One Health, One Hive: A scoping review of honey bees, climate change, pollutants, and antimicrobial resistance.

Anthropogenic climate change and increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) together threaten the last 50 years of public health gains. Honey bees are a model One Health organism to investigate interactions between climate change and AMR. The objective of this scoping review was to examine the range, extent, and nature of published literature on the relationship between AMR and honey bees in the context of climate change and environmental pollutants. The review followed systematic search methods and reporting guidelines. A protocol was developed a priori in consultation with a research librarian. Resulting Boolean search strings were used to search Embase® via Ovid®, MEDLINE®, Scopus®, AGRICOLA™ and Web of Science™ databases. Two independent reviewers conducted two-stage screening on retrieved articles. To be included, the article had to examine honey bees, AMR, and either climate change or environmental pollution. Data, in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, were extracted from relevant articles and descriptively synthesized in tables, figures, and narrative form. A total of 22 articles met the inclusion criteria, with half of all articles being published in the last five years (n = 11/22). These articles predominantly investigated hive immunocompetence and multi-drug resistance transporter downregulation (n = 11/22), susceptibility to pests (n = 16/22), especially American foulbrood (n = 9/22), and hive product augmentation (n = 3/22). This review identified key themes and gaps in the literature, including the need for future interdisciplinary research to explore the link between AMR and environmental change evidence streams in honey bees. We identified three potential linkages between pollutive and climatic factors and risk of AMR. These interconnections reaffirm the necessity of a One Health framework to tackle global threats and investigate complex issues that extend beyond honey bee research into the public health sector. It is integral that we view these "wicked" problems through an interdisciplinary lens to explore long-term strategies for change.

Introduction

The global rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) over the past 50 years presents troubling health projections for both public and environment sectors [1]. Antimicrobial resistance has global consequences for human health, resulting in approximately 700,000 deaths each year. By 2050, it is projected that the number of AMR-related deaths could rise to 10 million annually, with an estimated economic impact of $100 trillion USD [2]. Also at the forefront of global grand challenges lies climate change. The dire consequences of climate change have captured the focus and driven the collaboration of notable organizations such as NASA, the United Nations, and governments the world over [3-6].

Seeded into these critical contemporary issues are complex interactions that necessitate the conduct of interdisciplinary research [7,8]. Reports such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Antimicrobial Resistance Global Report, three recent Special Reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health provide detailed insights into AMR, climate change, and environmental quality, respectively [1,9-12]. However, these reports neglect to substantially address these components through an interdisciplinary lens that links the three issues. Increasing communication between disciplines is not only helpful in understanding complex multidimensional problems, but is essential for implementing long-term solutions for mitigation [13,14].

While growing interest in areas such as One Health has helped bridge the topics of AMR, climate change, and environmental research, the majority of studies are still concerningly limited to the silo of each individual issue [1]. One Health is described as an approach to global health that focuses on linkages between the health of humans, animals, and the environment by improving intersectional communication and collaboration through research and policy [15].

Honey bees can serve as a model One Health organism to investigate the interactions between environmental change and AMR due to their inseparable symbiosis with the determinants of environmental health [16,17]. For example, environmental pollutants in water, soil, and air can negatively impact honey bee and hive health through leaching into pollen and honey foodstuffs [18,19]. Moreover, warming temperatures and other climatic factors related to climate change can increase the prevalence and spread of honey bee diseases and decrease the efficacy of antimicrobials in treating pests and pathogens [20-22]. Drug efficacy is further challenged by years of liberal antibiotic use [22,23], contributing to an increase in multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Apiaries globally are reporting greater colony losses than ever before [24,25]. It is generally believed that complex interactions between multiple environmental, pathogenic, and climatic factors are responsible for the majority of these losses, which have come to be referred to under the umbrella term of “colony collapse disorder” [26,27]. Interdisciplinary research into these interactions is therefore highly beneficial and inherently relevant to honey bee health.

How do environmental and climatic factors interact with each other to exacerbate AMR in honey bees? Given the limited evidence currently available, the objective of this scoping review was to examine the range, extent, and nature of published literature on the relationship between AMR and honey bees in the context of climate change and environmental pollutants through a One Health lens.

Materials and methods

Protocol and search strategy

The review followed systematic search methods outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer’s Manual and is reported according to the PRISMA Scoping Review reporting guidelines [28-33]. A time-stamped protocol was developed a priori in consultation with a research librarian (S1 File). The PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided in S1 Checklist.

A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify articles that discussed AMR in honey bees in the context of environmental or climatic factors. No search restrictions were placed on language, publishing date, or geography. An example search string for Embase® via Ovid® is shown in Table 1. The complete search strings (S1 Table) were used to search Embase® via Ovid®, MEDLINE®, Scopus®, AGRICOLA™ and Web of Science™ databases on July 10, 2019.

Table 1

Search string used to search Embase® via Ovid® database for articles about honey bees, antimicrobial resistance, and environmental and/or climatic factors.

Component	Search Terms
Honey Bees	(bee OR bees OR honey?bee* OR honeybee* OR honey OR beekeep* OR apiar* OR arvicide* OR apis mellifera OR apidae OR (hive AND (health OR success OR collapse OR product* OR stability)))
AND
AMR	(((resistan* OR stewardship) AND (antibiotic* OR antimicrobial* OR anti-microbial* OR anti-bacterial* OR antibacterial* OR anti?viral* OR antiviral* OR anti?fungal* OR antifungal* OR anti?helminthic* OR antihelminthic* OR anthelmintic* OR anti?parasitic* OR antiparasitic* OR parasiticide* OR biocid* OR antiseptic* OR disinfectant* OR sterilant* OR sterili?er* OR chemosterilant* OR multidrug OR multi?drug)) OR AMR OR XDR OR TDR OR super?bug* OR superbug*)
AND
Climatic Factors	((climat* adj15 (chang* OR model?ing OR predict* OR resilience OR sensitivity)) OR (environment* adj15 chang*) OR climate variability OR climatic variability OR global warm* OR greenhouse effect OR climate disaster OR (storm NOT (electrical OR autonomic OR thyroid*)) OR wind OR atmospheric pressure OR season* OR precipitation OR snow* OR ice OR humid* OR rain* OR flood OR drought OR wildfire* OR (heat adj15 (wave* OR extreme* OR event)) OR temperature* OR cool OR cold OR weather OR ultraviolet radiation OR UV OR El Nino-Southern Oscillation OR El Nino OR La Nina)
OR
Environmental Factors	(air pollut* OR persistent organic pollut* OR particulate matter OR atmospheric contamin* OR atmospheric pollut* OR volatile organic compound* OR volatile organic pollutant OR VOC OR VOCS OR ambient air pollution OR household air pollution OR criteria air pollutant* OR biological air pollutant* OR physical pollutant* OR chemical pollutant* OR gases OR ((fossil fuel OR arvicid*) AND pollut*) OR ((air OR water* OR soil) AND (contamin* OR toxic* OR environment* health OR quality OR disease* OR particulate* OR metal OR metals OR lead OR lead?II* OR Pb OR pb?+ OR zinc* OR Zn OR Zn?+ OR silver* OR Ag OR Ag+ OR copper* OR Cu OR Cu?+ OR Gallium* OR Ga OR Ga?+ OR cobalt* OR Co OR Co?+ OR Mercury* OR Hg OR Hg?+ OR Arsenic* OR As OR As?+ OR Nickel* OR Ni OR Ni?+ OR vehicle* OR automobile* OR exhaust OR motorway* OR roadway* OR highway* OR freeway* OR road* OR traffic OR urban OR Nox OR nitrogen oxides OR ozone OR particle*)) OR dust OR dusts OR PM?2?5 OR PM?10 OR ultrafine particle* OR polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon* OR PAH OR POPS OR smog OR water pollut* OR (water* AND (potable OR healthy OR drink* OR safe OR suitab* OR palatable OR edible OR tap OR fresh OR supply OR microbial contamina*)) OR waterborne OR water?borne OR aquifer OR groundwater OR pesticid* OR herbicid* OR insecticid* OR acaricid* OR fungicid* OR molluscacid* OR larvicid* OR fumigant OR anti?fouling agent* OR agricultural chemical* OR agrochemical* OR (defoliant* AND (chemical* OR agent*)) OR (hazardous AND substance*) OR (toxic AND action*) OR chemically?induced disorder* OR furfural OR aculeximycin OR aluminum phosphide OR chromated copper arsenate OR CCA OR creosote)

After downloading all retrieved articles within Mendeley© (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), articles were collated and de-duplicated in DistillerSR® (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, ON, Canada) and screened for eligibility via a two-stage screening process by two independent reviewers. Article titles, abstracts, and key words were screened in the first stage, followed by full-text screening in the second stage. To be included, the article had to examine honey bees, AMR, and either climate change or environmental pollution (S2 File). Antimicrobial resistance was defined as the ability of a pathogen to resist or reduce the effects of a drug or treatment meant to adversely affect its normal function [34]. Environmental change variables were defined as changes in climate due to natural or anthropogenic causes (climate change), or as an increase in organic or inorganic contaminants of soil, air, or water that alters their natural role or effect in honey bee colonies (environmental pollutants) [35]. Articles about season, weather, climate, and climate hazards in the context of climate change were also included. Honey bees were defined within the taxum Apis mellifera due to their agricultural importance, though articles using the terms “bees” or “honey bees” were considered relevant if no taxum was mentioned. The initial protocol required articles to include honey bees, AMR, climate change, and environmental pollutants. However, after screening articles to the data extraction level, a lack of articles containing all components prompted a revision of our inclusion criteria. This second round of screening included articles that studied honey bees, AMR and at least one of either climate change or environmental pollutants. This amendment was reflected within the protocol, which was re-time-stamped on December 9, 2019. The amendment was deemed necessary to provide sufficient evidence for discussion, to allow for better identification of gaps in literature, and to provide a more meaningful project outcome as a result. Articles were excluded if they were books, book chapters, theses, dissertations, or commentaries. Conflicts between reviewers were resolved via discussion if necessary.

Data charting process and data items

Data regarding authorship, publication date, location of study, type of antimicrobial and target microbe, environmental and/or climatic factor assessed, research study design type, associated organizations, and outcomes of interest were extracted from relevant articles by two reviewers using DistillerSR®. Article information was exported to a pre-developed data extraction form within Excel® (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) for analysis (S2 Table). Articles were partitioned into thematic categories for further exploration, including: immunocompetence and multi-drug resistance (MDR) transporter downregulation, susceptibility to pests, and in-hive products.

Results were synthesized in tables, graphs, and narrative to present the comprehensive scope of current research in a concise and effective manner. Tables and figures present key findings in the results, while supplementary materials provide comprehensive results from the study to allow for replication in future research.

Results

The initial search recovered 1,402 articles, with 1,146 remaining after deduplication (Fig 1). First-stage screening excluded 1,018 articles. 128 articles were eligible for second-stage, full-text screening, which reduced this number to 22. The majority of articles were excluded in this stage due to lacking mention of environmental variables or antibiotic resistance (n = 42), and failure to frame these topics in the context of honey bee health (n = 28). Despite our efforts to locate articles through both the University of Alberta and University of Guelph libraries, we were unable to locate full-text pdfs for 36 articles (S3 File). These articles were additionally requested through the University of Alberta and University of Guelph interlibrary loan systems to ensure minimal loss of articles. This process returned six additional articles that were screened, but 36 could not be obtained and were excluded.

Fig 1

PRISMA-ScR flow diagram of study selection process for the systematic scoping review of the impacts of climate change, environmental pollution, and antimicrobial resistance on honey bee health.

Characteristics of sources of evidence

Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. An overview of these articles is included in Table 2, while a complete listing of included articles and study characteristics is available in S2 Table. Articles were published between 1993 and 2019. Research on AMR and effects of environmental change in honey bees steadily increased in recent years with half (n = 11/22) of included articles published in the last five years alone (2014–2019) (Fig 2).

Table 2

Summary of article characteristics captured by this study and deemed eligible for review.

Reference number	Author(s)	Year	Location	Hive/honey bee health aspects of concern	Antimicrobial	Target microbe	Climate variable of interest	Environmental quality factor of interest
[20]	Regueira Neto et al.	2017	Tamandare, Brazil	Immunocompet-ence, self-treatment	Red propolis, gentamicin, imipenem	Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus	Precipitation, Seasonal variability (Wet vs Dry season)	--
[36]	Ueno et al.	2018	17 prefectures in Japan	American foulbrood	Mirosamicin, Oxytetracycline, Tylosin, Lincomycin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, erythromycin	Paenibacillus larvae	Geography/general variations in climate	--
[37]	Ebrahimi, and Lotfalian	2005	Shahrekord, Central Iran	Honey bee dysbiosis	Gentamicin, Streptomycin, Kanamycin, Amikacin Penicillin Chloramphenicol, Nalidixic Acid, Oxytetracycline, Erythromycin, Vancomycin, and Nitrofurantoin	Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus	Temperature, seasonal variability (Spring vs Fall)	--
[38]	James and Xu	2011	Not Stated/ Global	Immunocompetence, antimicrobial peptides, behavioural immunity	Antimicrobial peptides, reactive oxygen species, RNA interference	Bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites	--	Environmental pesticides, botanical insecticides (Acacia senega extract/Artemisia annua extract/Azadirachtin/Quercetin/Terpinen-4-ol), inorganic insecticides (Sodium tetraborate), insect growth regulators (Buprofezin/Fenoxycarb/Flufenoxuron/Pyriproxyfen), neonicotinoids (Imidacloprid), organochlorines (Endosulfan/Dieldrin), organophosphates (Dimethoate/Malathion/Quinalphos)
[39]	Travis et al.	2014	Not Stated/Global	General honey bee morbidity related to increasing agriculture, such as pesticide use and monoculture	General/not stated	General/not stated	--	General Insecticide and pesticide use associated with intensive agriculture
[40]	Bernal et al.	2011	Marchamalo, Spain	American foulbrood	Tylosins A, B, C, D	Paenibacillus larvae	Temperature, light	--
[41]	Hawthorne et al.	2011	United States	American foulbrood, Varroa mite, Multidrug resistance transporters	Coumaphos, t-fluvalinate, oxytetracycline	Paenibacillus larvae, varroa mite	--	Environmental insecticides, neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, acetamiprid, and thiacloprid)
[42]	Guseman et al.	2016	United States	Nosema, Multidrug resistance transporters	Verapamil, pristine, fumagillin, quercetin	Nosema sp.	--	Environmental ivermectin and ivermectin-like pesticides, neonicotinoids
[43]	Brandt et al.	2016	Germany	Immunocompet-ence	Honey bee hemolymph	General/not stated	--	Environmental neonicotinoids (thiacloprid, imidacloprid, and clothianidin)
[44]	Brandt et al.	2017	Germany	Immunocompet-ence	Honey bee hemolymph	General	--	Environmental neonicotinoids
[45]	O’Neal et al.	2019	United States	Immunocompet-ence, social immunity	Innate antimicrobials	Viruses	--	Environmental fungicides (chlorothalonil)
[46]	Prodelalová et al.	2017	Czech Republic	General viral infection	Peracetic acid, iodophors	Paenibacillus larvae, deformed wing virus, Sacbrood virus, and slow bee paralysis virus, black queen cell virus, acute paralysis complex viruses	Temperature	--
[47]	Ozkirim, Aktas, and Keskin	2007	Turkey	American foulbrood	Sulbactam ampicillin, amoxycillin clavulanic acid, tobramycin, erythromycin, azithromycin, and rifampin	Paenibacillus Larvae	Geography/general variations in climate	--
[48]	Alippi et al;	2005	Not Stated/Global	American foulbrood	Tylosin	Paenibacillus larvae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus	Geography/general variations in climate	--
[49]	Erler and Moritz	2015	Not Stated/Global	American foulbrood, European foulbrood, varroa mite, deformed wing virus immunocompet-ence, chalkbrood, self-medication.	Beeswax, bee food jelly including royal jelly, bee venom, resin, propolis	Enterococcus faecalis, Paenibacillus larvae, acute bee paralysis virus, black queen cell virus, deformed wing virus, sacbrood virus, Paenibacillus alvei, Galleria mellonella, Apis flavus, Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus niger, Nosema apis, Nosema ceranae, Aethina tumida, Oecophylla smaragdina, insects, dead mammals	Temperature, precipitation, climate type	--
[50]	Chaimanee et al.	2013	Thailand	Nosema	Immunocompetence, Antimicrobial peptides	Nosema ceranae from Canada and Thailand	Geography/general variations in climate	--
[51]	Bastos et al.	2007	Brazil	American foulbrood	Propolis, Vancomycin, Tetracycline, Tylosin	Paenibacillus larvae	Indirect, general climate affecting hive product antimicrobial strength	--
[52]	Krongdang et al.	2017	United States	American foulbrood	Oxytetracycline, tetracycline, tylosin, lincomycin	Paenibacillus larvae	Geography/general variations in climate	--
[53]	Gregorc et al.	2012	United States	Varroa mite, immunocompet-ence	Antimicrobial peptides (abaecin, hymenoptaecin, defensin1)	Deformed Wing Virus	--	Environmental pesticides (chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, amitraz, fluvalinate, coumaphos, myclobutanil, chlorothalonil, glyphosate, simazine)
[23]	Tian et al.	2012	United States	American foulbrood, European foulbrood, gut dysbiosis	Oxytetracycline	Melissococcus pluton, Paenibacillus larvae	Geography/general variations in climate	Environmental broad-spectrum antimicrobial exposure
[54]	Loglio	1993	Italy	Varroa mite	Fluvalinate	Varroa mite	Temperature, seasonal variability, sunlight, altitude, climate type	--
[55]	Dickel et al.	2018	Norway	Immunocompetence	Thiacloprid	Enterococcus faecalis	--	Environmental neonicotinoid thiacloprid

Fig 2

Timeline of study publication dates for articles on honey bee health, antimicrobial resistance, climate change, and environmental pollution.

Articles are organized by year of publication and represented in quantity by the length of the pin above each respective year. The number of articles per year is included inside each pinhead. *Note 2019 was an incomplete year because the article search was conducted in July 2019.

Fig 3 shows the study location in a global context. Article publication represented research from ten countries that was distributed globally. While some articles did not specify a geographical origin (n = 4), the majority of publications occurred in high-income nations (n = 13; Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, United States) [56]. The United States constituted the largest proportion of location-specific publications (n = 6). A large proportion of articles also came from Europe, with a total of seven articles spread over six European countries (Germany, n = 2; Czech Republic, n = 1; Italy, n = 1; Norway, n = 1; Spain, n = 1; Turkey, n = 1.

Fig 3

The global distribution of the study locations included in the review presented as the number of studies by country with article numbers represented by the relative circle size.

Out of the 22 articles, 64% (n = 14/22) followed an experimental study design, with the rest being observational or descriptive studies (n = 16), or review articles (n = 2). There were relatively few studies with broader scope that investigated AMR and environmental change from a global or ecological perspective.

Synthesis of results

Table 3 summarizes environmental factors of interest by climatic or pollutive basis. Environmental factors of interest varied greatly, with environmental insecticides being the most common pollutive factors (n = 7) and indirect geographical differences (different climate zones as a result of different geographical locations) accounting for the majority of climatic factors (n = 6). Although most articles revealed potential indirect links to AMR in honey bees, few articles directly linked specific pollutive variables to AMR, the most common of which was the effect of neonicotinoids (n = 6).

Table 3

Summary of environmental factors of change in the included articles.

Article Environmental Factor of Change	# of relevant articles	Article reference
Climatic Factors
Season	3	[20,37,54]
Geography	6	[23,36,47,48,50,52]
Temperature	5	[37,40,46,49,54]
Sunlight	2	[40,54]
Precipitation	2	[20,49,49]
General/Climate type	3	[49,51,54]
Pollutive Factors
Pesticides	4	[38,39,42,53]
Insecticides	7	[38,39,41–44,55]
Fungicides	1	[45]
Other/General	2	[23,39]

The 22 articles can be broadly divided into three thematic categories based on the focus of the study and linkage of AMR to environmental factors: 1) immunocompetence and MDR transporter downregulation; 2) interactions with pest susceptibility; and 3) influences on in-hive antimicrobial properties (categorization shown in Table 4).

Table 4

Summary of article characteristics by thematic category.

Article General Topic of Interest		# of relevant articles	Article reference
Immunocompetence and multidrug resistance (MDR) transporter downregulation
Immunocompetence		9	[20,38,43–45,49,50,53,55]
MDR transporter downregulation		2	[41,42]
Increased morbidity		10	[20,38,41–45,49,50,53]
Increased Transmission		1	[38]
Susceptibility to pests
Parasites	Varroa Mite	4	[41,49,53,54]
Fungi	Nosema	2	[42,50]
	Chalkbrood (Ascosphaera apis)	1	[49]
	General	1	[38]
Bacteria	American foulbrood (Paenibacillus larvae)	9	[23,36,40,41,47–49,51,52]
	European foulbrood (Melissococcus plutonius)	2	[23,49]
	Other	1	[55]
Viruses		3	[38,45,53]
Hive Products
	Brazilian Red Propolis	3	[20,49,51]
	Other/General	1	[49]

Immunocompetence and MDR transporter downregulation

Of these 22 articles, nine focused on immunocompetence [20,38,43-45,49,50,53] and two investigated the downregulation of MDR transporters [41,42]. Combined, these eleven articles studied the synergistic effects of pesticides and climatic factors on honey bee innate immunity inhibition. Most articles found correlations between exposure to antibiotics or pathogens and decreasing honey bee immune function. One article found an increase in immune function when exposed to contaminants and infection, and one final article noted that dual exposure of pathogens and pesticides may increase transmission of disease [38,55]. Most articles focused on alterations in honey bee immunocompetence resulting from the inhibition of immune-essential endogenous microbiota within the gastrointestinal tract [20,38,43-45,49,50,53]. These articles described defensive reactions on the part of the biota (e.g. drug efflux, gene expression) to pollutants and environmental contaminants, as well as inhibition of these defensive mechanisms. Several articles explored alteration of MDR transporters, which are natural efflux pumps present in the cells of almost all animal species [41,42]. They pump many different classes of harmful compounds out of the cell, such as heavy metals, pesticides, and in some cases, antimicrobials [57]. Exposure to one of these compounds can trigger an upregulation of MDR efflux pump expression, thereby increasing resistance to multiple other types of compounds without direct exposure. In this way, MDR transporters can have substantial impact of the efficacy of drug dosages [42]. No article extrapolated this effect to the development of AMR.

Susceptibility to pests

Most studies investigated bacterial infections, with almost half of all articles focusing on Paenibacillus larvae, the causative agent of American foulbrood (n = 9/22) [23,36,40,41,47-49,51,52]. Melissococcus plutonius, the causative agent of European foulbrood, and Enterococcus faecalis was also studied [23,49,55]. The parasitic mite Varroa destructor (n = 4/22) [41,49,53,54] and the fungal genus Nosema (n = 2/22) [42,50] received some marginal exploration. These articles linked increased pollutants to reduced honey bee health in the form of antimicrobial peptide (AMP) expression modulation. Antimicrobial peptides are critical to insect immune defence, and by altering their transcription or expression, environmental pollutants may lead to increased infection and transmission of pests and pathogens [38]. Articles largely neglected to evaluate how this increase in disease may necessitate the need for increased drug treatment in the hive and to the development of AMR. Articles that predominantly focused on V. destructor infection investigated also investigated morbidity as a result of deformed wing virus infection due to the strong association between these two pathogens [58]. Morbidity as a result of Varroa mite infection often occurs due to secondary infection via deformed wing virus, Escherichia coli, or other bacterial or viral infections [58]. Therefore, most papers included in this review investigating pest susceptibility explored more than one pathogen at a time. The strong association between pest exposure and immune response, combined with the two-punch approach of most honey bee parasites (destruction of the cuticle followed by secondary viral or bacterial infection), and the broad-spectrum nature of honey bee immune factors resulted in significant overlap between articles binned under pest susceptibility and immunocompetence.

In-hive products

The third thematic category explored by this study was the self-administration of in-hive antimicrobial products on AMR. Three articles were included on this topic, all of which discussed the effect of the hive product propolis, an antibiotic and sealant made by the honey bees from resinous plant products, beeswax, and salivary enzymes [20,49,51]. Two of these three articles focused exclusively on the use of proplis [20,51], while one also investigated all-natural, pharmaceutically active compounds made and used by honey bees in the hive [49]. In regards to climatic variables, one article investigated seasonality and another investigated geographical origin as factors that impact the efficacy of propolis [20,51]. Together, these found that propolis was more inhibitory to bacteria, particularly P. larvae, when it was sourced from Brazil during the dry season. The remaining article looked how environmental factors influence self medicative behaviour among honey bees [49].

Discussion

This study synthesized current interdisciplinary research on AMR, climate change, and environmental pollution in honey bees through a One Health lens in order to characterize past studies and identify potential avenues for future research. The scoping review identified 22 articles published between 1993 and 2019 that examined how interactions between climatic, pollutive, and microbial factors influenced honey bee health through AMR risk and development. Most of these studies were experimental, indicating that research in this area is largely empirical and topically isolated. In general, articles described linkages between environmental factors such as temperature or insecticide pollution and the ability of honey bees to resist or treat hive infection, either at the colony or individual bee level, or at the biological or behavioural level. However, broad research on the linkage between AMR, climate change, and environmental pollutants on honey bee health was generally lacking, indicating a future need for interdisciplinary research in this field.

Honey bee immunity is complex and dependent on both behavioural and biological factors outside of, and within, the honey bee. Our study identified an opportunity for further investigation of immunocompetence and MDR transporter regulation as a consequence of environmental determinants. The relationship between immune function and MDR transporter regulation is pertinent to the field of AMR for a number of potential reasons. Firstly, any resistance acquired by honey bee cells via MDR transport upregulation could possibly increase the risk of AMR in symbiotic microbes [59,60]. Bacterial pathogens can acquire resistance genes through horizontal genetic transfer (HGT) [60]. There is evidence that insects transfer genetic material bidirectionally through HGT with intracellular primary endosymbiont bacteria within polyploid bacteriocyte cells [61]. Evidence of exchange of bacterial genes with fungal pathogens by HGT further strengthens this possibility [62], but specific evidence of the transfer of AMR genes through these mechanisms remains largely unstudied. As this theme did not emerge from the papers included in our scoping review, evaluation of its possibility for honey bees is outside the scope of this paper, but presents an intriguing area of interest for future One Health research.

Secondly, honey bee cell membrane transporters may reduce microbial exposure to administered antimicrobials. Natural honey bee cell membrane transporters remove intracellular compounds from the cytoplasm [57]. When pesticides are introduced to the hive, these transporters are activated to prevent the compounds from accumulating. Both pesticides and antimicrobials (including vital acaricides such as coumaphos) are substrates of these transporters [41,42]. As a result, pesticide-induced upregulation of these transporters may concurrently accelerate the removal of antimicrobials from the cell and decrease the intracellular concentration. With less antimicrobials circulating within the honey bee cells, intracellular pathogens such as Nosema spp. and pathogens that live within the body cavity such as Ascosphaera apis may be exposed to lower dosages during this upregulation of membrane transporters [61,62]. By “shading” potential pathogens from antimicrobial treatment, there presents an increased risk for AMR development by the microbes. A similar effect has been studied in the public health sector through the use of small colony variants of Staphylococcus aureus, whereby the microbe is theorized to shelter from antimicrobial treatment within host cells to increase resistance against treatment and allow recurring infections [63,64]. One article in our study highlighted the synergistic effect of simultaneous exposure to contaminants and pathogens [55]. Although this article demonstrates linked immune responses between two distinct etiological agents, the specific pathway was not explored and represents an opportunity for future study [55].

Lastly, with a decrease in honey bee immunity, pathogens are able to more quickly spread and develop inside the hive. Articles within our study primarily focused on immunity as a factor of honey bee endogenous microbiota, highlighting correlations between environmental pollutants and changes in microbiota function. These microbiota have been found to be exceptionally important both in honey bee pathogenic defence, as well as in recovery [65]. Small changes in the immune function of the honey bee linked to changes in these microbes can have drastic effects on the ability of honey bees to fight off disease. However, the articles in this study failed to evaluate how an adjustment in immunity may correspond to an increased risk of AMR. Notably, human studies have shown that a compromised immune system increases the risk of AMR emergence [66,67]. This can be due to inhibition of synergistic actions between the immune system and the antimicrobial in reaching an effective minimum inhibitory concentration at the site of infection, an overall increase in disease prevalence, or a higher rate of mutation resulting from unhindered population growth. However, these connections are absent in the articles in this study, and therefore there remains the opportunity to address these connections in the future.

Our scoping review exposed correlations between environmental factors and an increased susceptibility of honey bees to disease. The predominant cause of vulnerability in the hive was due to modulation of AMPs by environmental pollutants. These peptides serve a critical role in innate defences against pathogens in all insects, including honey bees [68]. The effect of AMP on bacteria and viruses was a key focus of included articles due to the high incidence of American foulbrood (a bacterial infection) and Varroa Mite, which normally increase morbidity in the hive through secondary bacterial and viral infections [53]. Therefore, because most articles investigated morbidity as a result of bacteria and viruses either directly or indirectly, it follows that AMPs, the primary defence against these organisms, would also be investigated. As shown in human and livestock animal studies, an increase in disease susceptibility inevitably corresponds to an increase in antimicrobial drug treatment, with a subsequent increased risk of AMR [69-71]. Although increased antimicrobial usage is commonly inferred to correlate with an increased risk of AMR, none of the studies in this review investigated this connection. Therefore, there remains an opportunity to holistically connect evidence streams between disease susceptibility, treatment requirement, and risk of AMR to determine their interdependencies.

Although external antimicrobial treatment by beekeepers was the primary focus of research included in this review, our study revealed an increased interest in zoopharmacognostic (self-medicating) behaviours within the hive itself. While normal drug treatment in apiaries occurs once or twice per year in the spring and fall, self-medication processes by honey bees themselves within the hive are continuously implemented [72]. Additionally, honey bee self-medication utilizes products within the hive that are prone to variable strength and efficacy, partly due to outside factors. Our study exposed some contributors to this antimicrobial variance, namely temperature and seasonality. However, domestication has led to some additional challenges and considerations, such as the mixing of honey bees and antimicrobial products (e.g., honey and propolis) from multiple geographic sources. Given the sensitivity of hive products to climatic conditions, the relocation of honey bees to new climates and environments may alter the antimicrobial properties and efficacy of hive products. There is an opportunity to investigate how the alteration of these products may influence the ability of colonies to appropriately self-medicate. Despite this growing concern, we did not identify any studies that directly correlated honey bee hive product self-medication with an increased threat of AMR. Given that inconsistent antimicrobial strength can lead to AMR, and environmental conditions have been shown to contribute to antimicrobial inconsistency both in bees as well as the general population [20,73], connecting these two areas remains an opportunity for future interdisciplinary research.

Strengths and limitations

While all literature reviews face the possibility of failing to capture all eligible articles, we aimed to minimize this risk by following a rigourous, systematic approach [74]. We adopted a search strategy without language limitations in order to reflect the global breadth of the issues at hand. However, this global undertaking resulted in the necessary exclusion of 36 articles that were deemed eligible through abstract screening but were not available to us for full-text review (S3 File). We recognize that 8/22 included articles were observational/descriptive studies or review articles, and less useful than the 14 experimental studies for identifying causal relationships. We also recognize one article with a questionable link between AMR and climate change or environmental pollution. The Prodelalová et al. (2017) paper used a surrogate virus to assess the effectiveness of disinfectants against the viruses of interest (picornaviruses) at different temperatures. The experimental model itself was tenuous and did not factor largely into our findings. However, the novel insights derived from this study allowed for the identification of multiple literature gaps and future areas of interdisciplinary research and still illustrate the usefulness of honey bees as an organism to determine the One Health impacts of AMR, climate change, and environmental pollution.

Conclusions

This study mapped current literature investigating the relationship between AMR and honey bees in the context of climate change and environmental pollutants through a One Health lens. We identified considerable potential for further interdisciplinary research to holistically correlate environmental influences on honey bee immunity, disease susceptibility, and self medicative behaviours on AMR risk. Despite the immense agricultural and economic significance of honey bees globally, we identified a lack of literature on honey bee health in the context of AMR. Our findings provide the basis for future research to understand the complex linkages of AMR, climate change, environmental pollution and honey bee health in the context of One Health. This study will contribute to the growing body of One Health and interdisciplinary research to find novel solutions for global “wicked” problems beyond the beehive.

Completed checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Screening questions that define the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the two-level screening process by two independent reviewers.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Data extraction table of complete study characteristics of included aritlces.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Protocol outlining the systematic scoping review created using JBI guidelines and following the PRISMA-ScR checklist–time-stamped on December 19, 2019.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Complete search strings for all databases searched in this scoping review.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

List of papers excluded due to the inability to obtain full-text documents.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-34201

One Health, One Hive: A scoping review of honey bees, climate change, pollutants, and antimicrobial resistance

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Otto,

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 Jul 30 2021 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:  http://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,

Guy Smagghe, PhD

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.

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

and

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

2. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information File S6 which you refer to in your text on page 37.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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: This manuscript is about a scoping review to investigate interactions between climate change and AMR.

The authors describe that 37 articles were excluded because they were unable to locate full-text pdfs. I wonder which efforts were done to get access to these papers. The authors could be invited to send reprints or by interlibrarian service you could have asked for a copy of the paper. Are the authors sure that you didn't miss valuable information doing so?

I have checked a few references and I believe that the numbering is not correct. For instance page 20, lines 270-271, the paper on horizontal gene transfer is definitely 58 and not 59. The same on page 21, lines 282-285: this should be 61 and 62, and not 63. Please check the entire document carefully.

I would like to see some more criticism in the discussion section. For instance horizontal gene transfer: how frequently has it been described in the context of bee pathogens?

Page 21, lines 276-278: do you suggest here that cell membrane transporters are used to eliminate antimicrobials from the cytoplasm? Please explain better.

Another criticism that is lacking. In the paper of Gregorc et al (19) the authors examined gene expression of pesticide exposed in vitro reared larvae. Differences were found in some immunity-related genes like AMPs. However, challenge infection was done with varroa mites and not with bacteria or viruses. Does this allow to make any conclusions about immuno-competence? May be yes, but it is important to dig deeper in the refered papers.

**********

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: 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.

4 Aug 2021

Reviewer’s Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is about a scoping review to investigate interactions between climate change and AMR.

Comment 1: The authors describe that 37 articles were excluded because they were unable to locate full-text pdfs. I wonder which efforts were done to get access to these papers. The authors could be invited to send reprints or by interlibrarian service you could have asked for a copy of the paper. Are the authors sure that you didn't miss valuable information doing so?

Response: Lines 153-158 (version with tracked changes)

Please see the added text to address the concern about missing articles. Second, in our review of this list, we were able to identify one additional article that was now available to us through our library. We have now included 22 articles in the study and revised the text, numbers, and citations throughout the document to reflect this. We recognize the importance of the remaining 36 excluded articles and ensured that every effort was made to locate them. We first utilized both University of Alberta and University of Guelph libraries, and when those resources were exhausted we turned to the interlibrary loan programs at both institutions to recover the remaining articles. Through the interlibrary loan we were able to locate a further 6 articles which we included within the screening process. The remaining 36 articles could not be found. We have described this extra step within our manuscript.

Comment 2: I have checked a few references and I believe that the numbering is not correct. For instance page 20, lines 270-271, the paper on horizontal gene transfer is definitely 58 and not 59. The same on page 21, lines 282-285: this should be 61 and 62, and not 63. Please check the entire document carefully.

Response Lines 478-639 (version with tracked changes): Thank you for finding this error. We have fixed and included the corrected bibliography, including the added reference mentioned above.

Comment 3: I would like to see some more criticism in the discussion section. For instance horizontal gene transfer: how frequently has it been described in the context of bee pathogens?

Responses:

Lines 368-377 (version with tracked changes): We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about being critical of the included literature. We did not conduct a risk of bias assessment as it is not a requirement for systematic scoping reviews according to JBI and PRISMA-ScR. However, we have included some statements in this section about the quality of the included literature and have highlighted some specific concerns.

Lines 290-293 (version with tracked changes): Regarding HGT, this was not a specific theme that emerged from the scoping review. We brought in the idea about HGT to link to the broader discussion on honey bee immunity and the idea insects could actually transfer genes back and forth between bacteria. As papers that linked AMR and CC/EP did not include HGT directly, we did not assess this frequency. We merely posit this as an area for future interest and research as it was not a direct finding of the review. As a result, we do not spend time formally evaluating the merits of the specific papers and conclude the paragraph by stating that evidence of transfer of AMR genes through these mechanisms remains largely unstudied. Further evaluation of these mechanisms are outside of the scope of this paper, which is focused on the link between AMR and Climate Change or AMR and environmental pollution in honey bee health. We brought in this idea from papers that supported the idea linked to changes in the microbiota of the honeybees and the fact that they are continuously exposed to pesticides and then transfer these things to pathogens in the honeybee gut.

Comment 4: Page 21, lines 276-278: do you suggest here that cell membrane transporters are used to eliminate antimicrobials from the cytoplasm? Please explain better.

Response Lines 290-298 (version with tracked changes): Thank you for highlighting this need for clarification. We have modified the text to better explain the causal pathway from transporter upregulation to AMR risk.

Comment 5: Another criticism that is lacking. In the paper of Gregorc et al (19) the authors examined gene expression of pesticide exposed in vitro reared larvae. Differences were found in some immunity-related genes like AMPs. However, challenge infection was done with varroa mites and not with bacteria or viruses. Does this allow to make any conclusions about immuno-competence? May be yes, but it is important to dig deeper in the refered papers.

Response Lines 245-252 (version with tracked changes): Thank you for this important comment. We recognize the need to clarify how we decided to “bin” articles. Although a full discussion of honey bee immune pathways is beyond the scope of this paper, we have made edits to better acknowledge how pest and parasite exposure is linked to immunocompetence.

To provide further clarification, we explain the specific case of Gregorc et al. (2012) here for the reviewer’s benefit.

Morbidity as a result of Varroa mite exposure occurs via cellular invasion of Deformed Wing Virus, Escherichia coli, or other secondary infection. This clarification has been included.

Gregorc et al. (2012) explored immunocompetence via titres of deformed wing virus as well as other secondary pathogens in response to varroa mite exposure. “Loads for DWV and IAPV were elevated in bees challenged with Varroa (Fig. 1A), an expected result given that Varroa is a potential vector of these and other honey bee RNA viruses (Chen and Siede, 2007). This result was confirmed for Deformed Wing Virus in individual larvae, whereby larvae exposed to mites had a 900-fold higher average load for DWV (n = 113 and 94 assayed bees; Fig. 2).“

Table 2 line 19 in our manuscript highlights this viral focus of the paper and therefore its “immunocompetence tag”. The challenge by Varroa mite in this case was listed only under health aspects of concern, while the immunocompetence conclusions were drawn from the microbe of interest--deformed wing virus.

Further, honey bee immune responses overlap significantly for various types of pathogens. This generalization is implied Gregorc et al. in their reference to “xenobiotic detoxification.” For example, antimicrobial peptides such as defensin have wide broad spectrum efficacy and are upregulated in response to Fungi, Bacteria, Viruses, and parasites (see DOI: 10.2478/v10289-012-0013-y).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

25 Jan 2022

One Health, One Hive: A scoping review of honey bees, climate change, pollutants, and antimicrobial resistance

PONE-D-20-34201R1

Dear Dr. Otto,

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,

Guy Smagghe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

7 Feb 2022

PONE-D-20-34201R1

One Health, One Hive: A scoping review of honey bees, climate change, pollutants, and antimicrobial resistance

Dear Dr. Otto:

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

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 plosone@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

Prof. Guy Smagghe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE