search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
THE SCIENTIST’S PERSPECTIVE


clever PhD student in my lab, decided to dissolve propolis in alcohol. He collected propolis from colonies in our area of Minnesota (mostly from the genus Populus, same as the Biblical Balm of Gilead; and in particular, Populus deltoi- des, or cottonwood trees,) and had some shipped from Brazil where propolis is harvested en masse for human medicine. To make a usable solution, he dissolved the propolis in 70% lab-grade ethanol, the percentage of solvent known to main- tain the highest amount of antimicrobial activity from the resin. Then he painted the interior of one set of bee boxes with the Minnesota propolis extract, in known quantity and concentration. He painted another set of boxes with the Bra- zilian propolis extract and a third set with just 70% ethanol as a control, in case the alcohol itself had antimicrobial proper-  pollen, brood and bees. Mike marked newly emerged adult bees from each colony with a dot of paint on their thorax, so we could recollect them, then left them alone in the colony for a week. When the week was up, he retrieved the paint-marked


bees, and compared their immune system function. He mea- sured the production (or expression) of genes that make an- timicrobial proteins, using a molecular technique called re- al-time quantitative PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction). Our prediction was borne out: The immune gene expression of bees hived in colonies with a propolis envelope, whether the





Hive entrance lined with propolis


propolis was derived from local resins or Brazilian resin, was lower compared to bees in colonies without the propolis en-  - ing for the bees. To verify our results, another PhD student, Renata Bor- ba, repeated the study, adding on additional measures of im-


87


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100