Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Relationship between total phenolic contents and biological properties of propolis from 20 different regions in South Korea

  • Xue Wang1,
  • Karuppasamy Sankarapandian2,
  • Yizhe Cheng3,
  • Soon Ok Woo4,
  • Hyung Wook Kwon2,
  • Haribalan Perumalsamy2 and
  • Young-Joon Ahn3Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:65

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1043-y

Received: 2 September 2015

Accepted: 12 February 2016

Published: 18 February 2016

Abstract

Background

Propolis (or bee glue), collected from botanical sources by honey bee, has been used as a popular natural remedies in folk medicine throughout the world. This study was conducted to assess growth inhibitory effects of ethanol extracts of propolis (EEPs) from 20 different regions in South Korea on human intestinal bacteria as well as their human β-amyloid precursor cleavage enzyme (BACE-1), acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitory, antioxidant, antiproliferative, and anti-human rhinovirus activities.

Methods

The Bonferroni multiple-comparison method was used to test for significant differences in total polyphenol and flavonoid contents among EEP samples using SAS 9.13 program. Correlation coefficient (r) analysis of the biological activities of EEP samples was determined using their 50 % inhibition concentration or minimal inhibitory concentration values and their polyphenol or flavonoid contents in 20 native Korean EEP samples.

Results

The amounts of total polyphenol and flavonoids in the Korean EEP samples ranged from 49 to 239 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g EEP (Brazilian, Chinese, and Australian samples, 127–142 mg GAE/g EEP) and from 21 to 50 mg quercetin equivalent (QE)/g EEP (Brazilian, Chinese, and Australian samples, 33–53 mg QE/g EEP), respectively. Correlation coefficient analysis showed that total polyphenol contents may be negatively correlated with 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging activity (r = −0.872) and total flavonoid content has no correlation with the activity (r = 0.071). No direct correlation between BACE-1 inhibition, AChE inhibition, or antiproliferative activity and total polyphenol or total flavonoid content in Korean EEP samples was found. Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were observed to have different degrees of antimicrobial susceptibility to the EEP samples examined, although ciprofloxacin susceptibility among the bacterial groups did not differ greatly.

Conclusions

Further studies will warrant possible applications of propolis as potential therapeutic BACE-1 blocker, antioxidant, antiproliferative agent, and antimicrobial agent.

Keywords

Korean propolis BACE-1 Antioxidant Acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity Antiproliferative activity Antibacterial activity Anti-human rhinovirus activity Polyphenol Flavonoid Correlation

Background

Propolis (or bee glue), a strongly adhesive, resinous natural substance collected from botanical sources (branches, flowers, pollen, and buds) by honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) [1], has been used as a popular natural remedy in folk medicine throughout the world. Bees use propolis to seal holes in their honeycombs, smooth out the internal walls, and protect the entrance toward intruders [2, 3]. Propolis is generally composed of 50 % resin and balsam, 30 % wax, 10 % essential and aromatic oils, 5 % pollen, and 5 % various other substances [3], although the precise composition of raw propolis varies with several factors such as botanical source and geographical zones [13].

Propolis has been reported to possess a broad spectrum of biological activities, such as anticancer, anticomplement, antihypertensive, antihyperalgesic, hepatoprotective, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, immunomodulatory, antimicrobial, and antiparasite properties [1, 35]. The chemical variability, aroma, and color (brown, green, red, and yellow) of propolis significantly depend on its botanical source, age of the honey preparation, geographical zones, and collection season [2, 6, 7]. In Brazil, propolis from the southeast region and Amazon contains chiefly phenylated phenylpropanoids and polyprenylated benzophenones, respectively, whereas geranyl flavonones have been reported for propolis from the Pacific region, such as Taiwan and Okinawa [7]. Propolis from eastern Mediterranean regions, such as Greece, Crete, and Turkey, may contain predominantly diterpenoids [7]. The variation in the chemical composition of propolis from different origin also causes the diverse biological activities [7]. More than 300 constituents, including aromatic acids and esters, flavonoids (chalcones, flavanones, flavones, flavonols, and dihydroflavonols), waxy acids and terpenoids, were isolated from raw propolis [1, 2]. In Brazil, 12 distinct groups of propolis have been classified according to their botanical origin and biological properties [8]. Very little work exists in relation to biological properties of native Korean propolis, although the antioxidant activity of propolis from several regions in South Korea have been described by Ahn et al. [9].

The aim of the current study was to assess total polyphenol and flavonoid contents as well as the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging, antiproliferative, anti-human rhinovirus (HRV), human β-amyloid precursor cleavage enzyme (BACE-1), and human acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitory activities of ethanol extracts of propolis (EEPs) from 20 different regions in South Korea. In addition, the growth inhibitory effects of the EEP samples on five harmful intestinal bacteria, two nonpathogenic intestinal bacteria, six lactic acid-producing bacteria, and an acidulating bacterium, including Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria, using a microtiter plate-based bioassay and compared with those of ciprofloxacin, a second-generation fluoroquinolone antibiotic with a broad spectrum [10]. The biological activities of the Korean EEP samples were compared with those of EEP samples from Brazil with diverse chemical composition, Australia with various biologically active flavonoids, phenylpropanoids, and stilbenes and prenylated stilbenes, and China with chemical profiles similar to Korean propolis [11]. A correlation between total polyphenol or flavonoid content and biological activities is also discussed.

Methods

Materials

Ascorbic acid, (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) (MTT), DPPH, gallic acid, quercetin, and sulforhodamine B (SRB) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). 5,5-Dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB), Folin-Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent, and acetylthiocholine iodide (ATChI) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Commercially available antibiotic ciprofloxacin, anticancer agent cisplatin, and AChE inhibitors donepezil hydrochloride, huperzine A and tacrine were supplied by Sigma-Aldrich. Ribavirin was purchased from Tokyo Chemical Industry (Tokyo, Japan). Anitbiotic-antimycotic was purchased from Invitrogen (Grand Island, NY). Recombinant human BACE-1 and fluorogenic peptide substrate (FPS) Mca-SEVNLDAEFRK (Dnp) RR-NH2 were purchased from R&D system (Minneapolis, MN). Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and Eggerth-Gagnon (EG) agar were purchased from Becton, Dickinson and Company (Sparks, MD) and Eiken Chemical (Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Minimum essential medium (MEM), RPMI 1640 medium, and fetal bovine serum (FBS) were supplied by Life Technologies (Grand Island, NY). All of the other chemicals and reagents used in this study were of reagent-grade quality and available commercially.

Propolis samples and extraction

The 20 native Korean propolis samples (P1–20) used in this study are listed in Table 1, along with coordinates. The samples were collected as the crude materials by beekeepers in various regions of South Korea. Propolis samples from Australia, Brazil, and China were purchased from Aussia Pharma (Silverwater, Australia), Uniflora Apicultores Associados (Olimpia, Brazil), and KangSiNong Biotechnology (Wuhan, China), respectively. Because EEP is one of the richest sources of phenolic acids and flavonoids [12], these propolis samples were extracted with ethanol at room temperature for 1 day, and filtered. The combined filtrated was concentrated to dryness by rotary evaporation at 40 °C. The ethanol extracts were kept at −20 °C until use.
Table 1

Propolis samples supplied by 20 different apiaries in various geographic regions of South Korea

Sample no.

Apiary site (Province)

Coordinates

P1

Anseong (Gyeonggi)

37°00'30"N, 127°16'30"E

P2

Icheon (Gyeonggi)

37°15'50"N, 127°29'03"E

P3

Yangpyeong (Gyeonggi)

37°29'32"N, 127°29'16"E

P4

Goyang (Gyeonggi)

37°39'30"N, 126°49'50"E

P5

Wonju (Gangwon)

37°20'15"N, 127°56'47"E

P6

Goesan (Chungbuk)

36°48'45"N, 127°47'20"E

P7

Chungju (Chungbuk)

36°58'12"N, 127°57'09"E

P8

Daejeon

36°22'08"N, 127°22'27"E

P9

Dangjin (Chungnam)

36°53'54"N, 126°37'51"E

P10

Goryeong (Gyeongbuk)

35°43'36"N, 128°15'56"E

P11

Uljin (Gyeongbuk)

36°59'30"N, 129°24'46"E

P12

Jinju (Gyeongnam)

35°09'49"N, 128°02'24"E

P13

Changnyeong (Gyeongnam)

35°32'52"N, 128°29'35"E

P14

Geochang (Gyeongnam)

35°41'19"N, 127°54'44"E

P15

Imsil (Jeonbuk)

35°36'44"N, 127°17'07"E

P16

Buan (Jeonbuk)

35°43'46"N, 126°42'59"E

P17

Jeonju (Jeonbuk)

35°49'17"N, 127°09'17"E

P18

Gunsan (Jeonbuk)

35°58'06"N, 126°44'14"E

P19

Gwangju

35°09'35"N, 126°51'11"E

P20

Jeju (Jeju)

33°14'46"N, 126°33'55"E

Determination of total polyphenol and flavonoid contents

Total polyphenol contents in EEP samples were determined using Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method described by Zongo et al. [13] with slight modifications. In brief, 100 μL of 0.2 N Folin–Ciocalteu reagent was added to 96-well plate (SPL Life Sciences, Pocheon, Gyeonggi, South Korea) containing 20 μL of each EEP in 80 % ethanol for 5 min at room temperature in darkness. The 80 μL of sodium carbonate (75 g/L) was added to each well, and the plate was then incubated for 30 min at room temperature with slightly shaking in darkness. The absorbance was determined at 735 nm using a VersaMax microplate reader with SoftMax Pro 5 Software (serial no. SMP500-18672-LWHU) (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA). EEPs were evaluated at the final concentration of 100 μg/mL. Gallic acid (0–62.5 μg/mL) was applied as the standard, and the calibration equation was Y = 0.0454 X – 0.0056 (R2 = 0.9993), where X is the gallic acid concentration in μg/mL and Y is the absorbance at 735 nm. Total polyphenol contents were expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g of EEP samples.

Total flavonoid contents in EEP samples were determined using AlCl3 colorimetric method [13] adapted to 96-well plate. In brief, 100 μL of 2 % AlCl3 was added to 100 μL of each EEP in 75 % ethanol, and the plate was then incubated for 15 min at room temperature in darkness. The absorbance was determined at 435 nm using a microplate reader stated previously. EEPs were evaluated at the final concentration of 100 μg/mL. Quercetin (0–50 μg/mL) was used as the standard, and the calibration equation was Y = 0.0343 X + 0.0177 (R2 = 0.9995), where X is the quercetin concentration in μg/mL, and Y is the absorbance measured at 435 nm. Total flavonoid contents were expressed as mg of quercetin equivalents (QE) per g of EEP samples.

Fluorescence resonance energy transfer enzyme assay

The BACE-1 inhibitory activity of all EEP samples was evaluated according to the methods of Lv et al. [14] and Wang et al. [15]. The assay mixtures consisted of 1 μL of 0.5 μg/μL recombinant human BACE-1, 0.75 μL of 2.5 μg/μL FPS, 47.25 μL of 50 mM sodium acetate (pH 4.5), and EEP (10–2000 μg/mL) in 2 % dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). They were incubated for 1 h at 25 °C in darkness, followed by adding 16.6 μL of 2.5 M sodium acetate to terminate the reaction. The intensity of fluorescence was determined using a SpectraMax Gemini XS plate reader with Softmax Pro PC/MAC Software (serial no. US 02947) (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA) at 355 nm excitation and 405 nm emission at room temperature. The inhibition percentage was calculated according to the formula: % inhibition = 100 – [(F S F S0 )/(F C F C0 )] × 100, where F S and F S0 are the fluorescence of samples at 60 min and zero time, and F C and F C0 are the fluorescence of control at 60 min and zero time, respectively [13].

Acetylcholinesterase inhibition assay

The assay procedure was performed using the recombinant human AChE (R&D system, Minneapolis, MN) according to the manufacture’s protocol. In brief, the reaction mixture consisted of 50 μL of AChE (0.044 μg/mL in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5)) and EEP (10–2000 μg/mL) in 1 % DMSO. The reaction was started by adding 50 μL substrate/DNTB mixture (800 μM ATChI in assay buffer containing 400 μM DTNB). The reaction mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 1 h. The absorbance was recorded at 410 nm using a VersaMax microplate reader. The AChE inhibitors donepezil hydrochloride, tacrine, and huperzine A [16] served as positive controls and were likewise formulated.

DPPH radical scavenging assay

DPPH free radical scavenging activity of all EEP samples was evaluated according to the method described by Blois [17] with minor modifications. In brief, 100 μL of 0.4 mM DPPH methanl solution was added to 96-well plate containing each EEP sample in methanol. Based on the preliminary test results, the radical scavenging activity of each EEP sample was determined with five to seven concentrations ranging from 5 to 2000 μg/mL. After incubation for 30 min at room temperature in darkness, the absorbance was measured at 518 nm by using a VersaMax microplate reader. Ascorbic acid served as a positive control and was likewise formulated. The radical scavenging ability was calculated according to the formula: % DPPH free radical scavenging activity = (1 – A s /A c ) × 100, where A c is the absorbance of the control (without sample) and A s is the absorbance of the sample.

Cancer cell lines and cell proliferation assay

Three human cancer cell lines used in this study were as follows: PC-3 (human prostate adenocarcinoma cell line) and MCF-7 (human breast adenocarcinoma cell line) purchased from the Korean Cell Line Bank (Seoul, South Korea); A549 (human lung carcinoma cell line) purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) (Manassas, VA). The PC-3 and MCF-7 cell lines were cultured with RPMI 1640 containing 10 % FBS and 1 % antibiotic-antimycotic solution under 5 % CO2 and 95 % air at 37 °C, whereas A549 cell line was cultured with MEM containing 10 % FBS, 1 % antibiotic-antimycotic solution, and 1 % glutamine. Cells were grown in SPL Life Science cell culture dishes.

The antiproliferative activity of all EEP samples toward the human cancer cell lines examined was evaluated using a MTT assay described by Morgan [18]. In brief, MTT was dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (pH 7.4) at 5 mg/mL and sterile-filtered. Cells were plated at 2 × 104 cells per well in 100 μL of complete culture medium containing the test EEP samples (dissolved in DMSO Hybri-Max) in 96-well culture plates. The final concentration of DMSO Hybri-Max in all assays was 0.1 % or less. Based on the preliminary test results, the antiproliferative activity of each EEP sample was determined with five to six concentrations ranging from 15 to 1000 μg/mL. The culture plates were incubated for 2 days in a 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere of 5 % CO2. The plates were then washed with 100 μL PBS. The 100 μL medium containing 0.05 % MTT was added to each well and then incubated for 4 h at the same condition stated previously. MTT solution was removed and 200 μL DMSO was added to each well. Finally, the plate was shaken for 10 min to dissolve the purple formazan crystals formed. Cisplatin served as positive controls and was similarly formulated. Negative controls only consisted of the DMSO solution only. The optical density values were recorded using a VersaMax microplate reader at a 560 nm and a 670 nm reference.

Human rhinovirus serotypes and antiviral assay

A human epithelial adenocarcinoma cervix cell line HeLa (ATCC CCL-2) was maintained in MEM supplemented with 10 % FBS and 0.01 % antibiotic-antimycotic solution in a humidified incubator (37 °C and 5 % CO2) [19, 20]. HRV-2 (ATCC VR-1112AS/GP) and HRV-4 (ATCC VR-1114AS/GP) were propagated in HeLa cells at 37 °C. Virus titers were determined by using cytopathic effects (CPE) in HeLa cells and were expressed as 50 % cell culture infective dose (CCID50) per mL, as described previously [19, 20].

The anti-HRV activity of all EEP samples was assessed by a SRB assay using CPE reduction [19, 20]. In brief, HeLa cells were seeded onto 96-well culture plates at a density of 3 × 104 cells per well for 1 day. The culture medium was then removed and the plates were washed with PBS. Subsequently, 90 μL of diluted virus suspension containing CCID50 of the virus stock was put into the wells, and then 10 μL of MEM supplemented with 30 mM MgCl2 containing four to five concentrations (0.1–200 μg/mL) of each EEP sample in 0.1 % DMSO was added to produce an appropriate CPE within 2 days after infection. After incubation at 37 °C and 5 % CO2 for 2 days, the plates were washed once with 200 μL PBS. The 100 μL of 0.057 % (w/v) SRB in 1 % acetic acid solution was added to each well and left at room temperature for 30 min. The absorbance was recorded using a VersaMax microplate reader at 562 nm and at 620 nm reference. Ribavirin served as a positive control and negative controls consisted of the DMSO solution. Viral inhibition rate (VIR) (%) was calculated according to the formula [20]: % VIR = (OD tVOD cV)/(OD cdOD cV) × 100, where OD tV is the optical density measured with a given concentration of the EEP sample in HRV infected cells; OD cV is the optical density measured for the control untreated HRV infected cells; OD cd is the optical density measured for the control untreated HRV uninfected cells.

Intestinal bacterial strains and growth inhibitory assay

Five harmful bacteria, two nonpathogenic bacteria, six lactic acid-producing bacteria, and an acidulating bacterium used in this study are listed in Table 2. Stock cultures of the bacterial strains were stored on BHI broth (pH 7.6) containing 25 % glycerol (v/v) at −70 °C. The cultures of Escherichia coli ATCC 11775 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 12600 were incubated at 37 °C for 1 day under aerobic condition, while the cultures of the other 12 bacterial strains were incubated at 37 °C for 1 day in an atmosphere of 5 % H2, 15 % CO2, and 80 % N2 in a FA-6 anaerorator (serial no. 98072851) (Hirayama, Tokyo, Japan) [21]. For bioassay, bacterial suspensions containing 1 × 105 colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL were prepared in EG agar using 24 h subcultures in BHI broth.
Table 2

List of human intestinal bacteria tested for growth inhibitory activity

Harmful or nonpathogenic bacteria

Beneficial bacteria

Gram-positive

Gram-positive lactic acid-producing bacteria

 Clostridium difficile ATCC 9689

Bifidobacterium bifidum ATCC 29521

Clostridium paraputrificum ATCC 25780

Bifidobacterium breve ATCC 15700

Clostridium perfringens ATCC 13124

Bifidobacterium infantis ATCC 25962

Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 12600

Bifidobacterium longum ATCC 15707

 

Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356

 

Lactobacillus casei ATCC 393

Gram-negative

Gram-positive acidulating bacterium

 Bacteroides fragilis ATCC 25285a

Clostridium butyricum ATCC 25779

 Escherichia coli ATCC 11775a

 

Salmonella typhimurium ATCC 13311

 

aNonpathogenic bacteria

A microtiter plate-based bioassay in sterile 96-well plates was used to determine the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of all EEP samples toward the organisms, as described by Sarker et al. [22]. In brief, initial EEP samples were prepared in DMSO, and a twofold dilution series was then formulated in 50 μL BHI broth. Subsequently, 10 μL bacterial suspension of each strain was added. Ciprofloxacin served as a positive control and was similarly formulated. Negative controls consisted of the DMSO solution only. Treated and control plates were incubated under the same conditions as those used for bacterial cultures for 24 h. Then, 10 μL of resazurin solution (270 mg resazurin in 40 mL sterile distilled water) was added to each well.

Data analysis

MIC (mg/mL) was defined as the lowest concentration of EEP that visually inhibited bacterial growth using resazurin indicator. The BACE-1 inhibitory, AChE inhibitory, and free radical scavenging activity was expressed as 50 % inhibition concentration (IC50, μg/mL) of the EEP that is required to cause 50 % BACE-1, AChE, and DPPH inhibition, respectively. The antiproliferative activity was expressed as 50 % inhibition concentration (IC50, μg/mL) of the EEP that is required to reduce the viability of cells to 50 % compared to the controls. The IC50 values of the EEP samples were calculated using Prism 5 software program (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA). The IC50 values were considered to be significantly different from one another when their 95 % confidence limits did not overlap. Results were expressed as mean ± standard error (SE) of triplicate samples of three independent experiments. The Bonferroni multiple-comparison method was used to test for significant differences in total polyphenol and flavonoid contents among EEP samples using SAS 9.13 program (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Correlation coefficient (r) analysis of the biological activities of EEP samples was determined using their IC50 or MIC values and their polyphenol or flavonoid contents in 20 Korean EEP samples.

Results

Total polyphenol and flavonoid contents of propolis samples

The total polyphenol and flavonoid contents in 20 Korean EEP samples were compared with those of Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese EEP ones (Table 3). The total polyphenol contents (F = 92.79; df = 22, 46; P < 0.0001) and flavonoid contents (F = 68.66; df = 22, 46; P < 0.0001) in 23 EEP samples significantly differed. The total polyphenol contents in 20 Korean EEP samples ranged from 48.5 to 238.9 mg GAE/g EEP. EEP samples from P10, P13, P3, and P1 showed higher total polyphenol contents (238.9–219.5 mg GAE/g EEP) than those from other regions. The total polyphenol content of EEP from P20 was the lowest of any of the propolis examined. The total polyphenol content of EEP samples from Brazil, China, and Australia was between 127 and 142 mg GAE/g EEP. The total flavonoid contents in Korean EEP samples ranged from 20.8 to 49.8 mg QE/g EEP. EEPs from P9, P20, and P2 showed higher total flavonoid contents (49.8–40.5 mg QE/g EEP) than those from other regions. The total flavonoid content of EEP from P17 was the lowest of any of the propolis examined. The total flavonoid content of EEP samples from China, Australia, and Brazil was between 33 and 53 mg QE/g EEP.
Table 3

Total polyphenol and flavonoid contents in 20 Korean, Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese propolis ethanol extracts

Sample

Total polyphenol (mg GAE/g EEP)

Total flavonoid (mg QE /g EEP)

P1

219.5 ± 5.31a–c

29.7 ± 0.77f–h

P2

148.0 ± 4.32f–i

40.5 ± 0.77b,c

P3

229.0 ± 4.82a,b

23.5 ± 0.15i,j

P4

202.4 ± 4.11b–d

30.4 ± 0.36e–g

P5

196.5 ± 4.28c–e

26.3 ± 0.57g–i

P6

135.9 ± 5.70hi

23.6 ± 0.38i,j

P7

205.6 ± 5.48b–d

35.9 ± 0.57c–e

P8

151.9 ± 5.01f–h

26.5 ± 0.56g–i

P9

205.0 ± 5.98b–d

49.8 ± 0.79a

P10

238.9 ± 4.61a

36.5 ± 0.61b–d

P11

132.3 ± 2.78h,i

25.3 ± 1.27g–j

P12

125.1 ± 5.37i

28.7 ± 0.17f–i

P13

233.5 ± 4.39a,b

28.3 ± 2.13f–i

P14

181.7 ± 4.20d,e

27.6 ± 0.29f–i

P15

183.2 ± 5.75d,e

26.6 ± 0.07g–i

P16

168.7 ± 5.68e–g

37.8 ± 2.02b–d

P17

190.3 ± 5.45c–e

20.8 ± 0.17j

P18

171.6 ± 6.21e,f

26.6 ± 0.20g–i

P19

148.3 ± 5.77f–i

24.4 ± 2.01h–j

P20

48.5 ± 4.08j

42.2 ± 1.75b

Australian

142.4 ± 3.61g–i

38.0 ± 0.90b–d

Brazilian

126.8 ± 4.12h,i

53.0 ± 0.22a

Chinese

132.1 ± 3.28h,i

32.5 ± 0.53d–f

GAE gallic acid equivalent, QE quercetin equivalent, EEP ethanol extract from propolis

Means followed by the same letter in the column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, Bonferroni method)

In vitro BACE-1 inhibitory activity

Because BACE-1 is a critical enzyme in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) amyloidgenic pathway that generates β-amyloid, the main component of amyloid plaque in the brain of AD [23], the BACE-1 inhibitory activity of all EEP samples was elucidated using a fluorescence resonance energy transfer enzyme assay (Table 4). As judged by IC50 values, the BACE-1 inhibitory activity of 20 native Korean EEP samples ranged from 25.7 to 291.9 μg/mL. EEP from P7 (IC50, 26 μg/mL) was the most active propolis, followed by EEP samples from P2, P5, P1, P6, P10, and P16 (36.3–64.6 μg/mL). IC50 of EEP samples from China, Australia, and Brazil was between 116.4 and 476.5 μg/mL.
Table 4

BACE-1 inhibitory activity of 20 Korean, Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese propolis ethanol extracts

Sample

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

χ2a

P-value

P1

55.8 (47.7–63.9)

1.8 ± 0.15

2.67

0.996

P2

36.3 (25.2–52.3)

0.9 ± 0.10

7.32

0.961

P3

70.0 (55.9–87.5)

1.1 ± 0.10

5.07

0.983

P4

101.1 (84.7–120.6)

1.6 ± 0.29

5.74

0.981

P5

52.9 (37.3–75.0)

0.9 ± 0.12

8.74

0.931

P6

58.2 (48.8–69.5)

1.5 ± 0.15

3.98

0.991

P7

25.7 (21.8–30.4)

1.2 ± 0.07

3.56

0.989

P8

99.1 (91.4–107.5)

1.6 ± 0.12

2.55

0.997

P9

115.4 (99.7–133.6)

3.4 ± 1.50

2.77

0.997

P10

61.4 (49.1–76.8)

1.4 ± 0.15

6.90

0.974

P11

291.9 (278.0–306.6)

1.3 ± 0.03

1.41

0.999

P12

140.0 (122.0–160.6)

1.2 ± 0.08

3.56

0.992

P13

122.5 (110.9–135.4)

2.5 ± 0.42

3.36

0.995

P14

140.5 (125.5–157.2)

2.2 ± 0.24

3.65

0.994

P15

141.1 (127.8–155.8)

2.0 ± 0.18

3.27

0.995

P16

64.6 (52.1–80.2)

1.7 ± 0.26

4.87

0.987

P17

96.7 (91.4–102.2)

2.3 ± 0.39

2.40

0.997

P18

117.5 (108.7–127.1)

2.0 ± 0.21

2.91

0.996

P19

97.8 (92.3–103.6)

2.3 ± 0.41

2.57

0.997

P20

128.7 (112.6–147.2)

1.3 ± 0.09

3.99

0.997

Australian

127.5 (114.2–142.3)

1.7 ± 0.15

3.60

0.993

Brazilian

476.5 (458.5–495.2)

1.6 ± 0.05

1.30

0.999

Chinese

116.4 (105.4–128.6)

2.7 ± 0.66

3.23

0.995

aPearson’s chi-square goodness-of-fit test

Human acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity

Because AChE is one of the major targets of AD [16], the inhibitory activity of all EEP samples was compared with that of three anticancer agents (Table 5). As judged by IC50 values, the anti-AChE activity of 20 native Korean EEP samples ranged from 15.6 to 327.3 μg/mL. EEP from P2 (IC50, 15.6 μg/mL) was the most active propolis, followed by P20 (26.7 μg/mL) and P16 (33.9 μg/mL). They were significantly less active than either huperzine A, donepezil hydrochloride, or tacrine (IC50, 0.2–1.2 μg/mL). IC50 of EEP samples from China, Australia, and Brazil was between 147.0 and 242.9 μg/mL.
Table 5

Human acetycholinesterase inhibitory activity of 20 Korean, Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese propolis ethanol extracts and three commercial anti-Alzheimer’s disease agents

Sample

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

χ2a

P-value

P1

70.0 (56.9–86.1)

1.0 ± 0.12

7.33

0.9113

P2

15.6 (11.2–21.6)

0.6 ± 0.05

3.04

0.9321

P3

55.7 (44.7–69.4)

1.1 ± 0.14

7.71

0.9018

P4

47.9 (39.0–59.0)

1.1 ± 0.14

6.96

0.9128

P5

119.9 (98.2–146.4)

2.4 ± 0.48

12.2

0.9066

P6

89.8 (80.1–100.6)

2.2 ± 0.23

6.75

0.9685

P7

48.0 (40.8–56.55)

1.2 ± 0.12

5.88

0.9406

P8

79.3 (72.6–86.6)

4.8 ± 0.67

6.67

0.9760

P9

103.2 (91.8–116.1)

2.6 ± 0.33

7.56

0.9665

P10

104.2 (89.2–121.7)

2.0 ± 0.26

8.59

0.9459

P11

123.4 (115.1–132.2)

2.6 ± 0.20

4.49

0.9878

P12

61.6 (56.4–67.2)

2.5 ± 0.25

5.57

0.9724

P13

101.6 (84.8–121.7)

2.0 ± 0.32

10.29

0.9242

P14

102.1 (84.8–122.8)

1.8 ± 0.26

9.87

0.9245

P15

104.9 (85.6–128.6)

1.8 ± 0.30

11.04

0.9070

P16

33.9 (26.5–43.2)

1.1 ± 0.13

6.39

0.9012

P17

130.8 (122.5–139.6)

4.1 ± 0.60

5.58

0.9842

P18

124.8 (101.7–153.2)

1.6 ± 0.22

9.94

0.9094

P19

327.3 (297.7–359.7)

2.6 ± 0.26

6.04

0.9785

P20

26.7 (20.7–34.5)

0.9 ± 0.09

4.85

0.9213

Australian

242.9 (231.9–254.5)

3.2 ± 0.22

3.39

0.9940

Brazilian

147.0 (139.4–155.1)

2.9 ± 0.19

3.66

0.9930

Chinese

230.9 (208.7–255.5)

3.6 ± 0.62

7.88

0.9696

Tacrine

1.2 (0.9–1.6)

0.4 ± 0.02

3.87

0.9712

Huperzine A

0.2 (0.1–0.3)

0.4 ± 0.03

5.33

0.9246

DH

0.4 (0.3–0.6)

0.3 ± 0.02

4.78

0.9466

DH donepezil hydrochloride

aPearson’s chi-square goodness-of-fit test

DPPH free radical scavenging activity

The antioxidant activity of all EEP samples was compared with that of an antioxidant agent ascorbic acid using a DPPH radical scavenging assay (Table 6). Based on IC50 values, the radical scavenging activity of 20 Korean EEP samples ranged from 43.4 to 269.0 μg/mL. EEP samples from P1 was the most active propolis, followed by EEPs from P3, P5, and P10. The inhibitory activity of the EEP samples was 3.1, 3.8, 4.0, and 4.2 times less active than that of ascorbic acid (IC50, 14 μg/mL), respectively. IC50 of EEP samples from Australia, Brazil, and China was between 73.8 and 179.0 μg/mL.
Table 6

DPPH free radical scavenging activity of 20 Korean, Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese propolis ethanol extracts and a commercial antioxidant agent ascorbic acid

Sample

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

χ2a

P-value

P1

43.4 (36.6–51.4)

1.7 ± 0.16

5.32

0.983

P2

115.3 (100.1–132.9)

1.3 ± 0.11

4.29

0.989

P3

52.7 (44.0–63.3)

1.6 ± 0.17

5.71

0.981

P4

80.2(69.4–92.7)

1.3 ± 0.10

4.28

0.989

P5

56.1 (47.6–66.1)

1.5 ± 0.14

5.10

0.985

P6

97.4 (79.9–118.7)

1.2 ± 0.13

5.76

0.980

P7

73.5 (62.7–86.2)

1.4 ± 0.13

4.87

0.986

P8

159.9 (139.7–183.1)

1.9 ± 0.18

4.44

0.990

P9

81.7 (69.8–95.6)

1.9 ± 0.31

5.76

0.983

P10

58.3 (47.1–72.1)

2.2 ± 0.32

6.73

0.976

P11

161.1 (141.8–183.3)

1.9 ± 0.16

4.20

0.991

P12

235.0 (219.6–251.5)

1.3 ± 0.04

1.96

0.998

P13

67.2 (56.0–80.6)

1.7 ± 0.24

6.03

0.979

P14

135.4 (117.1–156.3)

1.7 ± 0.18

4.80

0.988

P15

98.7 (87.1–111.8)

1.4 ± 0.11

3.89

0.991

P16

81.6 (71.8–92.8)

1.4 ± 0.11

4.00

0.991

P17

74.0 (63.7–86.0)

1.6 ± 0.16

4.89

0.987

P18

96.2 (85.0–109.0)

1.5 ± 0.13

4.05

0.991

P19

202.0 (175.0–233.1)

1.5 ± 0.11

4.39

0.989

P20

269.0 (248.3–291.4)

1.5 ± 0.06

2.44

0.996

Australian

73.8 (49.3–110.5)

0.9 ± 0.12

9.76

0.922

Brazilian

148.1 (121.2–180.9)

1.6 ± 0.22

6.51

0.976

Chinese

179.0 (136.8–234.2)

1.8 ± 0.29

8.59

0.958

Ascorbic acid

14.0 (12.4–15.8)

1.8 ± 0.17

4.45

0.983

aPearson’s chi-square goodness-of-fit test

Antiproliferative effect on cancer cell lines

The antiproliferative activity of all EEP samples was compared with that of a commercial anticancer agent cisplatin using a MTT assay (Table 7). As judged by IC50 values, the antiproliferative activity of 20 Korean EEP samples toward PC-3 cell line ranged from 15.9 to 331.6 μg/mL. EEP from P2 was the most active propolis, followed by EEPs from P7 and P12. The inhibitory activity of the EEP samples was 3.8, 2.0, and 1.6 times more active than that of cisplatin (IC50, 61 μg/mL), respectively. IC50 of EEP samples from Australia, Brazil, and China was between 92.8 and 121.9 μg/mL. Toward MCF-7 cell line, IC50 of 20 Korean EEP samples was between 17.7 and 218.2 μg/mL. EEPs from P12 and P20 were the most active propolis and the antiproliferative activity of these samples did not differ significantly from that of cisplatin. IC50 of EEP samples from Australia, Brazil, and China was between 61.7 and 144.8 μg/mL. Toward A549 cell line, IC50 of 20 Korean EEP samples was between 6.5 and 365.3 μg/mL. EEPs from P1, P7, P8 and P9 (IC50, 6.46–11.0 μg/mL) were the most active propolis and the antiproliferative activity of these samples did not differ significantly from that of cisplatin. IC50 of EEP samples from Australia, Brazil, and China was between 152.2 and 452.8 μg/mL.
Table 7

Antiproliferative activity of 20 Korean, Australian, Brazilian, and Chinese propolis ethanol extracts and a commercial anticancer agent cisplatin toward three cancer cell lines

Sample

 
 

PC-3 cell

MCF-7 cell

A549 cell

 

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

IC50, μg/mL (95 % CL)

Slope ± SE

P1

54.0 (44.6–65.4)

0.7 ± 0.07

58.0 (50.6–66.4)

1.5 ± 0.14

6.5 (4.4–9.5)

0.8 ± 0.10

P2

15.9 (13.7–18.4)

1.2 ± 0.10

38.6 (33.6–44.3)

2.5 ± 0.35

20.2 (17.1–23.8)

0.7 ± 0.05

P3

49.8 (42.1–59.0)

0.9 ± 0.08

87.9 (71.0–108.8)

1.0 ± 0.13

164.5 (141.6–191.2)

0.7 ± 0.05

P4

69.7 (62.8–77.3)

0.9 ± 0.05

218.2 (184.9–257.4)

1.4 ± 0.14

61.1 (49.1–76.1)

0.9 ± 0.09

P5

44.2 (37.0–53.0)

1.1 ± 0.11

134.2 (106.1–169..6)

1.1 ± 0.14

40.9 (33.6–49.8)

0.9 ± 0.08

P6

58.2 (49.5–68.5)

1.1 ± 0.10

56.4 (49.7–64.0)

2.0 ± 0.22

16.3 (12.5-21.2)

0.9 ± 0.11

P7

29.9 (24.3–36.8)

1.2 ± 0.13

31.1 (28.2–34.4)

1.5 ± 0.09

9.8 (7.4–13.1)

0.7 ± 0.07

P8

59.6 (47.3–75.0)

1.1 ± 0.14

78.8 (73.6–84.4)

4.4 ± 0.42

11.0 (8.5–14.2)

0.7 ± 0.08

P9

77.9 (68.3–88.8)

0.9 ± 0.07

47.7 (41.8–54.4)

1.8 ± 0.19

9.9 (8.0–12.2)

1.0 ± 0.12

P10

228.8 (189.5–276.3)

0.7 ± 0.06

109.5 (90.2–132.9)

1.2 ± 0.15

365.3 (298.5–447.1)

1.2 ± 0.15

P11

44.0 (35.1–55.1)

1.4 ± 0.19

98.3 (82.6–116.9)

1.3 ± 0.15

65.3 (61.1-69.8)

4.6 ± 0.91

P12

36.7 (29.5–45.6)

1.1 ± 0.14

17.7 (15.5–20.2)

2.0 ± 0.23

70.7 (57.9–86.3)

0.5 ± 0.05

P13

106.6 (90.9–125.0)

0.7 ± 0.05

75.9 (68.3–84.5)

1.2 ± 0.08

262.1 (225.9–304.2)

1.2 ± 0.11

P14

75.3 (68.9–82.3)

1.4 ± 0.21

26.0 (22.8–29.6)

4.5 ± 1.17

176.1 (143.5–215.9)

1.2 ± 0.14

P15

70.2 (56.8–86.9)

0.7 ± 0.06

104.1 (91.3–118.7)

0.8 ± 0.05

73.5 (60.6-89.1)

5.9 ± 2.76

P16

331.5 (266.7–412.2)

0.6 ± 0.05

79.2 (70.8–88.6)

1.9 ± 0.017

127.1 (103.4–156.3)

1.0 ± 0.12

P17

331.6 (279.8–392.9)

0.8 ± 0.06

98.1 (81.3–118.3)

1.3 ± 0.015

86.7 (73.4–102.4)

2.2 ± 0.35

P18

76.4 (66.3–88.0)

1.0 ± 0.07

145.1(122.6–171.8)

1.2 ± 0.013

115.0 (97.6–135.6)

2.3 ± 0.37

P19

161.0 (131.4–197.1)

0.5 ± 0.03

49.8 (48.0–51.8)

3.9 ± 0.23

64.9 (54.1–78.0)

0.7 ± 0.07

P20

17.1 (13.9–21.1)

1.0 ± 0.11

19.8 (17.6–22.3)

2.2 ± 0.28

43.8 (38.8–49.3)

2.7 ± 0.39

AU

92.8 (78.5–109.7)

2.0 ± 0.29

144.8 (134.3–156.1)

3.2 ± 0.32

152.2 (126.3–183.3)

1.9 ± 0.30

BA

105.2 (96.8–114.3)

2.1 ± 0.16

61.7 (54.7–69.7)

1.8 ± 0.16

330.2 (287.7–379.1)

4.9 ± 0.89

CN

121.9 (115.1–129.1)

1.5 ± 0.06

122.5 (108.1–138.7)

1.7 ± 0.15

452.8 (361.8–566.5)

1.1 ± 0.13

CPN

61.5 (50.9–74.4)

1.1 ± 0.11

17.6 (15.3–20.3)

1.5 ± 0.15

6.2 (4.6–8.5)

1.0 ± 0.14

AU Australian; BA Brazilian, CN Chinese, CPN cisplatin

Anti-human rhinovirus activity

The antiviral activity of all EEP samples was compared with that of the antiviral agent ribavirin using a SRB assay (Data not shown). EEP sample from Brazil was 5.9 and 5.1 times more toxic toward HRV-2 (IC50, 12.6 μg/mL) and HRV-4 (15.4 μg/mL) than ribavirin, respectively. IC50 of the other 22 EEP samples was >100 μg/mL toward two HRVs.

Growth-inhibiting effect on intestinal bacteria

The growth inhibitory effects of all EEP samples on five harmful and two nonpathogenic intestinal bacteria as well as six lactic acid-producing bacteria and an acidulating bacterium examined were compared with those of the commercial antibiotic ciprofloxacin (Table 8). Responses varied according to bacterial species and propolis examined. As judged by MIC values, EEP samples from P6, P9, and P11 showed potent growth inhibitory activity toward C. difficile ATCC 9689, although the inhibitory activity of these compounds was less active than that of ciprofloxacin. The MIC of EEPs from P12, P9, and P19 was 1.84, 14.7, and 14.7 mg/mL toward C. paraputiricum ATCC 25780, C. perfringens ATCC 13124, and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium ATCC 13311, respectively (ciprofloxacin, 0.062, 0.031, and 0.125 mg/mL). Toward B. fragilis ATCC 25285, the MIC of EEPs from P8, P12, and P19 was 3.7, 1.84, and 1.84 mg/mL, respectively (ciprofloxacin, 0.062 mg/mL). The MIC of EEPs from P9, P12, P14, and P19 was 1.84 mg/mL toward E. coli ATCC 11775 (ciprofloxacin, 0.062 mg/mL). The MIC of EEPs from P8 and P19 was 14.7 mg/mL toward B. bifidum ATCC 29521 and B. longum ATCC 15707 (ciprofloxacin, 0.016 and 0.031 mg/mL). The MIC of EEPs from P12 and P19 was 14.7 mg/mL toward B. infantis ATCC 25962 and 14.7 and 7.4 mg/mL toward C. butyricum ATCC 25779, respectively (ciprofloxacin, 0.031 mg/mL). The other EEP samples were ineffective toward all bacterial strains examined (MIC, > 30 mg/mL).
Table 8

Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of Korean propolis ethanol extracts and a commercial antibiotic ciprofloxacin toward four harmful and two nonpathogenic intestinal bacteria

Test bacteria

No. active propolis

Propolis samplea (MIC, mg/mL)

C. difficile ATCC 9689b

3

P6 (1.84), P9 (1.84), P11 (1.84), CFd (0.031)

C. paraputrificum ATCC 25780b

1

P12 (1.84), CFd (0.062)

C. perfringens ATCC 13124b

1

P9 (14.7), CFd (0.031)

S. aureus ATCC 12600b

0

CFd (0.031)

B. fragilis ATCC 25285c

3

P8 (3.7), P12 (1.84), P19 (1.84), CFd (0.062)

E. coli ATCC 11775c

4

P9 (1.84), P12 (1.84), P14 (1.84), P19 (1.84), CFd (0.062)

S. enterica Typhimurium ATCC 13311c

1

P19 (14.7), CFd (0.125)

B. bifidum ATCC 29521b

1

P8 (14.7), CFd (0.016)

B. infantis ATCC 25962b

2

P12 (14.7), P19 (14.7), CFd (0.031)

B. breve ATCC 15700b

0

CFd (0.031)

B. longum ATCC 15707b

1

P19 (14.7), CFd (0.031)

L. acidophilus ATCC 4356b

0

CFd (0.062)

L. casei ATCC 393b

0

CFd (0.031)

C. butyricum ATCC 25779b

2

P12 (14.7), P19 (7.4), CFd (0.031)

aThe other Korean propolis samples and three foreign (Austrailian, Brazilian, and Chinese) samples were ineffective (MIC, > 30 mg/mL)

bGram-positive bacteria

cGram-negative bacteria

dCiprofloxacin

Discussion

Propolis contains a wide variety of phenolic compounds, mainly flavonoids, phenolic acids, and their esters [1, 2, 7]. A broad spectrum of biological properties of propolis [1, 35] is related to its phenolic composition in flavonoids and other phenolic compounds [1, 2, 5]. The flavonoid content of propolis is attributed to the different preferred regional plants collected by honey bees. Flavonoid chemistry and extensive biological activities, such as antioxidant, hepatoprotective, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and anticancer, have been well documented by Nijveldt et al. [24] and Kumar and Pandey [25]. The total polyphenol (TP) and flavonoid (TF) contents were reported in propolis from Algeria (TP, 55–279 mg/g, TF, 10–69 mg/g) [26], Argentina (TP, 257–393 mg/g, TF, 66–133 mg/g) [27], Brazil (TP, 94–149 mg/g, TF, 6–21 mg/g) [28], China (TP, 43–302 mg/g, TF, 8–162 mg/g) [6], Greece and Cyprus (TP, 80–338 mg/g; TF, 9–183 mg/g) [29], India (TP, 159.10 mg/g; TF, 57.25 mg/g) [30], Japan (TP, 53–431 mg/g; TF, 18–113 mg/g) [31], Morocco (TP, 0.74–91.22 mg/g; TF, 0.20–34.27 mg/g) [32], Poland (TP, 150–197 mg/g; TF, 36–62 mg/g) [33], Portugal (TP, 151–329 mg/g) [34], South Korea (TP, 85–283 mg/g; TF, 16–135 mg/g) [9], and Turkey (TP, 115–210 mg/g) [35]. In the current study, the total polyphenol and flavonoid contents of 20 native Korean EEP samples were between 49 and 232 mg/g and between 21 and 50 mg/g, respectively, although the polyphenol and flavonoid contents of propolis stated previously were 31 and 431 mg/g and between 3 and 183 mg/g, respectively. Certain Korean propolis samples examined possessed considerable total polyphenol and flavonoid contents, as compared with either Australian, Brazilian, or Chinese propolis samples examined. This finding indicates that propolis with high polyphenol and flavonoid contents have to be selected for commercial propolis products because of the biological significance of the polyphenols and flavonoids [1, 2, 5].

BACE-1 [36] and AChE [16] are two of the major targets of AD. There are two major neuropathological hallmarks of AD including neurofibrillary tangles consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau protein and extracellular amyloid plaques accumulation of β-amyloid peptides. β-Amyloid was generated via sequential proteolytic processing of APP by BACE-1 and γ-secretase in APP amyloidogenic processing pathway [37, 38]. BACE-1 is a prime drug target for inhibiting β-amyloid generation because it is responsible for initiating β-amyloid production [39]. No information, however, is available concerning the BACE-1 inhibitory activity of propolis and its constituents. Brazilian propolis improved cognitive function in the patients with mild cognitive impairment that was deemed as a prodromal stage of AD [40]. In addition, inhibition of AChE, responsible for the breakdown of acetylcholine in the neural synapse, is a possible strategy for treatment of AD, which is characterized by a decline in cognitive function and mental atrophy. Propolis with a high phenol content may be an alternative for prevention and/or retardation of AD symptoms because phenols and flavonoids inhibit AChE activity [41]. The anti-AChE activity was reported in propolis from India (IC50, 43.46 μg/mL) [42] and Morocco (43–743 μg/mL) [32]. In the current study, IC50 of 20 native Korean EEP samples was between 15.6–327.3 μg/mL and the anti-AChE activity of the EEPs was lower than that of either donepezil hydrochloride, tacrine, or huperzine A. Certain Korean propolis samples exhibited good BACE-1 inhibitory activity (IC50, < 100 μg/mL) and were more pronounced in the inhibitory activity than either Australian, Brazilian, or Chinese propolis examined. Many peptidomimetics and heterocyclic compounds have been evaluated as BACE-1 inhibitors [43, 44]. However, none of these have been successfully developed as anti-AD drugs. These results verify that the Korean propolis merit further study as a potential anti-AD agents.

Antioxidants, which scavenge free radicals such as superoxide (O2), hydroxyl (OH), and peroxyl (OOH, ROO) radicals, are known to possess an important role in preventing these free radical-induced diseases, such as aging, cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders (AD and Parkinson’s disease) and inflammation [45]. The flavonoids are powerful antioxidants, capable of scavenging free radicals [24, 25]. The DPPH free radical scavenging activity was reported in propolis from Algeria (IC50, 19.4– > 50 μg/mL) [26], Argentina (25–37.5 μg/mL) [46], Brazil (17.13–83.60 μg/mL) [28], China (32 μg/mL) [47], Greece (138–1557 μg/mL) [48], India (70 μg/mL) [30], Morocco (8–1813 μg/mL) [32], and Portugal (6.22–52 μg/mL) [34]. In the current study, IC50 of 20 native Korean EEP samples were between 43 and 269 μg/mL, although IC50 of propolis stated previously was 6 and 1813 μg/mL. Certain Korean propolis samples exhibited good antioxidant activity (IC50, < 100 μg/mL) and the activity of these samples and Australian propolis sample did not differ significantly from each other. Our current finding indicates that the Korean propolis merit further study as a potential antioxidant, although the activity of these propolis samples was lower than that of ascorbic acid.

The antiproliferative activity of propolis and its constituents toward various cancer cell lines have been well documented by Watanabe et al. [12] and Chan et al. [49]. The antiproliferative activity toward PC-3 cell line was reported in propolis from Brazil (optimal dose, 40 μg/mL) [50] and India (IC50, 41.8–134.5 μg/mL) [51]. The antiproliferative activity toward MCF-7 cell line was reported in propolis from Cuba (1–25 μg/mL) [52], India (13 μg/mL) [42] and (26.88–104 μg/mL) [51], Indonesia (47.45 μg/mL) [53], Java (37.8–276.45 μg/mL) [54], Malta (67 μg/mL) [55], Portugal (36–182 μg/mL) [56], and Turkey (125 μg/mL) [57]. The antiproliferative activity toward A549 cell line was reported in propolis from Cuba (IC50, 35.48–99.5 μg/mL) [58], India (10 μg/mL) [42], and Tunisia (200 μg/mL) [59]. In the current study, IC50 of 20 native Korean EEP samples toward PC-3, MCF-7, and A549 cell lines were between 15.9 and 331.6 μg/mL, between 17.7 and 218.2 μg/mL, and between 6.5 and 365.3 μg/mL, respectively, although IC50 of propolis stated previously was between 41.8–134.5 μg/mL, between 1 and 276.45 μg/mL, and between 10 and 200 μg/mL. Certain Korean propolis samples exhibited good antiproliferative activity and were more pronounced in the activity than either Australian, Brazilian, or Chinese propolis samples. Of them, the activity of some propolis samples toward PC-3, MCF-7, and A549 cells was comparable to that of the anticancer agent cisplatin. Our current finding indicates that the Korean propolis merit further study as a potential anticancer agent.

The antimicrobial activity of propolis toward various pathogens have been well noted [35]. In humans, many species of bacteria (~500–1000 species) reside in the intestinal tract as a complex and dynamic ecosystem [60]. Major functions of the microbiota include metabolic activities that result in salvage of energy and absorbable nutrients, trophic effects on intestinal epithelia (cell proliferation and differentiation) and on immune structure and function, and protection of the colonized host against invasion by alien microbes (barrier effect) [61]. The microbiota might also be an essential factor in certain pathological disorders, including multisystem organ failure, colon cancer, and inflammatory bowel diseases [61]. In addition, prolonged treatment with antibiotics has often produced resistance to the drugs by pathogenic microorganisms [62], which is a major global public health problem in both developed and developing countries. Sometimes, serious side effects of antibiotics occur, such as taste disturbances, nausea, diarrhea, dyspepsia, headache, and angioedema, as well as disturbance of human gastrointestinal microflora [62, 63]. Alternative antibacterial agents with novel modes of action and low toxicity are urgently needed. It has been reported that propolis samples from Argentina [64], France [65], and Greece and Cyprus [29] is effective toward Gram-positive bacteria, exerting a limited activity toward Gram-negative bacteria. Boyanova et al. [66] reported that Bulgarian EEP inhibited 97 % (29 of 30 strains) of the nonspore-forming Gram-positive bacteria and 91 % (40 of 44 strains) of the Gram-negative bacteria.

In the current study, the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were observed to have different degrees of antimicrobial susceptibility to the EEP samples examined, although ciprofloxacin susceptibility among the bacterial groups did not differ greatly. EEP samples from P6, P9 and P11 and P12 exhibited pronounced growth inhibitory activity toward pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria C. difficile ATCC 9689 and C. paraputiricum ATCC 25780, respectively. EEP samples from P8 and P9 and P14 were active toward nonpathogenic Gram-negative bacteria B. fragilis ATCC 25285 and E. coli ATCC 11775, respectively, whereas EEP samples from P12 and P19 were active toward both Gram-negative bacteria. However, the propolis samples from Austrailia, Brazil, and China were ineffective toward five harmful bacteria and two nonpathogenic bacteria. Boyanova et al. [66] reported that Bulgarian EEP inhibited 35 % (7 of 20 strains) of Clostridium strains, including C. difficile (13 strains) and C. perfringens (2 strains), and 82 % (9 of 11 strains) of B. fragilis group strains. Ugur et al. [67] found growth inhibitory activity of EEP samples from Brazil and Bulgaria toward E. coli MU 8, MU 11, and MU 23, whereas no inhibitory activity of EEP samples from Argentina toward E. coli ATCC 25922 [64]. Interestingly, six lactic acid-producing bacteria were less susceptible than either harmful or nonpathogenic bacteria to Korean EEP samples. Detailed tests are needed to fully understand the different susceptibility of the EEPs to bacteria. This finding indicates that low concentrations of active Korean propolis extracts could be used in fermented or nonfermented products and drink products, aiming to selectively inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria.

Correlation between biological activity and phenolic compound contents has been well studied. High correlation between the total phenolic and flavonoids content and the free radical scavenging activity was reported in propolis samples from Argentina [46], Greece and Cyprus [29], Japan [31], and Poland [33]. Negative or no direct correlation between them was reported in propolis from Morocco [32] and in propolis from Brazil [68] and Greece [48], respectively. For the AChE inhibition, negative correlation between the total phenolic and flavonoids content and IC50 was reported in propolis samples from Morocco [32]. For the antiproliferative activity toward MCF-7 cell line, negative correlation between the total polyphenol content and IC50 was reported, whereas positive correlation between the total flavonoid content and IC50 was reported [56]. For the antimicrobial activity, strong correlation between the total phenolic and flavonoids content and MIC was reported in propolis from Spain [69], whereas no direct correlation between them was also reported in propolis from Brazil [68] and Greece and Cyprus [29]. In the current study, correlation coefficient (r) analysis showed that total polyphenol contents may be negatively correlated with DPPH free radical scavenging activity (r = −0.872) and total flavonoid content has no correlation with the activity (r = 0.071) (Table 9). No direct correlation between BACE-1 inhibition, AChE inhibition, or antiproliferative activity and total polyphenol or total flavonoid content in Korean EEP samples was found.
Table 9

Pearson correlation coefficients for total polyphenol or flavonoid content and biological activities

Activity

Correlation coefficient (r)

Total polyphenol

Total flavonoid

BACE-1 inhibition

−0.337

−0.194

Acetylcholinesterase inhibition

0.056

−0.413

DPPH free radical scavenging activity

−0.872

0.071

Antiproliferative activity

  

 PC-3

0.263

−0.076

 MCF-7

0.386

−0.301

 A549

0.453

−0.078

Conclusions

Korean propolis-derived preparations could be useful in food and beverages to prevent various diseases in which free radicals, neurodegenerative causes, or pathogenic bacteria are implicated as propolis administration to humans does not lead to side effects [12]. For the practical use of the preparations as novel propolis-derived products to proceed, further research is needed to establish safety to humans and whether the biological activities are exerted in vivo after consumption of the products by humans. Propolis, administered orally to mice at levels up to 4000 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks, had no effect, although it has been identified clinically as an allergen [3]. Lastly, detailed tests are needed to understand how to improve biological potency and stability for eventual commercial development.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ010487) from the Rural Development Administration (RDA) of the Republic of Korea and by the Brain Korea 21 PLUS Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education of the Korean Government to YJA.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Entomology Major, Department of Agriculture Biotechnology, Seoul National University
(2)
Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University
(3)
WCU Biomodulation Major, Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National University
(4)
National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration

References

  1. Marcucci MC. Propolis: chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie. 1995;26:83–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bankova VS, de Castro SL, Marcucci MC. Propolis: recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie. 2000;31:3–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Burdock GA. Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee propolis (propolis). Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36:347–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sforcin JM, Bankova V. Propolis: is there a potential for the development of new drugs? J Ethnopharmacol. 2011;133:253–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Farooqui T, Farooqui AA. Molecular mechanism underlying the therapeutic activities of propolis: a critical review. Curr Nutr Food Sci. 2010;6:186–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahn MR, Kumazawa S, Usui Y, Nakamura J, Matsuka M, Zhu F, et al. Antioxidant activity and constituents of propolis collected in various areas of China. Food Chem. 2007;101:1383–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Salatino A, Fernandes-Silva CC, Righi AA, Salatino MLF. Propolis research and the chemistry of plant products. Nat Prod Rep. 2011;28:925–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Park YK, Ikegaki M, Alencar SM, Moura FF. Evaluation of Brazilian propolis by both physicochemical methods and biological activity. Honeybee Sci. 2000;21:85–90.Google Scholar
  9. Ahn MR, Kumazawa S, Hamasaka T, Bang KS, Nakayama T. Antioxidant activity and constituents of propolis collected in various areas of Korea. J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:7286–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Drlica K, Zhao X. DNAgyrase, topoisomerase IV, and the 4-quinolones. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61:377–92.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang S, Zhang C-P, Wang K, Li GQ, Hu F-L. Recent advances in the chemical composition of propolis. Molecules. 2014;19:19610–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Watanabe MA, Amarante MK, Conti BJ, Sforcin JM. Cytotoxic constituents of propolis inducing anticancer effects: a review. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2011;63:1378–86.Google Scholar
  13. Zongo C, Savadogo A, Ouattara L, Bassole IHN, Ouattara CAT, Ouattara AS, et al. Polyphenols content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Ampelocissus grantii (Baker) Planch. (Vitaceae): a medicinal plant from Burkina Faso. Int J Pharmacol. 2010;6:880–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Lv L, Yang QY, Zhao Y, Yao CS, Sun Y, Yang EJ, et al. BACE1 (β-secretase) inhibitory chromone glycosides from Aloe vera and Aloe nobilis. Planta Med. 2008;74:540–5.Google Scholar
  15. Wang X, Kim JR, Lee SB, Kim YJ, Jung MY, Kwon HW, et al. Effects of curcuminoids identified in rhizomes of Curcuma longa on BACE-1 inhibitory and behavioral activity and lifespan of Alzheimer’s disease Drosophila models. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14:88.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Čolović MB, Krstić DZ, Lazarević-Pašti TD, Bondžić AM, Vasić VM. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: pharmacology and toxicology. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2013;11:315–35.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Blois MS. Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature. 1958;181:1199–200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Morgan DML. Tetrazolium (MTT) assay for cellular viability and activity. Methods Mol Biol. 1998;79:179–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Vichai V, Kirtikara K. Sulforhodamine B colorimetric assay for cytotoxicity screening. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:1112–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ngan LTM, Jang MJ, Kwon MJ, Ahn YJ. Antiviral activity and possible mechanism of action of constituents identified in Paeonia lactiflora root toward human rhinoviruses. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0121629.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ngan LTM, Moon JK, Kim JH, Shibamoto T, Ahn YJ. Growth-inhibiting effects of Paeonia lactiflora root steam distillate constituents and structurally related compounds on human intestinal bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28:1575–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarker SD, Nahar L, Kumarasamy Y. Microtitre plate-based antimicrobial assay incorporating resazurin as an indicator of cell growth, and its application in the in vitro antibacterial screening of phytochemicals. Methods. 2007;42:321–4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Suh YH, Checler F. Amyloid precursor protein, presenilins, and α-synuclein: molecular pathogenesis and pharmacological applications in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacol Rev. 2002;54:469–525.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nijveldt RJ, van Nood E, van Hoorn DEC, Boelens PG, van Norren K, van Leeuwen PAM. Flavonoids: a review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:418–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Pandey AK. Chemistry and biological activities of flavonoids: an overview. Scientific World J. 2013;2013:162750.Google Scholar
  26. Boufadi YM, Soubhye J, Riazi A, Rousseau A, Vanhaeverbeek M, Nève J, et al. Characterization and antioxidant properties of six Algerian propolis extracts: ethyl acetate extracts inhibit myeloperoxidase activity. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:2327–45.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima B, Tapia A, Luna L, Fabani MP, Schmeda-Hirschmann G, Podio NS, et al. Main flavonoids, DPPH activity and metal content allow determination of the geographical origin of propolis from the province of San Juan (Argentina). J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57:2691–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt EM, Stock D, Chada FJG, Finger D, Sawaya ACHF, Eberlin MN, et al. A comparison between characterization and biological properties of Brazilian fresh and aged propolis. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:257617.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalogeropoulos N, Konteles SJ, Troullidou E, Mourtzinos I, Karathanos V. Chemical composition, antioxidant activity and antimicrobial properties of propolis extract from Greece and Cyprus. Food Chem. 2009;116:452–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Laskar RA, Ismail SK, Roy N, Begum NA. Antioxidant activity of Indian propolis and its chemical constituents. Food Chem. 2010;122:233–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamasaka T, Kumazawa S, Fujimoto T, Nakayama T. Antioxidant activity and constituents of propolis collected in various areas of Japan. Food Sci Technol Res. 2004;10:86–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Miguel MG, Doughmi O, Aazza S, Antunes D, Lyoussi B. Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of propolis from different regions of Morocco. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2014;23:313–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Socha R, Gałkowska D, Bugaj M, Juszczak L. Phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of propolis from various regions of Poland. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29:416–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreira L, Dias LG, Pereira JA, Estevinho L. Antioxidant properties, total phenols and pollen analysis of propolis samples from Portugal. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46:3482–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Aliyazıcıoglu R, Sahin H, Erturk O, Ulusoy E, Kolayli S. Properties of phenolic composition and biological activity of propolis from Turkey. Int J Food Prop. 2013;16:277–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Mancini F, De Simone A, Andrisano V. Bata-secretase as a target for Alzheimer’s disease drug discovery: an overview of in vitro methods for characterization of inhibitors. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011;400:1979–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hardy J, Selkoe DJ. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease: progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science. 2002;297:353–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Liebscher S, Meyer-Luehmann M. A peephole into the brain: neuropathological features of Alzheimer’s disease revealed by in vivo two-photon imaging. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:26. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00026.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Vassar R, Kovacs DM, Yan R, Wong PC. The β-secretase enzyme BACE in health and Alzheimer’s disease: regulation, cell biology, function, and therapeutic potential. J Neurosci. 2009;29:12787–94.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu A, Wu Z, Huang Y, Nakanishi H, Wu S. Brazilian propolis improves cognitive functions and regulates serum cytokine balances in patients with mild cognitive impairment at high altitude. Alzheimers Dement. 2014;10(Supplement):619–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Orhan I, Kartal M, Tosun F, Sener B. Screening of various phenolic acids and flavonoid derivatives for their anticholinesterase potential. Z Naturforsch C Bio Sci. 2007;62:829–32.Google Scholar
  42. Thirugnanasampandan R, Raveendran SB, Jayakumar R. Analysis of chemical composition and bioactive property evaluation of Indian propolis. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2012;2:651–4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson LA, Bronson JJ, Zusi FC. Progress in the discovery of BACE inhibitors. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11:3383–404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. John V. Human β-secretase (BACE) and BACE inhibitors: progress report. Curr Top Med Chem. 2006;6:569–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MTD, Mazur M, Telser J. Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2007;39:44–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Isla MI, Zampini IC, Ordónez RM, Cuello S, Juárez BC, Sayago JE, et al. Effect of seasonal variations and collection form on antioxidant activity of propolis from San Juan, Argentina. J Med Food. 2009;12:1334–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang H, Dong Y, Du H, Shi H, Peng Y, Li X. Antioxidant compounds from propolis collected in Anhui, China. Molecules. 2011;16:3444–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lagouri V, Prasianaki D, Krysta III F. Antioxidant properties and phenolic composition of Greek propolis extracts. Int J Food Prop. 2014;17:511–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Chan GC, Cheung KW, Sze DM. The immunomodulatory and anticancer properties of propolis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2013;44:262–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Li H, Kapur A, Yang JX, Srivastava S, McLeod DG, Paredes-Guzman JF, et al. Antiproliferation of human prostate cancer cells by ethanolic extracts of Brazilian propolis and its botanical origin. Int J Oncol. 2007;31:601–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Shubharani R, Sivaram V, Kishore BR. In-vitro cytotoxicity of Indian bee propolis on cancer cell lines. Int J Pharm Bio Sci. 2014;5:698–706.Google Scholar
  52. Popolo A, Piccinelli LA, Morello S, Cuesta-Rubio O, Sorrentino R, Rastrelli L, et al. Antiproliferative activity of brown Cuban propolis extract on human breast cancer cells. Nat Prod Commun. 2009;4:1711–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Syamsudin, Simanjuntak P, Djamil R, Heffen WL. Apoptosis of human breast cancer cells induced by ethylacetate extracts of propolis. Am J Biochem Biotechnol. 2010;6:84–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Syamsudin, Wiryowidagdo S, Simanjuntak P, Heffen WL. Chemical composition of propolis from different regions in Java and their cytotoxic activity. Am J Biochem Biotechnol. 2009;5:180–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Zammit EJ, Theuma KB, Darmanin S, Muraglia M, Camilleri-Podesta MT, Buhagiar JA, et al. Totarol content and cytotoxicity varies significantly in different types of propolis. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2013;4:1047–58.Google Scholar
  56. Calhelha RC, Falcão S, Queiroz MJRP, Vilas-Boas M, Ferreira ICFR. Cytotoxicity of Portuguese propolis: the proximity of the in vitro doses for tumor and normal cell lines. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:897361.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vatansever HS, Sorkun K, Gurhan SID, Ozdal-Kurt F, Turkoz E, Gencay O, et al. Propolis from Turkey induces apoptosis through activating caspases in human breast carcinoma cell lines. Acta Histochem. 2010;112:546–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Frion-Herrera Y, Diaz-Garcia A, Rodríguez-Sanchez H, Ruiz-Fuentes J, Monzote-Fidalgo L, Morier-Diaz L, et al. Cytotoxic effect of Cuban propolis extracts against tumor cells lines. American Journal of Essential Oils and Natural Products. 2013;1:112–7.Google Scholar
  59. Kouidhi B, Zmantar T, Bakhrouf A. Anti-cariogenic and anti-biofilms activity of Tunisian propolis extract and its potential protective effect against cancer cells proliferation. Anaerobe. 2010;16:566–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sears CL. A dynamic partnership: celebrating our gut flora. Anaerobe. 2005;11:247–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Guarner F, Malagelada JR. Gut flora in health and disease. Lancet. 2003;361:512–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Guilfoile PG, Alcamo IE. Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. New York: Infobase Publishing; 2007.Google Scholar
  63. Dunn BE, Cohen H, Blaser MJ. Helicobacter pylori. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10:720–41.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Moreno MIN, Isla MI, Cudmani NG, Vattuone MA, Sampietro AR. Screening of antibacterial activity of Amaicha del Valle (Tucumán, Argentina) propolis. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999;68:97–102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Davey RW, Grange JM. Antibacterial properties of propolis (bee glue). J R Soc Med. 1990;83:159–61.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Boyanova L, Kolarov R, Gergova G, Mitova I. In vitro activity of Bulgarian propolis against 94 clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobe. 2006;12:173–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Ugur A, Barlas M, Ceyhan N, Turkmen V. Antimicrobial effects of propolis extracts on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus strains resistant to various antibiotics and some microorganisms. J Med Food. 2000;3:173–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. da Silva JFM, de Souza MC, Matta SR, de Andrade MR, Vidal FVN. Correlation analysis between phenolic levels of Brazilian propolis extracts and their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. Food Chem. 2006;99:431–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Bonheví JS, Gutiérrez AL. The antimicrobial effects of propolis collected in different regions in the Basque Country (Northern Spain). World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28:1351–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wang et al. 2016

Advertisement