Table 3.
Effects of immunostimulation on cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of bees in Colony 2
| Substance |
Control |
Saline |
Beads |
Bacteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median ± SIQR | Median ± SIQR | Median ± SIQR | Median ± SIQR | |
| Alkanes | ||||
| Heneicosane |
0.84±0.10 |
0.98±0.10 |
0.82±0.06 |
0.87±0.13 |
| Tricosane |
7.55±3.26 |
8.25±1.26 |
8.65±1.84 |
10.28±2.53 |
| Tetracosane |
0.45±0.13 |
0.46±0.09 |
0.46±0.06 |
0.54±0.06 |
| Pentacosane |
19.70±4.82 |
17.89±4.25 |
17.94±1.90 |
19.85±2.57 |
| hexacosane |
1.12±0.11 |
1.23±0.11 |
1.20±0.04 |
1.09±0.14 |
| heptacosane |
27.03±3.75 |
29.08±2.38 |
28.24±1.58 |
27.46±3.37 |
| Octacosane |
0.52±0.08 |
0.57±0.07 |
0.63±0.06 |
0.54±0.04 |
| Nonacosane |
7.82±2.12 |
8.52±1.58 |
9.11±1.18 |
7.71±1.52 |
| Hentricontane |
6.09±1.29 |
6.81±1.34 |
6.25±1.67 |
6.64±1.80 |
| Tritriacontane |
0.89±0.23 |
1.25±0.27 |
0.93±0.37 |
1.16±0.36 |
| Alkenes | ||||
| Tricosene |
0.93±0.43 |
0.79±0.20 |
0.76±0.27 |
1.07±0.35 |
| Pentacosene |
2.30±0.81 |
2.28±0.46 |
2.24±0.40 |
2.53±0.47 |
| Heptacosene |
0.49±0.07 |
0.51±0.12 |
0.55±0.17 |
0.50±0.13 |
| Nonacosene |
1.70±0.26 |
1.94±0.20 |
1.81±0.33 |
1.55±0.19 |
| Hentriacontene Isomere 2 |
2.89±0.78 |
3.51±0.86 |
2.64±0.83 |
2.68±0.42 |
| Tritriacontene |
7.12±1.27 |
7.65±1.43 |
5.96±1.04 |
6.41±1.34 |
| Alkynes | ||||
| Heptacosyne |
1.93±0.23 |
2.18±0.41 |
2.14±0.26 |
2.08±0.27 |
| Tritriacontyne |
1.04±0.23 |
1.08±0.19 |
1.00±0.22 |
0.80±0.08 |
| Methylalkanes | ||||
| 9.11.13-Methylheptacosane |
1.53±0.25 |
1.59±0.18 |
1.48±0.18 |
1.30±0.22 |
| 11.13.15-Methylnonacosane |
1.61±0.30 |
1.70±0.17 |
1.56±0.12 |
1.42±0.25 |
| 13.15-Methylhentriacontane | 0.92±0.19 | 0.97±0.11 | 0.91±0.07 | 0.82±0.15 |
Data for this figure were obtained from gas chromatography analysis of cuticular washes of worker bees from Colony 2. These data represent the relative proportions of each compound found within each of the four treatment groups.