Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standard methods for maintaining adult Apis mellifera in cages under in vitro laboratory conditions

Open access
Williams, Geoffrey R, Alaux, Cédric, Costa, Cecilia, Csáki, Támas, Doublet, Vincent, Eisenhardt, Dorothea, Fries, Ingemar, Kuhn, Rolf, McMahon, Dino P, Medrzycki, Piotr, Murray, Tomás E, Natsopoulou, Myrsini E, Neumann, Peter, Oliver, Randy, Paxton, Robert J, Pernal, Stephen F, Shutler, Dave, Tanner, Gina, van der Steen, Jozef J M, Brodschneider, Robert·2013·Journal of Apicultural Research

Abstract

SummaryAdult honey bees are maintained in vitro in laboratory cages for a variety of purposes. For example, researchers may wish to perform experiments on honey bees caged individually or in groups to study aspects of parasitology, toxicology, or physiology under highly controlled conditions, or they may cage whole frames to obtain newly emerged workers of known age cohorts. Regardless of purpose, researchers must manage a number of variables, ranging from selection of study subjects (e.g. honey bee subspecies) to experimental environment (e.g. temperature and relative humidity). Although decisions made by researchers may not necessarily jeopardize the scientific rigour of an experiment, they may profoundly affect results, and may make comparisons with similar, but independent, studies difficult. Focusing primarily on workers, we provide recommendations for maintaining adults under in vitro laboratory conditions, whilst acknowledging gaps in our understanding that require further attention. We specifically describe how to properly obtain honey bees, and how to choose appropriate cages, incubator conditions, and food to obtain biologically relevant and comparable experimental results. Additionally, we provide broad recommendations for experimental design and statistical analyses of data that arises from experiments using caged honey bees. The ultimate goal of this, and of all COLOSS BEEBOOK papers, is not to stifle science with restrictions, but rather to provide researchers with the appropriate tools to generate comparable data that will build upon our current understanding of honey bees.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3896/ibra.1.52.1.04

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Williams, G. R., Alaux, C., Costa, C., Csáki, T., Doublet, V., Eisenhardt, D., Fries, I., Kuhn, R., McMahon, D. P., Medrzycki, P., Murray, T. E., Natsopoulou, M. E., Neumann, P., Oliver, R., Paxton, R. J., Pernal, S. F., Shutler, D., Tanner, G., van der Steen, J. J. M., & Brodschneider, R.
Venue
Journal of Apicultural Research
Published
2013-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
1-36
ISSN
  • 0021-8839 (ISSN-L)
  • 2078-6913
OpenAlex
W2073528755
Cited by
373
References
70
FWCI
20.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standard methods for maintaining adult Apis mellifera in cages under in vitro laboratory conditions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3896/ibra.1.52.1.04
The paper
Williams, G. R., Alaux, C., Costa, C., Csáki, T., Doublet, V., Eisenhardt, D., Fries, I., Kuhn, R., McMahon, D. P., Medrzycki, P., Murray, T. E., Natsopoulou, M. E., Neumann, P., Oliver, R., Paxton, R. J., Pernal, S. F., Shutler, D., Tanner, G., van der Steen, J. J. M., & Brodschneider, R. (2013). Standard methods for maintaining adult Apis mellifera in cages under in vitro laboratory conditions. Journal of Apicultural Research. https://doi.org/10.3896/ibra.1.52.1.04

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.