The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Donatella Macchia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings
World Allergy Organization Journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:Background In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Methods Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts . The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Results Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. Conclusion This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.
The World Allergy Organization journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Cross reactivity between European hornet and yellow jacket venoms
European annals of allergy and clinical immunology, 2010Co-Authors: Maurizio Severino, Donatella Macchia, Beatrice Caruso, Patrizia Bonadonna, D. Labardi, P. Campi, Gianni PassalacquaAbstract:BACKGROUND: Cross-reactions between venoms may be responsible for multiple diagnostic positivities in hymenoptera allergy. There is limited data on the cross-reactivity between Vespula spp and Vespa Crabro, which is an important cause of severe reactions in some parts of Europe. We studied by CAP-inhibition assays and immunoblotting the cross-reactivity between the two venoms. METHODS: Sera from patients with non discriminative skin/CAP positivity to both Vespula and Vespa Crabro were collected for the analyses. Inhibition assays were carried out with a CAP method, incubating the sera separately with both venoms and subsequently measuring the specific IgE to venoms themselves. Immunoblotting was performed on sera with ambiguous results at the CAP-inhibition. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had a severe reaction after Vespa Crabro sting and proved skin and CAP positive also to vespula. In 11/17 patients, Vespula venom completely inhibited IgE binding to VC venom, whereas VC venom inhibited binding to Vespula venom only partially ( Language: en
-
Cross reactivity between European Hornet and Yellow Jacket venoms.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2009Co-Authors: Maurizio Severino, Donatella Macchia, Beatrice Caruso, Patrizia Bonadonna, D. Labardi, P. Campi, Gianni PassalacquaAbstract:Summary Background: Cross-reactions between venoms may be responsible for multiple diagnostic positivities in hymenoptera allergy. There is limited data on the cross-reactivity between Vespula spp and Vespa Crabro, which is an important cause of severe reactions in some parts of Europe. We studied by CAP-inhibition assays and immunoblotting the cross-reactivity between the two venoms. Methods: Sera from patients with non discriminative skin/CAP positivity to both Vespula and Vespa Crabro were collected for the analyses. Inhibition assays were carried out with a CAP method, incubating the sera separately with both venoms and subsequently measuring the specific IgE to venoms themselves. Immunoblotting was performed on sera with ambiguous results at the CAP-inhibition. Results: Seventeen patients had a severe reaction after Vespa Crabro sting and proved skin and CAP positive also to vespula. In 11/17 patients, Vespula venom completely inhibited IgE binding to VC venom, whereas VC venom inhibited binding to Vespula venom only partially (
Giovanni Passalacqua - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings
World Allergy Organization Journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:Background In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Methods Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts . The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Results Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. Conclusion This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.
The World Allergy Organization journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
Maurizio Severino - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings
World Allergy Organization Journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:Background In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Methods Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts . The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Results Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. Conclusion This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.
The World Allergy Organization journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Cross reactivity between European hornet and yellow jacket venoms
European annals of allergy and clinical immunology, 2010Co-Authors: Maurizio Severino, Donatella Macchia, Beatrice Caruso, Patrizia Bonadonna, D. Labardi, P. Campi, Gianni PassalacquaAbstract:BACKGROUND: Cross-reactions between venoms may be responsible for multiple diagnostic positivities in hymenoptera allergy. There is limited data on the cross-reactivity between Vespula spp and Vespa Crabro, which is an important cause of severe reactions in some parts of Europe. We studied by CAP-inhibition assays and immunoblotting the cross-reactivity between the two venoms. METHODS: Sera from patients with non discriminative skin/CAP positivity to both Vespula and Vespa Crabro were collected for the analyses. Inhibition assays were carried out with a CAP method, incubating the sera separately with both venoms and subsequently measuring the specific IgE to venoms themselves. Immunoblotting was performed on sera with ambiguous results at the CAP-inhibition. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had a severe reaction after Vespa Crabro sting and proved skin and CAP positive also to vespula. In 11/17 patients, Vespula venom completely inhibited IgE binding to VC venom, whereas VC venom inhibited binding to Vespula venom only partially ( Language: en
-
Cross reactivity between European Hornet and Yellow Jacket venoms.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2009Co-Authors: Maurizio Severino, Donatella Macchia, Beatrice Caruso, Patrizia Bonadonna, D. Labardi, P. Campi, Gianni PassalacquaAbstract:Summary Background: Cross-reactions between venoms may be responsible for multiple diagnostic positivities in hymenoptera allergy. There is limited data on the cross-reactivity between Vespula spp and Vespa Crabro, which is an important cause of severe reactions in some parts of Europe. We studied by CAP-inhibition assays and immunoblotting the cross-reactivity between the two venoms. Methods: Sera from patients with non discriminative skin/CAP positivity to both Vespula and Vespa Crabro were collected for the analyses. Inhibition assays were carried out with a CAP method, incubating the sera separately with both venoms and subsequently measuring the specific IgE to venoms themselves. Immunoblotting was performed on sera with ambiguous results at the CAP-inhibition. Results: Seventeen patients had a severe reaction after Vespa Crabro sting and proved skin and CAP positive also to vespula. In 11/17 patients, Vespula venom completely inhibited IgE binding to VC venom, whereas VC venom inhibited binding to Vespula venom only partially (
Marina Mauro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings
World Allergy Organization Journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:Background In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Methods Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts . The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Results Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. Conclusion This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Vespa Crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa Crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.
The World Allergy Organization journal, 2018Co-Authors: Donatella Macchia, Gabriele Cortellini, Marina Mauro, Elisa Meucci, Oliviero Quercia, Mariangela Manfredi, Alessandro Massolo, Maurizio Valentini, Maurizio Severino, Giovanni PassalacquaAbstract:In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa Crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.
-
Venom immunotherapy in patients with allergic reactions to insect stings
Expert review of clinical immunology, 2017Co-Authors: Cristoforo Incorvaia, Marina Mauro, Bruna L. Gritti, Eleni Makrì, Erminia RidoloAbstract:ABSTRACTIntroduction: Allergy to Hymenoptera (Apis mellifera, Vespula species, Polistes species, Vespa Crabro) venom can be safely and effectively treated by venom immunotherapy (VIT), which in the 40 years since its introduction has been able to prevent reactions to stings, and to treatment as well, though systemic reactions, occasionally severe, are possible.Areas covered: We reviewed the recent literature on VIT by searching in PubMed for the terms ‘venom immunotherapy’ and ‘Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy’ to highlight the current status of VIT and the likely development in the coming years.Expert commentary: VIT, provided the correct choice of the venom and adequate venom preparations and maintenance doses are used, is a treatment of great value in preventing systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. A 5-year duration ensures a prolonged tolerance to stings following VIT discontinuation, unless patients suffer from mastocytosis. In fact, due to reports of fatal reactions after stopping VIT, patients ...
Erik Schmolz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mating System of the European Hornet Vespa Crabro: Male Seeking Strategies and Evidence for the Involvement of a Sex Pheromone
Journal of chemical ecology, 2006Co-Authors: S. Spiewok, Erik Schmolz, Joachim RutherAbstract:We describe details of the mate finding strategy of drones of the European hornet, Vespa Crabro, and present evidence for the involvement of sex pheromones. Tests were carried out with free flying drones in natural habitats. Males patrolled the nest site itself, as well as nearby nonresource-based sites, without showing territorial behavior. Patrolling was restricted to sunny spots in the vegetation, and thus, the locations changed throughout the day. Drones were attracted to both caged gynes and to dead workers treated with gyne extracts, indicating the presence of a female-produced sex attractant. Treated workers also elicited copulation attempts by the attracted drones. Extracts from gynes, workers, and drones contained exclusively cuticular lipids, and the profile from gynes was much more diverse than that of workers and drones. The most striking differences observed related to the alkenes, monomethyl- and dimethylalkanes. The results provide a lead for potential attracting and copulation-releasing semiochemicals in V. Crabro.
-
Strategies of social wasps for thermal homeostasis in light paper nests
Journal of Thermal Biology, 2006Co-Authors: R. Klingner, K. Richter, Erik SchmolzAbstract:1. With the derived free-run temperature of light paper nests the influence of the thermal capacity of the nest or the nest site, respectively, on thermal homeostasis is quantified. 2. Gravimetric information from the continuous investigation of the nest weight coupled with temperature and humidity measurement allows the correlation of the colonies’ foraging behavior with their heat production inside the nest. 3. Wasps (Vespa Crabro) do not regulate their nest environment towards a specific and constant temperature but rather build nests adapted to their foraging behavior and general energy budget.
-
Influence of Illuminance and Forager Experience on Use of Orientation Cues in Social Wasps (Vespinae)
Journal of Insect Behavior, 2004Co-Authors: Inge Steinmetz, Erik SchmolzAbstract:We tested the influence of illuminance and level of forager experience on nest orientation behavior of the social wasps Vespula vulgaris, Vespa Crabro , and Dolichovespula saxonica in an artificial laboratory tunnel system. The number of wasps which oriented themselves chemically via a terrestrial trail or used visual orientation were determined at different illuminance levels for foragers which were naïve or experienced with the tunnel system. In V. vulgaris and D. saxonica , mainly the young and naïve foragers used the chemical trail for orientation in brightness. Experienced foragers used visual cues for nest orientation. In V. Crabro , naïve and experienced foragers followed the chemical trail in a similar intensity. In darkness, when visual orientation was limited, the relative importance of the chemical trail increased dramatically in all species and all experience classes.
-
Calorimetric investigations on the action of alarm pheromones in the hornet Vespa Crabro
Thermochimica Acta, 2004Co-Authors: Caroline Maclean, Erik SchmolzAbstract:This study investigated the effects of alarm pheromone components on the heat production rates of hornets (Vespa Crabro) by means of direct calorimetry. In a flow-through system, pheromones from hornets, honeybees (Apis mellifera) and yellowjackets (Vespula vulgaris) were sucked through a measuring vessel containing a group of hornet workers. The locomotive reaction of hornet workers was recorded as an increase of the heat production rate. Hornets exhibited a strong response to their own alarm pheromone components, mainly 2-methyl-3-butene-2-ol (MBO). They also reacted intensively upon the main alarm pheromone component of the honey bee, isopentylactetate (IPA), but less pronounced to alarm pheromone components of yellowjackets. The metabolic response of hornets to MBO was dose-dependent. The heat production rates of provoked hornet workers were similar to those of flying hornets. (z)-9-Pentacosene, a substance which is believed to be a thermoregulative brood pheromone, induced no metabolic reaction.
-
Direct calorimetric measurement of heat production rates in flying hornets (Vespa Crabro; Hymenoptera)
Thermochimica Acta, 1999Co-Authors: Erik Schmolz, B Schricker, Nina Brüders, Ingolf LamprechtAbstract:Abstract Heat production rates of flying hornet drones, workers and queens have been measured by means of direct calorimetry. A novel kind of calorimeter including a flight roundabout, to which insects can be fixed, has been constructed for this purpose. Heat production rates of flying drones and workers showed a weak negative correlation with ambient temperature. Mean specific heat production rates for workers were 159±38 mW g −1 at 20°C and 103±44 mW g −1 at 30°C, and for drones 119±27 mW g −1 at 20°C and 70±23 mW g −1 at 35°C. The same weak negative correlation with ambient temperature could be shown for flight speed, whereas wing-beat frequencies were independent of temperature with values between 85 and 97 Hz. Methodical limitations are discussed in the application of direct calorimetry for flight investigations as well as in some biological implications of our results.