap probability score of 1000 [51].

Results

Morphological identification

The morphological identification of the collected mite showed similar characteristics to the genus of Neocypholaelaps adult mite as describe of N. favus Ishkawa, 1968, N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, N. geonomae n. sp. Moraes & Narita, 2010, and N. indica Evans, 1963 [2628, 36]. Neocypholaelaps adult mite dorsal and ventral surfaces were observed under both microscope discovery V8 Stereo (S1A and S1B Fig) and electron microscopy Leica DM1750M (S1C and S1D Fig) for magnification. The genus Neocypholaelaps is characterized by its extremely small size, approximately 2060–2190 μm in length and 1322–1537 μm in width (S1A and S1B Fig). The dorsal shield is entirely reticulate, with reticula formed by simple lines, measuring 409–412 μm in length and 294–307 μm in width (Fig 1A). The sternal shield was wider than it was long, bearing setae st1 and st2, whereas st3 and st4 were situated on the unsclerotized cuticle (Fig 1B). The genital shield is smooth, 75–83 μm (average 79 μm) wide at its widest level, slightly convex posteriorly, and bearing st5. Moreover, it possesses a pair of pores and a pair of lyrifissures on the unsclerotized cuticle, located posterolateral to st5. The anal shield appeared smooth and oval, was equipped with three stouts and barbed setae, and featured a curved transverse line immediately anterior to the cribrum. Opisthogastric setae (Jv1–Jv5 and Zv2) were found on the unsclerotized cuticle (Fig 1B). In addition, a sclerotized transverse line was observed immediately posterior to the genital shield margin. Setae Jv4 and Jv5 are stout and barbed, whereas other ventral idiosomal setae are setiform and smooth.

Genetic identification

In this study show that using primers specific for the species Neocypholaelaps mites were unable to amplify the CO1 gene. This indicates that our isolated strains in the ROK do not belong to the known N. indica Evans, 1963, N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, or Neocypholaelaps sp. species found in honeybee colonies. Owing to the limited information on CO1 sequences in GenBank and BOLD systems, it is challenging to distinguish species-level differences based on CO1 sequences.

We successfully optimized the PCR products for 18S and 28S gene segments of 1590 and 1258 bp, respectively (Fig 2). After removing noisy sequences during read processing, the 18S and 28S sequences were subjected to BLASTn in GenBank, showing the highest similarity to Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010 (NCBI accession nos.: FJ911807.1 and FJ911742.1) at 98.81 and 92.17%, respectively. These results demonstrate that the 18S gene region is much more conserved than the 28S region. The sequence similarity of 18S and 28S rRNA indicated a close relationship between this mite and the strain Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010.

Fig 2. Amplification of 18S and 28S regions from DNA mite templates.

Fig 2

M is 100 bp DNA ladder (Enzynomics, ROK); 1 and 2 are PCR products of DNA templates using the 18S pair of primer; 3 and 4 are PCR products of DNA templates using the 28S pair of primer; “−” is negative control without a DNA template. Amplicon size from sample DNA is shown in base pair (bp).

Phylogenetic tree

Based on 18S sequence-based phylogeny, two families (Laelapidae and Ameroseiidae) within the order Mesostigmata were found to be associated with honeybees. The 18S rRNA sequence of this mite species was similar to that of Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010 and N. ampullula Berlese, 1910 voucher strain MZLQ6495 (Fig 3). In contrast, the 28S sequence-based phylogeny revealed three families (Laelapidae, Melicharidae, and Ameroseiidae) within the order Mesostigmata that are related to honeybees (Fig 4). Combining the 18S and 28S sequences of this mite species, it was identified as a member of the genus Neocypholaelaps but represents a distinct species. Our study newly provides the genetic information of a strain in the genus Neocypholaelaps isolated from beehives in the ROK in 2023 and was designed as Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23.

Fig 3. The phylogenetic tree is based on the 18S sequences.

Fig 3

The used species were selected based on the level of nucleotide sequence similarity within the order Mesostigmata. Star (★) indicates species related to honeybees.

Fig 4. The phylogenetic tree is based on the 28S sequences.

Fig 4

The used species were selected based on the level of nucleotide sequence similarity within the order Mesostigmata. Star (★) indicates species related to honeybee colonies.

Testing of honeybee pathogens in Neocypholaelaps mites

As certain mite species present in beehives act as parasites on honeybees causing serious impact, this study aimed to investigate the presence of honeybee pathogens within newly isolated Neocypholaelaps species in ROK. The identities of the pathogens were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR (Table 2). Nine honeybee pathogens (AFB, ASCO, Spiroplasma sp., DWV, BQCV, CBPV, IAPV, KV, and LSV3) were detected in this mite species out of a total of 25 that were screened. Results indicated the presence of bacteria and viruses in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 with high Ct values. Some honeybee pathogens findings suggest that Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 has the potential to harbor pathogens and may serve as a vector for honeybee infections, contributing to the rapid increase in disease outbreaks among honeybee colonies in the ROK. However, Nosema apis and N. ceranae and protozoa Trypanosoma spp. have not been identified in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23.

Table 2. Detection of honeybee pathogens in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite.

Pathogens Name Cycle threshold (*) Average
1 2 3
Bacteria AFB 34.71 33.44 34.08 34.08 ± 0.64
EFB - - - -
ASP - - - -
ASCO 32.56 35.15 34.27 33.99 ± 1.31
Spiroplasma sp. 32.25 31.12 30.95 31.44 ± 0.71
Spiroplasma apis - - - -
Fungi Nosema apis - - - -
Nosema ceranae - - - -
Protozoa Trypanosoma spp. - - - -
Viruses AmFV - - - -
SBV 40 35.39 34.53 36.64 ± 2.94
BQCV 30.50 34.85 34.64 33.33 ± 2.45
CBPV 36.13 30.90 30.62 32.55 ± 3.10
ABPV - - - -
IAPV 34.19 33.82 23.60 30.54 ± 6.01
KV 35.05 35.27 34.02 34.78 ± 0.67
VDV1-DWV - - - -
VDV-1 - - - -
DWV 33.14 35.20 35.06 34.46 ± 1.15
KSBV - - - -
KBV - - - -
LSV1 - - - -
LSV2 - - - -
LSV3 33.52 34.18 34.26 33.99 ± 0.41
LSV4 - - - -

(*) Data for cycle thresholds (Ct) of the three samples. The Ct value of ≤ 35 were considered positive.(-) No detection

Discussion

This study presents in detail the process of identification of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite within honeybee colonies in Gangwon Province, in ROK. The species-level morphology of Neocypholaelaps mites were described and reported [28−30, 38]. According to the morphology of dorsal and ventral of adult mite, the new mite isolated from Korean honeybee colonies was observed belong to genus of Neocypholaelaps (Figs 1 and S1). The morphological information of Neocypholaelaps is limited in this study, making it challenging to compare with other species. Based on the general morphological and genetic characteristics of 18S and 28S genes, this new mite belongs to the genus Neocypholaelaps, with close similarity to Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010 that was first isolated from the United States. The discovery of Neocypholaelaps in ROK, a temperate region, aligns with recent observations suggesting the genus’ ability to adapt to novel climatic conditions and potentially new host associations. The observed variation in the 18S and 28S ribosomal genes suggests they may play a role in adaptation to novel climatic conditions and potentially new host associations. Further research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the distribution patterns and hosts of Neocypholaelaps species. To accurately classify the subspecies level of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23, detailed morphological characteristics need to be studied, comparing them with strains isolated from temperate regions such as N. favus Ishikawa, 1968, and N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, as reported [34, 38]. Additionally, decoding the entire gene sequence of this mite species would be essential.

In honeybee colonies, bees nesting in cavities play a crucial role as hosts for a diverse range of species, including both pathogenic and non-pathogenic species. The presence of bee mites can have serious consequences on honeybee populations. Infestation of honeybees with hemolymph-feeding mites, such as Varroa destructor, Tropilaelaps, and Tyrophagus mites, has been linked to increased colony loss during the winter season and the transmission of honeybee diseases [6, 14, 23, 24, 52]. The coexistence of these parasitic characteristics within honeybee colonies facilitates the exchange of parasites. Certain mite species in this genus, such as N. phooni Baker & Delfinado-Baker, 1985 and N. malayensis Delfinado-Baker, Baker & Phoon, 1989 are associated with stingless bees (Heterotrigona, Geniotrigona, Tetragonula, and Meliponula). Their life cycle occurs entirely inside the bee colonies, but there is no evidence of parasitism in adult or brood bees [31]. In contrast, in Japan, an astonishing number of 3000 N. favus Ishikawa, 1968 mites were found in a single colony, resulting in considerable harm to honeybees [34]. Similarly, as many as 400 N. indica Evans, 1972 mites were observed in a single A. cerana individual [8]. High infestation rates of N. indica Evans, 1972 and its invasion on the body surfaces of three honeybee species were also recorded in India in 2021 [27]. This study identified the presence of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 in honeybee colonies within Gangwon province at high densities. Further research is crucial to understand its potential role in honeybee health and develop appropriate management strategies.

Analysis of the presence of honeybee pathogens within these mites showed that nine of twenty-five pathogens were found, indicating the prevalence of honeybee diseases in this mite. The presence of several honeybee pathogens in Neocypholaelaps species suggests that these mites pose a risk as potential carriers and transmitters of honeybee diseases. Possibly, this could be one of the factors contributing to severe damage to honeybee colonies. This study is the first to demonstrate the presence of honeybee pathogens in Neocypholaelaps sp. mite. Recent research has also reported the appearance of honeybee pathogens in parasites from honeybee colonies. Almost honeybee pathogens have been detected in Varroa mite [5, 6, 53, 54]; DWV and BQCV were found on the small hive beetle (Aethina tunida) [55]; DWV and Trypanosoma spp. were detected on Tyrophagus curvipenis [24]. Some of viruses and bacteria pathogen of honeybee were detected in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23. However, microsporidian (Nosema apis and N. cernaena) and protozoa (Trypanosoma spp.) were not seen in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23. Further study on the detection of the same pathogens in the honeybee colonies where the mites were detected might be needed to confirm the role of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite in pathogen transmission.

In conclusion, the novel Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite was detected in honeybee colonies in Gangwon Province, ROK. Our phylogenetic analysis, conducted using the 18S and 28S regions (NCBI accession nos.: OR576776.1 and OR576780.1), enabled the precise identification of the genus of Neocypholaelaps mite and its close relationship with Neocypholaelaps sp. APGD-2010 (NCBI accession nos.: FJ911807.1 and FJ911742.1). The 18S and 28S genes could be applied for appearance Neocypholaelaps sp. from beehive honeybee colonies in different provinces in ROK. The presence of some honeybee pathogens in this mite species highlights the significance of disease transmission within honeybee colonies. However, a thorough analysis and comparison of the presence of the pathogen in this mite and corresponding honeybee colonies is required. Such an analysis will provide a better assessment of infection levels, disease reservoir potential, and the role of the mite as an intermediate vector in the transmission of diseases to honeybee colonies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Morphological characteristics of Neocypholaelaps mite under microscopy.

(A, B) Optical microscope Discovery V8 Stereo (Germany) with a magnification of 5.0× (Dorsal and ventral of Neocypholaelaps sp. adult mite). (C, D) Dorsal and ventral view of Neocypholaelaps sp. adult mite under a Leica DM1750M microscope at 10× magnification.

(TIF)

pone.0300025.s001.tif (4.2MB, tif)
S1 Table. Primers and probes used for detection of honeybee pathogens.

(DOCX)

pone.0300025.s002.docx (27.9KB, docx)
S1 Raw image

(TIF)

pone.0300025.s003.tif (1.3MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency for approval to conduct this research. Our heartfelt thanks go to the beekeepers who facilitated the sampling. We extend our appreciation to all members of our laboratories for their unwavering dedication and diligent efforts.

Data Availability

The amplified 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA gene sequences of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 obtained in this study were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database under accession numbers OR576776.1 and OR576780.1, respectively.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (Grant No. N-1543081-2021-25-03).

References

  • 1.Baily L, Ball BV. Parasite mite. In: Baily L, Ball BV, editors. Honey bee pathology. 2nd ed. Academic Press. London, United Kingdom. 1991. pp. 78–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fain A, Gerson U. Notes on two astigmatic mites (Acari) living in beehives in Thailand. Acarologia. 1990;31(4):381–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sammataro D, Gerson U, Needham G. Parasitic mites of honey bees: life history, implications, and impact. Annu Rev Entomol. 2000;45:519–48. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Seeman OD, Walter DE. Life history of Afrocypholaelaps africana (Evans) (Acari: Ameroseiidae), a mite inhabiting mangrove flowers and phoretic on honeybees. J Austral Entomol Soc. 1995;34:45–50. 10.1111/j.1440-6055.1995.tb01277.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Forfert N, Natsopoulou ME, Frey E, Rosenkranz P, Paxton RJ, Moritz RF. Parasites and Pathogens of the Honeybee (Apis mellifera) and Their Influence on Inter-Colonial Transmission. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Posada-Florez F, Ryabov EV, Heerman MC, Chen Y, Evans JD, Sonenshine DE, et al. Varroa destructor mites vector and transmit pathogenic honey bee viruses acquired from an artificial diet. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chantawannakul P, Ramsey S, vanEngelsdorp D, Khongphinitbunjong K, Phokasem P. Tropilaelaps mite: an emerging threat to European honey bee. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;26:69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2018.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ramanan RV, Ghai S. Observations on the mite Neocypholaelaps indica Evans and its relationship with the honey bee Apis cerana indica Fabricius and the flowering of Eucalyptus trees. Entomon. 1984;9:291–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baker E, Delfinado M. Notes on the driedfruit mite Carpoglyphus lactis (Acarina: Carpoglyphidae) infesting honeybee combs. J Apicul Res. 1978;17(1):52–4. 10.1080/00218839.1978.11099902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chantawannakul P, de Guzman LI, Li J, Williams GR. Parasites, pathogens, and pests of honeybees in Asia. Apidologie. 2016;47:301–24. 10.1007/s13592-015-0407-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Warrit N, Lekprayoon C. Asian honeybee mites. In: Hepburn H, Radloff S, editors. Honeybees of Asia: Springer; 2010. pp. 347–68. 10.1007/978-3-642-16422-4_16 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zheng H, Cao L, Huang S, Neumann P, Hu F. Current status of the beekeeping industry in China. In: Chantawannakul P, Williams G, Neumann P, editors. Asian beekeeping in the 21st century: Spring; 2018. pp. 129–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ravoet J, De Smet L, Wenseleers T, de Graaf DC. Vertical transmission of honey bee viruses in a Belgian queen breeding program. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12917-015-0386-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Truong A-T, Yoo M-S, Yun B-R, Kang JE, Noh J, Hwang TJ, et al. Prevalence and pathogen detection of Varroa and Tropilaelaps mites in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera, Apidae) apiaries in South Korea. J Apic Res. 2023;62(4):804–12. 10.1080/00218839.2021.2013425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Delfinado-Baker M, Baker EW. A new species of Neocypholaelaps (Acari: Amereseiidae) from brood combs of the Indian Honey bee. Apidologie. 1983;14(1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Forsgren E, De Miranda JR, Isaksson M, Wei S, Fries I. Deformed wing virus associated with Tropilaelaps mercedesae infesting European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;47(2):87–97. 10.1007/s10493-008-9204-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gao J, Ma S, Wang X, Yang Y, Luo Q, Wang X, et al. Tropilaelaps mercedesae parasitism changes behavior and gene expression in honey bee workers. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(7):e1009684. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Denmark H, Cromroy H, Sanford MT. Honey bee tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi (Rennie) (Arachnida: Acari: Tarsonemidae). DPI Entomology Circular, University Florida, IFAS Extension. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gary NE, Page RE, Lorenzen K. Effect of age of worker honey bees (Apis mellifera) on tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi) infestation. Exp Appl Acarol. 1989;7:153–60. 10.1007/BF01270435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kojima Y, Toki T, Morimoto T, Yoshiyama M, Kimura K, Kadowaki T. Infestation of Japanese native honey bees by tracheal mite and virus from non-native European honey bees in Japan. Microb Ecol. 2011;62:895–06. doi: 10.1007/s00248-011-9947-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maeda T. Infestation of honey bees by tracheal mites, Acarapis woodi, in Japan. J Acarol Soc Japan. 2015;24(1):9–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Otis GW, Scott-dupree CD. Effects of Acarapis woodi on overwintered colonies of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in New York. J Econ Entomol. 1992;85(1):40–6. 10.1093/jee/85.1.40 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Texeira ÉW, dos Santos LG, Matioli AL, Alves MLTMF. First report in Brazil of Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)(Acari: Acaridae) in colonies of Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Interciencia. 2014;39(10):742–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nguyen T-T, Yoo M-S, Truong A-T, Lee JH, Youn SY, Lee S-J, et al. First identification of Tyrophagus curvipenis (Acari: Acaridae) and pathogen detection in Apis mellifera colonies in the Republic of Korea. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9469. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36695-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mašán P. A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna. Zookeys. 2017;(704):1–228. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.704.13304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Evas GO. The genus Neocypholaelaps Vitzthum (Acari: Mesostigmata). Ann Mag Nat Hist. 1963;6:209–230. 10.1080/00222936308651345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Poorna Chandra S, Srinivas Reddy K, Chinnamade Gowda C, Eswarappa G. Mites associated with honey bee colonies with special reference to phoretic mite, Neocypholaelaps indica Evans in selected locations of Southern Karnataka. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9(1):629–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.De Moraes GJ, Narita JP. Description of a new species of Neocypholaelaps (Acari: Ameroseiidae) from Brazil, with a key to the world species. Zootaxa. 2010;2554(1):37–44. 10.11646/ZOOTAXA.2554.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Narita JP, De Moraes GJ, Fernando LC. Two species of Neocypholaelaps from Sri Lanka (Acari: Ameroseiidae), with description of a new species. Zootaxa. 2011;2741(1):59–65. 10.11646/zootaxa.2741.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Narita JPZ, Pedelabat M, Moraes Gd. A new species of Neocypholaelaps vitzthum (Acari: Ameroseiidae), with notes on the cheliceral lobes and ventral pore-like structures of mites of this family. Zootaxa. 2013;3666(1):1–15. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3666.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Baker EW, Delfinado-Baker M. An unusual new species of Neocypholaelaps (Acari: Ameroseiidae) from the nests of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponinae). Int J Acarol. 1985;11(4):227–32. 10.1080/01647958508683421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Haragsim O, Samšiňák K, Vobrázková E. The mites inhabiting the bee‐hives in ČSR. Z Angew Entomol. 1978;87(1‐4):52–67. 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1978.tb02425.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fain A, Hosseinian SH. Observations on the mites (Acari) infesting hives of Apis mellifera race carnica (Insecta Apidae) in Belgium. Bull Ann Soc r belge Ent. 2000;136(1/6):32–33. (in French). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ishikawa K, editor Studies on the mesostigmatid mites associated with the insects in Japan (I). Rep Res Matsuyama Shinonome Junior Coll. 1968;3:197–218. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Emmanouel N, Pelekassis C, Santas L. Harmful mesostigmatic mites ectoparasitic to honey bees. Entomol Hellenica. 1983;1:17–23. 10.12681/eh.13889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schousboe C. Rare mite in Danish hives (Neocypholaelaps favus) Tidsskr Biavl. 1986;120:322–5. (In Dutch). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fenďa P, Lukáš J. First records of mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Slovakia. Folia Faun Slovaca. 2014;19(2):171–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kontschán J, TÓbiás I, Bozsik G, SzŐcs G. First record of Neocypholaelaps apicola from beehives in Hungary (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae): re-description and DNA barcoding. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung. 2015;61(3):237–45 [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fan Q-H, Jiang F. The tiny flower fairies Neocypholaelaps indica Evans, 1963 (Acari: Ameroseiidae). Syst Appl Acarol. 2014;19(2):248–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Haq M, editor. Life cycle and behaviour of the coconut mite Neocypholaelaps stridulans (Evans)(Acari: Ameroseiidae) in India. In: Proceedings of the 10th international congress of Acarology. CSIRO Publishing; 2001. pp. 361–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Roy L, Dowling AP, Chauve CM, Buronfosse T. Diversity of phylogenetic information according to the locus and the taxonomic level: an example from a parasitic mesostigmatid mite genus. Int J Mol Sci. 2010;11(4):1704–34. doi: 10.3390/ijms11041704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yang H, Chen T, Dong W. Divergence time of mites of the family Laelapidae based on mitochondrial barcoding region. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0279598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Deng J, Guo H, Huang S, Lin Y, Huang W, Duan X. Molecular identification of Neocypholaelaps indica Evans based on mitochondrial COI gene. J Environ Entomol. 2019;41(2):380–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Antonovskaia A. Using DNA markers in studies of chigger mites (Acariformes, Trombiculidae). Entomol Rev. 2018;98:1351–68. 10.1134/S0013873818090130 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cruickshank RH. Molecular markers for the phylogenetics of mites and ticks. Syst Appl Acarol. 2002;7(1):3–14. 10.11158/saa.7.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Klompen H, Lekveishvili M, Black IV WC. Phylogeny of parasitiform mites (Acari) based on rRNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007;43(3):936–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sourassou NF, De Moraes GJ, Júnior ID, Corrêa AS. Phylogenetic analysis of Ascidae sensu lato and related groups (Acari: Mesostigmata: Gamasina) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA partial sequences. Syst Appl Acarol. 2015;20(3):225–40. 10.11158/saa.20.3.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dowling AP, O’Connor BM. Phylogenetic relationships within the suborder Dermanyssina (Acari: Parasitiformes) and a test of dermanyssoid monophyly. Int J Acarol. 2010;36(4):299–312. 10.1080/01647951003604569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Truong A-T, Yoo M-S, Seo SK, Hwang TJ, Yoon S-S, Cho YS. Prevalence of honey bee pathogens and parasites in South Korea: A five-year surveillance study from 2017 to 2021. Heliyon. 2023;9(2). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hall T. BioEdit version 7.0.0; 2004. Distributed by the Author, website. Available from: www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html
  • 51.Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4(4):406–25. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Parmentier L, Smagghe G, de Graaf DC, Meeus I. Varroa destructor Macula-like virus, Lake Sinai virus and other new RNA viruses in wild bumblebee hosts (Bombus pascuorum, Bombus lapidaries, and Bombus pratorum). J Invertebr Pathol. 2016;134:6–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2015.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lester PJ, Felden A, Baty JW, Bulgarella M, Haywood J, Mortensen AN, et al. Viral communities in the parasite Varroa destructor and in colonies of their honey bee host (Apis mellifera) in New Zealand. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):8809. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12888-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Daughenbaugh KF, Martin M, Brutscher LM, Cavigli I, Garcia E, Lavin M, et al. Honey Bee Infecting Lake Sinai Viruses. Viruses. 2015;7(6):3285–309. doi: 10.3390/v7062772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yoo M-S, Truong A-T, Choi Y-S, Hong K-J, Hwang TJ, Seo SK, et al. Pathogen detection and phylogenetic analysis of Aethina tumida Murray in South Korea. J Apicul Sci. 2022;66(1):45–55. 10.2478/jas-2022-0004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Wolfgang Blenau

4 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-31153Identification and pathogen detection of a new Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of KoreaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cho,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wolfgang Blenau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (Grant No. N-1543081-2021-25-03)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments:

The Reviewer finds it daring to postulate a new species based on the morphological criteria provided (see below). This point of criticism in particular should be addressed in detail. For example, more morphological details could be provided. Some statements should be supported by references (e.g. pp. 39-41, p. 114ff, etc.). The description of the collection method should be clarified. Relevant sequences should be deposited in GenBank and accession numbers should be provided. Furthermore, some figure legends should be clarified. More details can be found in the Reviewer's report. The Academic Editor would like to apologize once again for the relatively long review period. I explained the reason for this in my last email.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, Neocypholaelaps of the genus were found in Western honeybee hives in Korea (ROK). Based on molecular analysis, the authors believe the mite belongs to a new species. Furthermore, the detection of bee pathogens in this mite sample highlights its importance in the spread of bee diseases. Regarding the idea that this species is new, I think the authors should clarify it further and resubmitting it in another article. The following is my opinion:

Title:

Identification and pathogen detection of a Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of Korea

Abstract:

Line 22: Add the scientific name of the host

Line 26-27: It is recommended to delete the description about the new species

Introduction:

Line 39-41: “Although some mite species…..” -> A very ambiguous explanation with no further references to support it.

Line 48: small honeybees -> do you mean dwarf honey bee? Add the scientific name of the bee

Line 49: Add the scientific names of the giant honey bees

M &M

Line 87-88: Add the scientific name of the mite host

Line 88-89: The description of collection method is very vague. The preservation method of pathogen samples is usually not the same as that of identification samples stored in 95% ethanol. This will almost cause the pathogen samples to degrade in a short period.

Line 101-102: Although the sampling method refers to the previous paper, the explanation here is too brief and difficult to understand.

Line 114: The types and primers of pathogen detection should refer to previous papers, but only the types of pathogen detection are mentioned here.

Line 122-123: It is unclear why the author did not detect VDV-1 and LS1 viruses, but to detect VDV-DWV.

Line 133: Relevant sequences should be deposited into the GenBank and given accession numbers.

Line 136-148: It is a bit far-fetched to define a new species in morphology. In the morphological identification, there is no problem with genus-level identification, but there is no description or comparisons at the species level. Even the details in the figures can only be barely identified to the genus. For species-level, the morphological identification did not provide corresponding hand drawings or detailed microscopic photos.

L160 said that based on the morphological characteristics, they designed 18S and 28S primers. The explanation is unclear and I can’t understand the correlation?

Line 175-183: The DNA extraction method and analysis method described in the M&M are rough. It seems that 10 mites are used to form a DNA sample of KOR23. For the genetic analysis, it seems that only two sequences from other Neocypholaelaps species are used. These trees can explain the correct identification of the genus, but the data explain the new species is scarce. Furthermore, the species description of APGD-2010 is also unclear, and it is difficult to explain whether there are any difference in other aspects, such as in morphology.

Line 194 and 198: Two sentences conflict with the results of fungal testing

Discussion

There is a little description and discussion of the pathogen detections. Whether there is relevant pathogen data for the mite species may be used for discuss and comparison.

Figures:

Fig 1: L137 writes the body length and width of Fig1B. The scale should be increased or the length should be marked in this figure. The rest of Fig1 (A,C,D) is unclear, especially A, which feels very redundant.

Figure descriptions should be reconsidered, for example, Figures 1 and 2 do not show explanations of "morphological characteristics”

Fig2 should be added in the caption as female (or maybe another gender or age?)

Further:

For documents on species taxonomy, the scientific names should include the author and the year of publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: I-Hsin Sung

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 11;19(4):e0300025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300025.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Jan 2024

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We appreciate the reviewers for their invaluable comments. As explained below, we have revised our original manuscript and materials in response to all of the reviewers’ comments. What follows are our point-by-point responses to the comments.

Reviewer #1: In this study, Neocypholaelaps of the genus were found in Western honeybee hives in Korea (ROK). Based on molecular analysis, the authors believe the mite belongs to a new species. Furthermore, the detection of bee pathogens in this mite sample highlights its importance in the spread of bee diseases. Regarding the idea that this species is new, I think the authors should clarify it further and resubmitting it in another article. The following is my opinion:

Title:

Identification and pathogen detection of a Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of Korea

Specific comments:

Abstract:

Line 22: Add the scientific name of the host

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comments. The title was revised according to the suggestion. The information regarding the scientific name of the host (Apis mellifera) was added in the revised manuscript.

Line 26-27: It is recommended to delete the description about the new species

Response: Modified as suggested.

Introduction:

Line 39-41: “Although some mite species…..” -> A very ambiguous explanation with no further references to support it.

Response: The sentence has been clarified as follow: In A. mellifera, some mite species may not exhibit parasitic behavior (e.g. Tracheal, Forcellinia faini, Melichares dentriticus, Afrocypholaelaps aficana mites) [1–4]. Additionally, specific mite species have been identified as potential vectors of disease to bees (e.g. Varroa and Tropilaelaps mites) [5–7], while a notable number of mite species can induce stress in bees (e.g. Neocypholaelaps indic and Caroglyphus lactis mites) [8,9]. This clarification is supported by relevant references (Lines 38–42)

Line 48: small honeybees -> do you mean dwarf honey bee? Add the scientific name of the bee

Response: The sentences has been revised as suggested: dwarf honeybees (Apis florea)

Line 49: Add the scientific names of the giant honey bees

Response: Sentences were added as suggested: giant honeybees (Apis dorsata)

M &M

Line 87-88: Add the scientific name of the mite host

Response: Modified as suggested. The scientific name of the mite host was honeybee (Apis mellifera)

Line 88-89: The description of collection method is very vague. The preservation method of pathogen samples is usually not the same as that of identification samples stored in 95% ethanol. This will almost cause the pathogen samples to degrade in a short period.

Response: In the methods section at Lines 90 to 94 and Lines 132 to 134, we improved the description of the collection method and elucidated the procedures as follows:

Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mites were observed on beehive of A. mellifera colonies in Wonju City, Gangwon Province, ROK, in 2023. Nine colonies from three apiaries were used to collect Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mites. These mites were gathered from hive debris and stored in 50 mL Falcon containing 95% ethanol that was labeled with hive number. The sample was immediately subjected to total nucleic acid (TNA) extraction upon arrival the laboratory. (Lines 90–94)

The TNA extracted from the mite samples was tested for honeybee pathogens [25,49]. The honeybee pathogens that were detected in Korean honeybee colonies were employed to assess their presence in Neocypholaelaps mite. These pathogens include the following viral pathogens. (Lines 132–134)

Line 101-102: Although the sampling method refers to the previous paper, the explanation here is too brief and difficult to understand.

Response: the description for nucleic acid extraction was added in the manuscript

“The hive debris samples were observed and pooled to collect Neocypholaelaps mite under microscope Discovery V8 Stereo. Three samples were collected from three apiaries. Ten adult mites from each apiary were transferred onto petri dish containing UltraPure™ distilled water (Invitrogen, USA) for washing. Mites were manually collected for extraction of TNA using a mounting needle under a dissecting microscope. Those mites were pooled and placed in a 2 mL Eppendorf tubes containing 300 μL phosphate-buffered saline (1x) and 2.381 mm steel beads (Hanam, ROK) and used for TNA extraction [25]. The TNA of Neocypholaelaps mite used kept in –20°C for PCR amplification of CO1, 18S, and 28S regions and checking honeybee pathogens.” (Lines 102–110).

Line 114: The types and primers of pathogen detection should refer to previous papers, but only the types of pathogen detection are mentioned here.

Response: Sentences were added more information as suggested: Honeybee pathogens were detected using RT-qPCR Kits (iNtRON Biotechnology, Inc., ROK), Pobgen bee pathogen detection Kit (Postbio, ROK), and iTaq Universal SYBR Green One-Step Kit (Bio-Rad, USA). The primers of pathogens detection were used following by Truong et al. and Nguyen et al. [25,49]. (Lines 142–145)

Line 122-123: It is unclear why the author did not detect VDV-1 and LS1 viruses, but to detect VDV-DWV.

Response: The Varroa destructor virus-1 (VDV-1) and Lake Sinai Virus 1 (LSV1) pathogens were tested and added more information in Table 2.

Line 133: Relevant sequences should be deposited into the GenBank and given accession numbers.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The 18S and 28S genes of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 were deposited in an NCBI database with accession numbers: OR576776.1 and OR576780.1 (Lines 149–151)

Line 136-148: It is a bit far-fetched to define a new species in morphology. In the morphological identification, there is no problem with genus-level identification, but there is no description or comparisons at the species level. Even the details in the figures can only be barely identified to the genus. For species-level, the morphological identification did not provide corresponding hand drawings or detailed microscopic photos.

Response: The sentence mentioning the genus level of morphological identification was added in Lines 161 to 168. For species identification the molecular method relying on CO1, 18S, and 28S DNA was used.

L160 said that based on the morphological characteristics, they designed 18S and 28S primers. The explanation is unclear and I can’t understand the correlation?

Response: Revision was done for the sentence to clarify the intended meaning in the material and methods section from Lines 113 to 121

“Based on the morphological characteristics results observed under the microscope, the Neocypholaelaps mite was identified in this study. Then, the genetic analysis of CO1, 18S, and 28S genes was done for further identification of collected mites. Primers were designed based on the sequence information of Neocypholaelaps species available on GenBank and BOLD systems (Table 1). The available primers of CO1 gene were designed for N. indica Evans (1963), N. apicola Delfinado-Baker & Baker, 1983, and Neocypholaelaps sp. (NCBI accession nos.: LC522089.1, KP966315.1, and MF911280); The 18S and 28S gene were designed for Neocypholaelaps sp. (NCBI accession nos.: FJ911807.1 and FJ911742.1).”

Line 175-183: The DNA extraction method and analysis method described in the M&M are rough. It seems that 10 mites are used to form a DNA sample of KOR23. For the genetic analysis, it seems that only two sequences from other Neocypholaelaps species are used. These trees can explain the correct identification of the genus, but the data explain the new species is scarce. Furthermore, the species description of APGD-2010 is also unclear, and it is difficult to explain whether there are any difference in other aspects, such as in morphology.

Response: Thank you for your comments, we revised the last sentence of the paragraph to be more appropriate with the result identified in this study: “Our study newly provides the genetic information of a strain in the genus Neocypholaelaps isolated from beehives in the ROK in 2023 and was designated as Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23”. In addition, the term “new species” is removed from the whole manuscript.

Line 194 and 198: Two sentences conflict with the results of fungal testing

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Those sentences were corrected at Lines 220 to 228. “The identities of the pathogens were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR (Table 2). Nine honeybee pathogens (AFB, ASCO, Spiroplasma sp., DWV, BQCV, CBPV, IAPV, KV, and LSV3) were detected in this mite species out of a total of 25 that were screened. Results indicated the presence of bacteria and viruses in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 with high Ct values. Some honeybee pathogens findings suggest that Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 has the potential to harbor pathogens and may serve as a vector for honeybee infections, contributing to the rapid increase in disease outbreaks among honeybee colonies in the ROK. However, Nosema apis, N. ceranae, and Trypanosoma spp. have not been identified in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23”.

Discussion

There is a little description and discussion of the pathogen detections. Whether there is relevant pathogen data for the mite species may be used for discuss and comparison.

Response: Sentences were added for discussion about the pathogen detection in this section from Lines 266 to 277 “Possibly, this could be one of the factors contributing to severe damage to honeybee colonies. This study is the first to demonstrate the presence of honeybee pathogens in Neocypholaelaps sp. mite. Recent research has also reported the appearance of honeybee pathogens in parasites from honeybee colonies. Various honeybee pathogens have been detected in Varroa mite [5,6,54,55]; DWV and BQCV were found on the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) [56]; DWV and Trypanosoma spp. were detected on Tyrophagus curvipenis [25]. Some viral and bacterial pathogens of honeybees were detected in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23. However, microsporidian (Nosema apis and N. cernaena) and protozoa (Trypanosoma spp.) were not seen in Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23. Further study on the detection of the same pathogens in the honeybee colonies where the mites were detected might be needed to confirm the role of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 mite in pathogen transmission.”

Figures:

Fig 1: L137 writes the body length and width of Fig1B. The scale should be increased or the length should be marked in this figure. The rest of Fig1 (A, C, D) is unclear, especially A, which feels very redundant.

Figure descriptions should be reconsidered, for example, Figures 1 and 2 do not show explanations of "morphological characteristics”

Fig2 should be added in the caption as female (or maybe another gender or age?)

Response: Thank you for your comment and suggestion about the morphology figure. We moved the Fig 1 to Supplementary data as S1 Fig, and Fig 2 was changed to be Fig 1 in the revised manuscript. The adult female was added in the caption as commented

Fig 1. Morphological characteristics of Neocypholaelaps sp. adult female mite. Identity of acaroid mites was determined by analyzing morphological characteristics using a phase contrast microscope. (A) Dorsal view of the mite. (B) Ventral view of the mite.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300025.s004.docx (32.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Wolfgang Blenau

13 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-31153R1Identification and pathogen detection of a Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of KoreaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cho,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the few minor points raised during the review process. Once this is done, I can accept the manuscript without involving reviewers again.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wolfgang Blenau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There are minor issues should be check. Please refer and consider making appropriate revisions. I think it can be accepted in the future.

L40: delete the word “Tracheal,”

L41, L43: possibility of spelling errors on scientific names “Afrocypholaelaps aficana”, “Neocypholaelaps indic” and “Caroglyphus lactis”, please check.

L45-53: In this paragraph, four genera of mites are described as being particularly harmful to bees, but a very abrupt description of Tyrophagus is added in L53-54.

L55-56: states that Neocypholaelaps are mainly distributed in tropical regions, but most of the species later exemplified in paragraphs L56-69 are distributed in subtropical and temperate regions. Further possible reason or additional explanations should be added.

L75&77: The terminology of L75&77 "higher level classification" may be worth discussing. The author may have intended to express a classification closer to the genus or species level, but the term may also be easily confused with the advanced classification methods used to describe family or above levels.

L93 “50 mL Falcon”-> “50 mL tubes (Falcon)”

L244 "with several reported subspecies" It would be better if there are relevant literature guidance

L261-263: It can be described that KOR23 is densely populated and may cause harm to bee colonies, but rather than saying "leading to damage", perhaps it is more conservative to say "leading to threaten" or "leading to weaken"? It can also be slightly blended with the conclusion of the last paragraph of the discussion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 11;19(4):e0300025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300025.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Feb 2024

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

We appreciate the reviewers for their invaluable comments. As explained below, we have revised our original manuscript and materials in response to all of the reviewers’ comments. What follows are our point-by-point responses to the comments.

Reviewer #1: There are minor issues should be check. Please refer and consider making appropriate revisions. I think it can be accepted in the future.

L40: delete the word “Tracheal,”

Response: I deleted it.

L41, L43: possibility of spelling errors on scientific names “Afrocypholaelaps aficana”, “Neocypholaelaps indic” and “Caroglyphus lactis”, please check.

Response: These have been corrected as follows:

“Afrocypholaelaps aficana” � “Afrocypholaelaps africana”

“Neocypholaelaps indic” � “Neocypholaelaps indica”

“Caroglyphus lactis” � “Carpoglyphus lactis”

L45-53: In this paragraph, four genera of mites are described as being particularly harmful to bees, but a very abrupt description of Tyrophagus is added in L53-54.

Response: I thank the reviewer for the reasonable comment. I corrected these sentences more logically and consistently in lines 46-56.

“Obligate honeybee parasites like Varroa (Varroidae, Mesostigmata), Euvarroa (Varroidae, Mesostigmata), Tropilaelaps (Laelapidae, Mesostigmata), and Acarapis (Tarsonemidae, Prostigmata inflict direct harm and facilitate disease spread [10–12]. These mites have co-evolved with their hosts, developing an intimate dependence on honeybees for survival. While Varroa mites primarily parasitize bees in their brood cells [6,13], Euvarroa and Tropilaelaps demonstrate host specificity towards Dwarf honeybees (Apis florea) and giant honeybees (Apis dorsata), respectively [14–18]. The most pathogenic species within the genus Acarapis primarily parasitize A. mellifera but have also been found in Asian honeybee species [19–23]. Interestingly, the genus Tyrophagus (Acaridae: Sarcoptiformes) adds to the list of potentially detrimental mites, displaying parasitic behavior detrimental to both honeybees and bumblebees [24,25].”

L55-56: states that Neocypholaelaps are mainly distributed in tropical regions, but most of the species later exemplified in paragraphs L56-69 are distributed in subtropical and temperate regions. Further possible reason or additional explanations should be added.

Response: We have included this information in the introduction (lines 57-68) and the discussion section (lines 253-259)

L75&77: The terminology of L75&77 "higher level classification" may be worth discussing. The author may have intended to express a classification closer to the genus or species level, but the term may also be easily confused with the advanced classification methods used to describe family or above levels.

Response: This has been corrected (Line 79).

“However, these genes offer limited information for classifying Neocypholaelaps species within the genus”

L93 “50 mL Falcon”-> “50 mL tubes (Falcon)”

Response: I corrected it.

L244 "with several reported subspecies" It would be better if there are relevant literature guidance

Response: I have included this information in lines 259-263.

L261-263: It can be described that KOR23 is densely populated and may cause harm to bee colonies, but rather than saying "leading to damage", perhaps it is more conservative to say "leading to threaten" or "leading to weaken"? It can also be slightly blended with the conclusion of the last paragraph of the discussion.

Response: This expression has been corrected with further research needed to confirm the damage of Neocypholaelaps mite infestation (Lines 279-281).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300025.s005.docx (24.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Wolfgang Blenau

21 Feb 2024

Identification and pathogen detection of a Neocypholaelaps species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ameroseiidae) from beehives in the Republic of Korea

PONE-D-23-31153R2

Dear Dr. Cho,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wolfgang Blenau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Wolfgang Blenau

1 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-31153R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cho,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Wolfgang Blenau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Morphological characteristics of Neocypholaelaps mite under microscopy.

    (A, B) Optical microscope Discovery V8 Stereo (Germany) with a magnification of 5.0× (Dorsal and ventral of Neocypholaelaps sp. adult mite). (C, D) Dorsal and ventral view of Neocypholaelaps sp. adult mite under a Leica DM1750M microscope at 10× magnification.

    (TIF)

    pone.0300025.s001.tif (4.2MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Primers and probes used for detection of honeybee pathogens.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0300025.s002.docx (27.9KB, docx)
    S1 Raw image

    (TIF)

    pone.0300025.s003.tif (1.3MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300025.s004.docx (32.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300025.s005.docx (24.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The amplified 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA gene sequences of Neocypholaelaps sp. KOR23 obtained in this study were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database under accession numbers OR576776.1 and OR576780.1, respectively.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES