Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Herbal-Derived Products with Skin Anti-Aging Properties and Cosmetic Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical Composition and Biological Activity of Argentinian Propolis of Four Species of Stingless Bees
Previous Article in Journal
Combination of Spray-Chilling and Spray-Drying Techniques to Protect Carotenoid-Rich Extracts from Pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) Byproducts, Aiming at the Production of a Powdered Natural Food Dye
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antineoplastic and Antitrypanosomal Properties of Propolis from Tetragonula biroi Friese
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 27
Issue 21
10.3390/molecules27217531
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Propolis Efficacy: The Quest for Eco-Friendly Solvents

by
Ana Sofia Freitas
1,2,3,
Ana Cunha
2,3,
Pier Parpot
4,5,
Susana M. Cardoso
6,
Rui Oliveira
2,3 and
Cristina Almeida-Aguiar
2,3,*
1
CITAB—Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
2
Department of Biology, School of Sciences, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
3
CBMA—Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
4
CQUM—Chemistry Center of the University of Minho, Department of Chemistry, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
5
CEB—Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
6
LAQV-REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(21), 7531; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217531
Submission received: 7 October 2022 / Revised: 1 November 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Propolis in Human and Bee Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Propolis, a natural product made by bees with resins and balsams, is known for its complex chemical composition and remarkable bioactivities. In this study, propolis extraction was studied seeking extracts with strong bioactivities using less orthodox solvents, with some derived from apiary products. For that, a propolis sample collected from Gerês apiary in 2018 (G18) was extracted by maceration with six different solvents: absolute ethanol, ethanol/water (7:3), honey brandy, mead, propylene glycol and water. The solvent influence on the chemical composition and antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of the extracts was investigated. Antioxidant potential was assessed by the DPPH free-radical-scavenging assay and the antimicrobial activity by the agar dilution method. Chemical composition of the extracts was determined in vitro by three colorimetric assays: total ortho-diphenols, phenolics and flavonoids contents and the LC-MS technique. To our knowledge, this is the first time that solvents such as honey brandy and mead have been studied. Honey brandy showed considerable potential to extract propolis active compounds able to inhibit the growth of bacteria such as the methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and Propionibacterium acnes (MIC values of 100 and 200 µg/mL, respectively) and the fungi Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (MIC = 500 µg/mL, for both). Mead extracts displayed high antioxidant capacity (EC50 = 1.63 ± 0.27 µg/mL) and great activity against resistant bacteria such as the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli (MIC = 750 µg/mL, for both). The production of such solvents made from beehive products further promotes a diversification of apiary products and the exploration of new applications using eco-friendly solutions.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Propolis is a natural product composed by resinous and balsamic material collected by honeybees from different parts of plants and mixed with substances resulting from bees’ metabolism [1]. There is a long history of propolis use, which continues today in homemade remedies and personal products, as well as in over-the-counter products, mostly due to its vast list of preparations and uses. The demand for this beehive product is still increasing, along with the growing preference for natural products by the consumers. Propolis is commercialized in different parts of the world, being recognized as an important source of compounds with properties for several applications [2,3].
Most of the marketed propolis-based products require an extraction step, which allows the removal of inert material and the solubilization and preservation of the bioactive portion [4], enabling its introduction in pharmaceutical, food and cosmetic products [5]. In addition to the extraction method [6], the solvent used to extract the bioactive compounds is a determinant factor that influences the chemical composition of the obtained extracts [7]. Among the most used solvents—water, methanol, ethanol, chloroform, dichloromethane, ether and acetone—ethanol is considered the solvent of choice for obtaining propolis extracts with a high content of bioactive compounds [8]. However, ethanol has its drawbacks, such as a strong taste and limited applicability in certain industries, for instance, to treat ophthalmological diseases or in pediatric cases [9]. Different solvents extract distinct compounds [10], giving each extract particular properties and potentially specific applications. This work aims to highlight the importance of solvent selection, searching for new and more ecological solvents (e.g., honey brandy and mead, made from honey) that could promote a more sustainable beekee** activity. To this end, a propolis raw sample collected in 2018 from Gerês (G18) was extracted with six different solvents: absolute ethanol, ethanol/water (7:3), honey brandy, mead, propylene glycol and water. The antioxidant potential and antimicrobial activity of the six extracts were evaluated, and the chemical composition was determined. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to evaluate possible associations between the chemical composition of propolis and bioactivities, with the aim of finding the main putative compounds responsible for such relevant activities.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Extraction Yield

Most studies on propolis have used ethanol to extract the bioactive compounds [4,11], and data on the chemical composition and bioactivities of non-ethanol propolis extracts are much more limited. In the present study, the chemical composition and antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of propolis extracts prepared with six different solvents—absolute ethanol, ethanol/water (7:3), honey brandy, mead, propylene glycol and water—were investigated. To our knowledge, this is the first time propolis was extracted with mead and honey brandy, two sweet-flavored fermented alcoholic drinks made from honey, water and yeast, with 40% and 15% of alcohol by volume (ABV), respectively. As presented in Table 1, the highest yields were obtained for absolute ethanol, ethanol/water (7:3) and propylene glycol extracts (>60%). Extraction with honey brandy resulted in a significantly lower yield (26.6%). However, the lowest yields were obtained for extraction with mead and water, the most polar solvent used (6.5 and 6.3%, respectively).
Although the extraction method was distinct from that used in the present work, ethanol was already described as the solvent able to obtain higher yield values, followed by propylene glycol and water [12]. However, a yield reported for water extraction was more than double the value obtained in this work, and for ethanol and propylene glycol extraction, it was around four-times lower [12]. Similar yield values for propolis water and ethanol extracts—1.81 and 51.03%, respectively—were found [13]. The same study also showed that the higher the alcohol content in the solvent, the higher the yield [13].
Yield comparisons between different works is always uncertain since extraction procedures are usually not performed under the exact same conditions. The extraction yield mainly varies with the technique and solvent used, but also depends on a combination of several other factors such as the ratio between the sample and the solvent, the fragmentation state of the sample and the agitation, temperature and time of extraction [14,15,16,17,18]. Although there is an increase in yield with increasing extraction time, this increase does not imply a significant increase in the phenolic content [14]. Propolis possess compounds with very different affinities to distinct solvents, for instance, compounds with more affinity to ethanol, such as the less polar active compounds, could not be easily extracted with polar solvents such as water, and vice versa. Ethanol is, however, a solvent with great affinity for a variety of compounds of different polarity, being consequently able to achieve higher yields [4,15].

2.2. Antimicrobial Activity

Antibacterial properties of the six G18 extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE—were evaluated to assess the influence of the solvent on this activity (Table 2). Gram-positive bacteria, such as the bacteria of the genus Bacillus, were the most susceptible strains to all the extracts, which is a very common result reported by several authors, including our research group [19,20,21]. G18.EE, G18.EE70 and G18.PGE were the most active extracts, exhibiting the same MIC value against all the tested strains, followed by G18.HBE, which was slightly more active against the Gram-positive methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA; MIC = 100 μg/mL) and Propionibacterium acnes (MIC = 200 μg/mL). G18.ME was, in general, one of the least active extracts, but the only one capable to inhibit the growth of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; MIC = 750 μg/mL) and the Gram-negative bacterium tested, Escherichia coli (MIC = 750 μg/mL), proving to be particularly interesting to be used against these presumptive more resistant bacteria. The least active extract was the G18.WE, exhibiting the higher MIC values for all the tested strains (MIC ≥ 1000 μg/mL). The ethanol extracts, G18.EE and G18.EE70, as well as G18.HBE and G18.PGE, showed similar antibacterial activity when compared to ethanol extracts of propolis from Gerês from previous years [21].
The antifungal effect of the six G18 extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE—was also evaluated to assess the influence of the solvent (Table 3). All extracts showed similar activity against both strains, with G18.HBE standing out from the others, being the most active against both Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans (MIC = 500 μg/mL). This behavior is unusual for ethanol propolis extracts from Gerês [22], as the activity against these yeasts is normally weak, similar to the activity observed for the other extracts in this work. G18.WE was the least active extract against both yeasts (MIC > 2000 μg/mL).
Our results are in accordance with findings previously reported [9], showing that the propolis had EE70 higher activity against the Gram-positive bacteria over the Gram-negative. In addition, similar to our study, the extracts were particularly active against the spore-forming bacteria Bacillus cereus and no activity against all the tested strains was found for the propolis WE. Other studies also showed the inefficacy of water extracts of propolis as antimicrobial agents, showing weak or no activity at all against the tested strains, such as Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus, S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and C. albicans [9,23]. On the other hand, ethanol and propylene glycol demonstrated potential as extraction solvents to obtain propolis extracts with great antimicrobial activity, especially against S. aureus and B. subtilis [23]. Two different propolis extracts—ethanol and water—were tested, and MIC values in the same range as ours were obtained against S. aureus (250 and 1000 μg/mL, for propolis EE and WE, respectively) and E. coli (1000 and > 1000 μg/mL for the propolis EE and WE, respectively) [8].

2.3. Antioxidant Activity

DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity was determined for the six G18 extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE—and the respective EC50 values were calculated (Table 4). G18.EE and G18.EE70 showed similar and lower anti-radical activity (10.78 ± 0.43 and 9.91 ± 1.07 µg/mL, respectively) than G18.PGE (8.17 ± 0.14 µg/mL). G18.HBE and G18.WE exhibited similar values of EC50 (4.90 ± 0.10 and 4.54 ± 0.23 µg/mL, respectively) and a high antioxidant potential, but G18.ME displayed the highest antioxidant potential with a particularly low EC50 value of 1.63 ± 0.27 µg/mL. Contrary to what happen for the antibacterial activity, where the G18.WE and G18.ME were the weaker extracts against all tested bacterial strains, these extracts exhibited the higher capability to scavenge DPPH free radicals, suggesting that extracts with lower antibacterial activity usually have higher antioxidant potential.
Other authors have evaluated the DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity of propolis ethanol and water extracts [9,13,24,25,26,27], reporting their high antioxidant potential. However, the literature does not point to a predominance of EE or WE for higher antioxidant activity, with studies finding higher scavenging ability of WE when compared to the EE of the same propolis sample, similar to this work, whereas others have found EE with greater antioxidant capacity instead (IC50 of 695 and 13,798 µg/mL, for the EE and WE respectively) [9,13,27]. However, the value obtained for the G18.EE fits into the scavenging activity exhibited by the EE from Gerês from previous years, supporting the constancy exhibited by these particular propolis samples [21].

2.4. Chemical Characterization

2.4.1. In Vitro Evaluation of Total Ortho-Diphenols (TOC), Phenolics (TPC) and Flavonoids (TFC) Contents

Table 5 summarizes the total ortho-diphenols (TOC), phenolics (TPC) and flavonoids (TFC) contents of the G18 extracts. TOC ranged from 263.05 ± 15.19 to 1067.79 ± 37.24 mg GAE/g extract. The lowest value achieved for absolute ethanol and ethanol/water (7:3) extracts, while the highest TOC was achieved by the G18.WE and G18.ME. TPC values ranged from 207.49 ± 8.55 to 1267.57 ± 5.27 mg GAE/g extract, with G18.PGE exhibiting the lower value, while the highest TPC value was displayed, again, by G18.WE and G18.ME. TFC values ranged from 7.40 ± 0.14 mg QE/g extract for G18.WE to 50.97 ± 0.26 mg QE/g extract for G18.HBE. TOC correlated directly to the antioxidant potential as the extracts with higher TOC exhibited higher ability to scavenge DPPH free radicals. On the other hand, TFC seems to be linked, although not directly correlated, to the antibacterial activity, as extracts with higher TFC generally showed stronger antibacterial activity against the different bacterial strains tested.
G18.EE showed TPC and TFC values similar to the ones reported for G.EEs from previous years [22]. Our results showed slight differences from what was previously described [15,23,28,29], indicating that ethanol extraction leads to higher TPC and TFC values when compared to water extraction. Although both G18.EE and G18.EE70 showed higher TFC values than G18.WE, the latter showed a value of TPC around five-times higher than the ethanol extracts. The values of TPC and TFC found in the literature for EE are in the range of the values obtained in the present study. The same is not true regarding WE since different authors have reported distinct values for their extracts. For instance, some authors have reported TPC values for propolis EE in the range of the values found in our study (152.03 and 231.92 mg GAE/g extract, respectively) but lower values for the WE (6.68 and 61.92 mg GAE/g extract, respectively) [13,28]. The same tendency has been described by other authors who reported TPC values of 321 and 210 mg GAE/g extract for the propolis EE and WE, respectively [27], and TPC values of high range for both propolis EE (1207.9 µg/mL) and WE (20791.3 µg/mL) [29]. Nevertheless, the TPC values found in the literature for WE are generally much lower than this last value and the values obtained in the present work. However, and similar to our work, similar TPC values for both ethanol and propylene glycol extracts have been described and, when compared to the water extract of the same propolis sample, both ethanol and glycol propolis extracts have shown higher TFC [12,23,28].

2.4.2. UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn Analysis

After liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis of the different extracts of propolis from Gerês, 51 compounds were detected (see Supplementary Material Figure S1 and Table S1). Regardless the differences found in the total ortho-diphenols, phenolics and flavonoids contents, most of the different solvent extracts showed similar phenolic constituents, particularly the extracts with higher alcohol content—G18.EE, G18.EE70 and G18.HBE—and G18.PGE. Non-ethanol solvents of glycolic nature, which is the case of propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol, have been shown to be more efficient in extracting the active portion from propolis when compared to ethanol [9]. Among all compounds, only two, gallic acid and caffeic acid, were detected in all the extracts. Gallic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, 3,4-dimethyl-caffeic acid (DMCA), quercetin-3-methyl ether, apigenin, chrysin, caffeic acid isoprenyl ester (CAIE), acacetin and pinocembrin were the main compounds found, among many others also observed in the chemical profiles described for European propolis [21], typical for poplar propolis ethanol extracts [11].
Both G18.ME and G18.WE exhibited distinct chemical profiles. The G18.WE was mainly composed by tannins and coumaric acid derivatives, whereas the few phenolic compounds detected in G18.ME consisted of phenolic acids and hydroxycinnamic acids, namely gallic acid, caffeic acid, ellagic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, 3,4-dimethyl-caffeic acid (DMCA) and p-coumaric acid methyl ester. As this extract is characterized by a potent antioxidant capacity (EC50 = 1.63 ± 0.27 µg/mL), it is tempting to associate the presence of these phenolic acids to this property, which is in line with what has already been described in the literature [11]. Still, the activity against the MRSA and E. coli can also be related to the presence of the same compounds. Thus, it would be interesting to test several combinations of the seven compounds to find the major putative compounds responsible for the activity against these two resistant bacteria.

2.5. Multivariate Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out to find possible correlations between the presence of particular groups of compounds and the antioxidant as well as antimicrobial activities. The PC1 and PC2 represented 61.41 and 25.52% of the total variance, respectively. The biplot graph for the first two PCs is presented in Figure 1. Considering the similarities of the samples and the variables related to the chemical composition of propolis extracts and their antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, the first ones could be divided into three groups (Figure 1). The first group is composed by the absolute ethanol (EE), ethanol/water (7:3) EE70) and the mead (ME) extracts; the second group by the honey brandy (HBE) and propylene glycol (PGE) extracts; and the third group by the water extract (WE) alone, as the most differentiated extract.
As depicted in Figure 2, it is possible to confirm that TOC and TPC are both inversely proportional to DPPH, indicating a correlation between these first ones and antioxidant potential. To our knowledge, this is a new finding since no information was found in the literature concerning TOC analysis of propolis samples and considering that the antioxidant activity is usually positively correlated with the total flavonoids and phenolics contents [26]. The TFC is strongly correlated with the antibacterial activity, particularly related to the Gram-positive bacteria—B. subtilis, B. cereus, B. megaterium, MSSA and P. acnes—and the antifungal—S. cerevisiae and C. albicans. On the other hand, the angles between the other two variables, TPC and TOC, and MRSA and the gram-negative bacterium E. coli, are approximately 90°, indicating correlation coefficients close to 0 (Figure 1). These results show that TPC and TOC are not correlated with MRSA and E. coli, and the response for this last one could not be predicted from propolis TPC and TOC.
Both antioxidant and antimicrobial activities are universally exhibited by propolis, and the same happens with some of the compounds that are part of this complex mixture, such as gallic acid, ellagic acid, ferulic acid, isorhamnetin, kaempferol, caffeic acid isoprenyl ester (CAIE), caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) and tannins [13,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. The presence of specific phenolic compounds, such as gallic acid (compound x1), present in all the extracts but in different quantities, and the HHDP-hexoside (x2), digalloyl hexoside (x6), gallotannin (x7), di(HHDP-galloylglucose)-pentose (x9), tannins (x10–12, x15), caffeic acid derivatives (x13) and coumaric acid derivatives (x16–19), only present in G18.WE, although not individually correlated, could, acting synergistically, be responsible for the strong correlation between the G18.WE and the antioxidant potential (DPPH; Figure 1 and Figure 2). In contrast, the antimicrobial activity, more specifically against the fungi S. cerevisiae and C. albicans, and the bacteria of the genus Bacillus and the S. aureus and P. acnes, seems to be linked to the presence of other group of compounds, mostly flavonoids, such as the ellagic acid (x4), ferulic acid (x8), pinobanksin-5-methyl-ether (x20), quercetin-3-methyl ether (x21), kaempferol (x25), isorhamnetin (x26), acacetin (x31), kaempferide (x35), kaempferol-methoxy-methyl ether (x36), 3-hydroxy-5-methoxy flavanone (x43) and caffeic acid derivatives (x49).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Propolis Sample and Extracts Preparation

The propolis used in this work was harvested in 2018 from an apiary located in Gerês, in the north of Portugal and near the Cávado River (41°45′41.62′’ N; 7°58′03.34′’ W), a protected area of the Peneda-Gerês National Park [21]. Beekee** is performed under a certified biological mode and propolis is produced and harvested from grids by a standardized method, being of high quality and value.
The sample, named G18, was carefully cleaned of debris and finely fragmented before being extracted by maceration as previously described [21] but using distinct solvents—absolute ethanol, ethanol/water (7:3), honey brandy, mead, propylene glycol and water—to achieve different extracts—ethanol extract (EE), ethanol/water (7:3) extract (EE70), honey brandy extract (HBE), mead extract (ME), propylene glycol extract (PGE) and water extract (WE). Homemade honey brandy and mead were obtained using honey from the same region. A volume of 60 mL of each solvent was added to approximately 9 g of propolis and the mixtures were placed under orbital agitation (100 rpm), at 24 °C, in the dark, for 24 h. The mixtures were then filtered under a vacuum, and the filtrates were reserved at 4 °C. The solid residues were extracted again with 40 mL of the respective previously used solvent. The resulting filtrates were pooled, and the following extracts were obtained: G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. At the end of the process, three 500 µL aliquots of each extract were dried under nitrogen flow for yield analysis.

3.2. In Vitro Characterization of the Chemical Composition of Extracts of Propolis from Gerês Harvested in 2018

The six propolis extracts were characterized regarding their phenolic composition using spectrometric and chromatographic methodologies.

3.2.1. Total Ortho-Diphenols Content (TOC)

The content in ortho-diphenol compounds was determined using an adaptation of a colorimetric assay [46]. In brief, an identical volume of different concentrations (from 25 to 300 µg/mL) of each of the six G18 extracts were mixed with 5% (w/v) sodium molybdate, in ethanol/water 1:1 (v/v), (following a 4:1 proportion in the reaction mixture), followed by 15 min incubation at room temperature in the dark. Control and blank were prepared with similar mixtures but with each solvent replacing the extract or sodium molybdate, respectively. Absorbance of the reaction was measured at 370 nm, and results were obtained from linear regression using gallic acid as the standard (calibration curve with concentrations ranging from 40 to 180 µg/mL). TOC is expressed in milligrams of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of propolis extract (mg GAE/g extract).

3.2.2. Total Phenolics Content (TPC)

The content in phenolic compounds was determined using an adaptation of the Folin-Ciocalteu colorimetric assay [31]. Briefly, different concentrations (from 1 to 300 µg/mL) of each of the six G18 extracts were mixed with 10% (v/v) Folin-Ciocalteu reagent and 7.5% (w/v) Na2CO3 (following a 5:5:4 proportion in the reaction mixture). The control and the blank were prepared with similar mixtures but with each solvent replacing the extract or reagents, respectively. Absorbance was measured at 760 nm after 1 h incubation at room temperature in the dark, and results were obtained from linear regression using gallic acid as the standard (calibration curve with concentrations ranging from 1 to 50 µg/mL). TPC is expressed in milligrams of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of propolis extract (mg GAE/g extract).

3.2.3. Total Flavonoids Content (TFC)

The content in flavonoid compounds was determined using an adaptation of the colorimetric assay previously described [31]. In brief, different concentrations (from 200 to 2200 µg/mL) of each of the six G18 extracts were mixed with 2% (w/v) AlCl3 (following a 1:1 proportion in the reaction mixture). Control and blank were prepared with similar mixtures but with each solvent replacing the extract or AlCl3, respectively. The absorbance of the reaction was measured at 420 nm after 1 h incubation at room temperature in the dark, and results were obtained from linear regression using quercetin as the standard (calibration curve with concentrations ranging from 5 to 200 µg/mL). TFC is expressed in milligrams of quercetin equivalents (QE) per gram of propolis extract (mg QE/g extract).

3.3. Analysis of G18 Extracts Phenolic Compounds by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn

The phenolic profile of the extracts was elucidated by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis following the method previously used [21]. Analysis was performed on an Ultimate 3000 (Dionex Co., Rockville, MD, USA) apparatus equipped with an ultimate 3000 Diode Array Detector (Dionex Co., Rockville, MD, USA) coupled to a mass spectrometer LTQ XL Linear Ion Trap 2D. The chromatographic system comprised a quaternary pump, an autosampler, a photodiode-array detector and an automatic thermostatic column compartment. The mass spectrometer was a Thermo LTQ XL (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) ion trap MS equipped with an ESI source. Compounds were identified by comparison of the ESI-MS/MS with the data from MS/MS published in the literature [21,47,48,49,50,51,52].

3.4. In Vitro Evaluation of the Antioxidant Potential of Extracts of Propolis from Gerês Harvested in 2018

The DPPH• (2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl) method was used for the in vitro evaluation of the antioxidant potential of the propolis extracts as previously described [21]. In brief, different concentrations (from 1 to 50 µg/mL) of each of the six G18 extracts were mixed with 0.004% (w/v) DPPH• in a proportion of 1:2. The control and the blank were prepared with similar mixtures but with each solvent replacing the extract or DPPH•, respectively. Absorbance was measured at 517 nm after 20 min incubation at room temperature in the dark, and the results are expressed in EC50 values (µg/mL; concentration that reduce the free radical in 50%) from linear regression of the percentage decrease in absorbance with respect to the control values.

3.5. Antimicrobial Properties of G18 Extracts—Determination of Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of the six G18 extracts were determined using the agar dilution method [53] and the following panel of indicator strains: the Gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli CECT 423, six Gram-positive bacteria—Bacillus subtilis 48886, Bacillus cereus ATCC 7064, Bacillus megaterium 932, (methicillin-snsitive) Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 (MSSA), (methicillin-resistant) Staphylococcus aureus M746665 (MRSA) and Propionibacterium acnes H60803—as well as two yeast strains: Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4741, from Euroscarf (http://euroscarf.de/index.php?name=Description; accessed on 22 July 2021), and Candida albicans 53B, from the microbial collection of the Department of Biology of the University of Minho.
Bacteria and yeast were cultured, respectively, in LB (Luria-Bertani—0.5% (w/v) yeast extract, 1% (w/v) tryptone, 1% (w/v) NaCl) and YPD (1% (w/v) yeast extract, 2% (w/v) peptone, 2% (w/v) glucose) broths or in solid media (LBA and YPDA—by adding 2% (w/v) agar to the previous recipes of LB and YPD, respectively). Growth was performed at 200 rpm—at 37 °C for bacteria and 30 °C for yeast—and monitored by optical density at 600 nm (OD600). To prepare the cells for the experiments, overnight microbial cultures were diluted with the appropriated fresh medium to an OD600 = 0.1 and incubated under the same conditions until the OD600 reached 0.4–0.6 (mid-exponential phase).
Drops of 5 µL of exponentially growing microbial cultures were transferred onto LBA and YPDA plates (for bacteria and yeast, respectively), supplemented with different concentrations of each of the six G18 extracts (0, 10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750 or 2000 µg/mL). Plates containing identical volumes of each solvent were used as controls. Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h for bacteria and at 30 °C for 48 h in the case of yeast. MIC values were determined upon observation of the presence/absence of growth.

3.6. Principal Component Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed for multivariate data analysis using R Studio version 1.4.1106 (Copyright 2009-2021 R Studio, PBC), R version 4.0.5 (Copyright (C) 2021 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The data matrix was composed by 6 samples (propolis extracts) and 64 variables, including the compounds detected (51 compounds) by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn, the total phenolics (TPC), flavonoids (TFC) and ortho-diphenols contents (TOC) and the antioxidant potential (DPPH), as well as the antimicrobial activity (MIC values). The correlation between variables and the relationship between samples and biochemical parameters were determined using scores, loadings and biplot graphs.

3.7. Statistical Analysis

Antimicrobial and antioxidant experiments were performed in triplicate, repeated at least three times independently, and results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). A one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons were used to assess treatment effect. Differences considered statistically significant (p < 0.05) were noted with different letters.

4. Conclusions

In general, ethanol extracts of propolis from Gerês appear to be more suitable for antimicrobial applications, which correlates with their high content in flavonoids, while the mead extract seems to be a more promising choice concerning the antioxidant potential, which correlates with its higher content in phenolic acids. Solvents such as honey brandy and mead must be further explored. Beyond the strong antioxidant potential of the corresponding propolis extracts obtained with such solvents, they possess considerable infections-fighting potential, namely fungal, similar to the infections caused by C. albicans, and bacterial, particularly against some resistant bacteria such as MRSA and E. coli. As different solvents can extract not only distinct amounts of the same compound but also diverse groups of compounds, this study can contribute to a more conscious choice of the appropriate solvent in order to extract a propolis active portion according to the desired applicability. The increasing health-conscious awareness of consumers regarding the potential toxicity of the chemicals used in their daily life has led to the quest for more natural and sustainable alternatives. Solvents such honey brandy and mead, made from natural sources such as bee products encompasses bioeconomy, are also an additional source of income for the beekee** sector as alternative uses for surplus honey production and/or reuse of products that may not have commercial value to be marketed, as these solvents can be marketed an eco-friendly alternative to the current solvents in use.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://mdpi.longhoe.net/article/10.3390/molecules27217531/s1, Figure S1: LC-MS chromatographic profiles of the six G18.Es—G18.EE (A), G18.EE70 (B), G18.HBE (C), G18.ME (D), G18.PGE (E) and G18.WE (F)—resulting from the extraction of G18 with different solvents—ethanol extract (EE), ethanol/water (7:3) extract (EE70), honey brandy extract (HBE), mead extract (ME), propylene glycol extract (PGE) and water extract (WE), respectively; Table S1: Chemical composition of G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.PGE, G18.ME and G18.WE according to LC-MS analysis.

Author Contributions

Conception and design of the work: A.S.F., A.C., R.O., C.A.-A.; experimental work: A.S.F.; supervision of the experimental work: A.C., R.O., C.A.-A.; UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis of propolis extracts and data interpretation: A.S.F., S.M.C.; Principal Component Analysis and data interpretation: A.S.F., P.P.; drafting the manuscript: A.S.F.; revision and approval of the manuscript: A.S.F.; A.C., P.P., S.M.C., R.O., C.A.-A.; project supervision: C.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Ana Freitas acknowledges the financial support provided by national funds through FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PD/BD/128276/2017), under the Doctoral Programme “Agricultural Production Chains—from fork to farm” (PD/00122/2012), and from the European Social Funds and the Regional Operational Programme Norte 2020. This study was also supported by CITAB research unit (UIDB/04033/2020), CBMA research unit (Contrato-Programa UIDB/04050/2020), Centre of Chemistry (UID/QUI/0686/2016), BioTecNorte (operation NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004), supported by the Northern Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), LAQV (projects UIDB/50006/2020, UIDP/50006/2020, and UID/BIA/04004/2020) funded by national funds through the FCT I.P.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the beekeeper Amadeu Fortunas, from Casa do Couto, 5470-362 Montalegre, Portugal, for gently providing the propolis sample used in this work as well as the honey brandy and mead used as solvents in the extraction process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of G18 as well as from the six extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE—are available from the authors.

References

  1. Fokt, H.; Pereira, A.; Ferreira, A.M.; Cunha, A.; Aguiar, C. How do bees prevent hive infections? The antimicrobial properties of propolis. Curr. Res. Technol. Educ. Top. Appl. Microbiol. Microb. Biotechnol. 2010, 1, 481–493. [Google Scholar]
  2. Moreira, L.; Dias, L.; Pereira, J.A.; Estevinho, L. Antioxidant Properties, Total Phenols and Pollen Analysis of Propolis Samples from Portugal. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 3482–3485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pasupuleti, V.R.; Sammugam, L.; Ramesh, N.; Gan, S.H. Honey, propolis, and royal jelly: A comprehensive review of their biological actions and health benefits. Oxid Med. Cell Longev 2017, 2017, 1259510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Santos-Buelga, C.; González-Paramás, A.M. Phenolic Composition of Propolis. Em: Bee Products—Chemical and Biological Properties; Alvarez-Suarez, J.M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 99–111. [Google Scholar]
  5. Burdock, G.A. Review of the Biological Properties and Toxicity of Bee Propolis (propolis). Food Chem. Toxicol. 1998, 36, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pobiega, K.; Kraśniewska, K.; Derewiaka, D.; Gniewosz, M. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of propolis extracts obtained by means of various extraction methods. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 5386–5395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sheng, J.; Zhou, J.; Wang, L.; Xu, J.; Hu, Q. Antioxidant activity of ethanol and petroleum ether extracts from Brazilian propolis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2007, 225, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Asgharpour, F.; Moghadamnia, A.A.; Kazemi, S.; Nouri, H.R.; Motallebnejad, M. Applying GC-MS analysis to identify chemical composition of Iranian propolis prepared with different solvent and evaluation of its biological activity. Casp. J. Intern. Med. 2020, 11, 191. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kubiliene, L.; Laugaliene, V.; Pavilonis, A.; Maruska, A.; Majiene, D.; Barcauskaite, K.; Kubilius, R.; Kasparaviciene, G.; Savickas, A. Alternative preparation of propolis extracts: Comparison of their composition and biological activities. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Watanabe, M.A.E.; Amarante, M.K.; Conti, B.J.; Sforcin, J.M. Cytotoxic constituents of propolis inducing anticancer effects: A review. J. Pharm. Pharm. 2011, 63, 1378–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Šuran, J.; Cepanec, I.; Mašek, T.; Starčević, K.; Tlak Gajger, I.; Vranješ, M.; Radić, B.; Radić, S.; Kosalec, I.; Vlainić, J. Nonaqueous polyethylene glycol as a safer alternative to ethanolic propolis extracts with comparable antioxidant and antimicrobial activity. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pujirahayu, N.; Ritonga, H.; Uslinawaty, Z. Properties and flavonoids content in propolis of some extraction method of raw propolis. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 6, 338–340. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sun, C.; Wu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H. Effect of ethanol/water solvents on phenolic profiles and antioxidant properties of Bei**g propolis extracts. Evid. Based Complement. Altern Med. 2015, 2015, 595393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Cunha, I.; Sawaya, A.C.; Caetano, F.M.; Shimizu, M.T.; Marcucci, M.C.; Drezza, F.T.; Povia, G.S.; Carvalho, P.D.O. Factors that influence the yield and composition of Brazilian propolis extracts. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2004, 15, 964–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mokhtar, S.U.; Hooi, H.S.; Lene, D.T.T.; Jayaraman, S. Comparison of total phenolic and flavonoids contents in Malaysian propolis extract with two different extraction solvents. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2019, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oroian, M.; Ursachi, F.; Dranca, F. Influence of ultrasonic amplitude, temperature, time and solvent concentration on bioactive compounds extraction from propolis. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 64, 105021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stanciauskaite, M.; Marksa, M.; Babickaite, L.; Majiene, D.; Ramanauskiene, K. Comparison of Ethanolic and Aqueous Populus balsamifera L. Bud Extracts by Different Extraction Methods: Chemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Aboulghazi, A.; Bakour, M.; Fadil, M.; Lyoussi, B. Simultaneous Optimization of Extraction Yield, Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Moroccan Propolis Extracts: Improvement of Ultrasound-Assisted Technique Using Response Surface Methodology. Processes 2022, 10, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bankova, V.; Castro, S.L.; Marcucci, M.C. Propolis: Recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie 2000, 31, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Uzel, A.; Önçağ, Ö.; Çoğulu, D.; Gençay, Ö. Chemical compositions and antimicrobial activities of four different Anatolian propolis samples. Microbiol Res. 2005, 160, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Freitas, A.S.; Cunha, A.; Cardoso, S.M.; Oliveira, R.; Almeida-Aguiar, C. Constancy of the bioactivities of propolis samples collected on the same apiary over four years. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Peixoto, M.; Freitas, A.S.; Cunha, A.; Oliveira, R.; Almeida-Aguiar, C. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of blends of propolis samples collected in different years. LWT 2021, 145, 111311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ramanauskienė, K.; Inkėnienė, A.M.; Petrikaitė, V.; Briedis, V. Total phenolic content and antimicrobial activity of different lithuanian propolis solutions. Evid. Based Complement. Altern Med. 2013, 2013, 842985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Mavri, A.; Abramovič, H.; Polak, T.; Bertoncelj, J.; Jamnik, P.; Smole Možina, S.; Jeršek, B. Chemical properties and antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Slovenian propolis. Chem. Biodivers. 2012, 9, 1545–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Woźniak, M.; Mrówczyńska, L.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Rogoziński, T.; Ratajczak, I. Phenolic profile and antioxidant activity of propolis extracts from Poland. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2019, 14, 1934578X19849777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Syed Salleh, S.N.A.; Mohd Hanapiah, N.A.; Ahmad, H.; Wan Johari, W.L.; Osman, N.H.; Mamat, M.R. Determination of total phenolics, flavonoids, and antioxidant activity and GC-MS analysis of Malaysian stingless bee propolis water extracts. Scientifica 2021, 2021, 3789351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ibrahim, M.E.E.D.; Alqurashi, R.M. Anti-fungal and antioxidant properties of propolis (bee glue) extracts. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 361, 109463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dönmez, M.; Karadeniz, Ş.; Yoldas, T.; Aydin, G.; Karagül, P.; Osman, A.K.S.U.; Rasgele, P.G. Comparison of Chemical Contents of Extracts in Different Solvents of Propolis Samples Produced in Duzce Province. Int. J. Tradit. Complement. Med. Res. 2020, 1, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kubiliene, L.; Jekabsone, A.; Zilius, M.; Trumbeckaite, S.; Simanaviciute, D.; Gerbutaviciene, R.; Majiene, D. Comparison of aqueous, polyethylene glycol-aqueous and ethanolic propolis extracts: Antioxidant and mitochondria modulating properties. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2018, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Santos, F.A.; Bastos, E.M.A.; Uzeda, M.; Carvalho, M.A.R.; Farias, L.M.; Moreira, E.S.A.; Braga, F.C. Antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis and fractions against oral anaerobic bacteria. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2002, 80, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumazawa, S.; Hamasaka, T.; Nakayama, T. Antioxidant activity of propolis of various geographic origins. Food Chem. 2004, 84, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Orsolić, N.; Saranović, A.B.; Basić, I. Direct and indirect mechanism(s) of antitumour activity of propolis and its polyphenolic compounds. Planta Med. 2006, 72, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Chen, Y.J.; Huang, A.C.; Chang, H.H.; Liao, H.F.; Jiang, C.M.; Lai, L.Y.; Chan, J.T.; Chen, Y.Y.; Chiang, J. Caffeic acid phenethyl ester, an antioxidant from propolis, protects peripheral blood mononuclear cells of competitive cyclists against hyperthermal stress. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, H162–H167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mihai, C.M.; Mărghitaş, L.A.; Dezmirean, D.S.; Bărnuţiu, L. Correlation between polyphenolic profile and antioxidant activity of propolis from Transylvania. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 44, 100–103. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yang, H.; Dong, Y.; Du, H.; Shi, H.; Peng, Y.; Li, X. Antioxidant compounds from propolis collected in Anhui, China. Molecules 2011, 16, 3444–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boisard, S.; Le Ray, A.M.; Gatto, J.; Aumond, M.C.; Blanchard, P.; Derbré, S.; Flurin, C.; Richomme, P. Chemical composition, antioxidant and anti-AGEs activities of a French poplar type propolis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 1344–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Daglia, M.; Di Lorenzo, A.; Nabavi, S.; Talas, Z.; Nabavi, S. Polyphenols: Well beyond the antioxidant capacity: Gallic acid and related compounds as neuroprotective agents: You are what you eat! Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2014, 15, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Patel, J.; Ketkar, S.; Patil, S.; Fearnley, J.; Mahadik, K.R.; Paradkar, A.R. Potentiating antimicrobial efficacy of propolis through niosomal-based system for administration. Integr Med. Res. 2014, 4, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Boisard, S.; Le Ray, A.M.; Landreau, A.; Kempf, M.; Cassisa, V.; Flurin, C.; Richomme, P. Antifungal and antibacterial metabolites from a French poplar type propolis. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 2015, 319240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kandakumar, S.; Manju, D.V. Pharmacological applications of isorhamnetin: A short review. Int. J. Trend Res. Dev. 2017, 1, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Z.J.; Liu, M.; Dawuti, G.; Dou, Q.; Ma, Y.; Liu, H.G.; Aibai, S. Antifungal activity of gallic acid in vitro and in vivo. Phytother. Res. 2017, 31, 1039–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. de Moraes Alves, M.M.; Brito, L.M.; Souza, A.C.; de Carvalho, T.P.; Viana, F.J.C.; de Alcântara Oliveira, F.A.; Barreto, H.M.; de Sousa Macêdo Oliveira, J.S.; Chaves, M.H.; Arcanjo, D.D.R.; et al. Antimicrobial activity and cytotoxic assessment of gallic and ellagic acids. J. Interdiscip. Biociênc. 2018, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Adamczak, A.; Ożarowski, M.; Karpiński, T.M. Antibacterial activity of some flavonoids and organic acids widely distributed in plants. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Tošović, J.; Bren, U. Antioxidative action of ellagic acid—A kinetic DFT study. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tong, Z.; He, W.; Fan, X.; Guo, A. Biological Function of Plant Tannin and Its Application in Animal Health. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 803657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mateos, R.; Espartero, J.L.; Trujillo, M.; Rios, J.J.; León-Camacho, M.; Alcudia, F.; Cert, A. Determination of phenols, flavones, and lignans in virgin olive oils by solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array ultraviolet detection. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2185–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mena, P.; Calani, L.; Dall’Asta, C.; Galaverna, G.; García-Viguera, C.; Bruni, R.; Crozier, A.; Del Rio, D. Rapid and comprehensive evaluation of (poly) phenolic compounds in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) juice by UHPLC-MSn. Molecules 2012, 17, 14821–14840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Sentandreu, E.; Cerdán-Calero, M.; Sendra, J.M. Phenolic profile characterization of pomegranate (Punica granatum) juice by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection coupled to an electrospray ion trap mass analyzer. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2013, 30, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aguilar-Zárate, P.; Wong-Paz, J.E.; Michel, M.; Buenrostro-Figueroa, J.; Díaz, H.R.; Ascacio, J.A.; Contreras-Esquivel, J.C.; Gutiérrez-Sánchez, G.; Aguilar, C.N. Characterisation of pomegranate-husk polyphenols and semi-preparative fractionation of punicalagin. Phytochem. Anal. 2017, 28, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, C.; Seeram, N.P. Ultra-fast liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for the rapid phenolic profiling of red maple (Acer rubrum) leaves. J. Sep. Sci. 2018, 41, 2331–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dos Santos, C.; Galaverna, R.S.; Angolini, C.F.; Nunes, V.V.; De Almeida, L.F.; Ruiz, A.L.; de Carvalho, J.E.; Duarte, R.M.T.; Duarte, M.C.T.; Eberlin, M.N. Antioxidative, antiproliferative and antimicrobial activities of phenolic compounds from three Myrcia species. Molecules 2018, 23, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Quintans-Júnior, L.J.; Gandhi, S.R.; Passos, F.R.S.; Heimfarth, L.; Pereira, E.W.M.; Monteiro, B.S.; dos Santos, K.S.; Duarte, M.C.; Abreu, L.S.; Nascimento, Y.M.; et al. Dereplication and quantification of the ethanol extract of Miconia albicans (Melastomaceae) by Hplc-Dad-Esi-/Ms/Ms, and assessment of its anti-hyperalgesic and anti-inflammatory profiles in a mice arthritis-like model: Evidence for involvement of TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 258, 112938. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Hanson, C.W.; Martin, W.J. Modified agar dilution method for rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1978, 13, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Molecules 27 07531 g001 550
Figure 1. PC2 vs. PC1 biplot graph for the propolis samples and selected biochemical parameters. EE: ethanol extract; EE70: ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE: honey brandy extract; PGE: propylene glycol extract; ME: mead extract; WE: water extract; DPPH: DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL); TFC: total flavonoids content; TPC: total phenolics content; TOC: total ortho-diphenols content; Microorganisms—Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Bc: Bacillus cereus; Bm: Bacillus megaterium; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Pa: Propionibacterium acnes; Ec: Escherichia coli; Sc: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Ca: Candida albicans—distributed according to the MIC values; x1—x51: compounds detected by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis (see Supplementary Material Table S1).
Figure 1. PC2 vs. PC1 biplot graph for the propolis samples and selected biochemical parameters. EE: ethanol extract; EE70: ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE: honey brandy extract; PGE: propylene glycol extract; ME: mead extract; WE: water extract; DPPH: DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL); TFC: total flavonoids content; TPC: total phenolics content; TOC: total ortho-diphenols content; Microorganisms—Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Bc: Bacillus cereus; Bm: Bacillus megaterium; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Pa: Propionibacterium acnes; Ec: Escherichia coli; Sc: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Ca: Candida albicans—distributed according to the MIC values; x1—x51: compounds detected by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis (see Supplementary Material Table S1).
Molecules 27 07531 g001
Molecules 27 07531 g002 550
Figure 2. Correlation plot of the chemical composition and bioactivities of the propolis extracts. Dark blue (positive correlation) and dark red (negative correlation) show the strength and direction of the correlations between the variables. DPPH: DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL); TFC: total flavonoids content; TPC: total phenolics content; TOC: total ortho-diphenols content; Microorganisms—Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Bc: Bacillus cereus; Bm: Bacillus megaterium; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Pa: Propionibacterium acnes; Ec: Escherichia coli; Sc: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Ca: Candida albicans—distributed according to the MIC values; x1–x51: compounds detected by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis (see Supplementary Material Table S1).
Figure 2. Correlation plot of the chemical composition and bioactivities of the propolis extracts. Dark blue (positive correlation) and dark red (negative correlation) show the strength and direction of the correlations between the variables. DPPH: DPPH free-radical-scavenging activity expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL); TFC: total flavonoids content; TPC: total phenolics content; TOC: total ortho-diphenols content; Microorganisms—Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Bc: Bacillus cereus; Bm: Bacillus megaterium; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Pa: Propionibacterium acnes; Ec: Escherichia coli; Sc: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Ca: Candida albicans—distributed according to the MIC values; x1–x51: compounds detected by UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn analysis (see Supplementary Material Table S1).
Molecules 27 07531 g002
Table
Table 1. Yields (%) resulting from the extraction of G18 with different solvents—absolute ethanol (G18.EE), ethanol/water (7:3) (G18.EE70), honey brandy (G18.HBE), mead (G18.ME), propylene glycol (G18.PGE) and water (G18.WE)—expressed as a mean and respective standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. Mean values with the same letters (a, b or c) are not statistically different.
Table 1. Yields (%) resulting from the extraction of G18 with different solvents—absolute ethanol (G18.EE), ethanol/water (7:3) (G18.EE70), honey brandy (G18.HBE), mead (G18.ME), propylene glycol (G18.PGE) and water (G18.WE)—expressed as a mean and respective standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. Mean values with the same letters (a, b or c) are not statistically different.
Propolis ExtractsG18.EEG18.EE70G18.HBEG18.MEG18.PGEG18.WE
Yield (%)61.6 ± 1.2 a68.3 ± 0.7 a26.6 ± 2.8 b6.5 ± 1.0 c64.0 ± 5.2 a6.3 ± 0.7 c
Table
Table 2. MIC values (µg/mL) obtained against the panel of susceptibility indicator bacteria. Mid-exponential phase microbial cultures were transferred to plates supplemented with increasing concentrations of each of the six extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Plates were observed for the presence/absence of growth after 24 h incubation at 37 °C, and the lowest concentrations for which no growth was detected were registered as the MIC values.
Table 2. MIC values (µg/mL) obtained against the panel of susceptibility indicator bacteria. Mid-exponential phase microbial cultures were transferred to plates supplemented with increasing concentrations of each of the six extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Plates were observed for the presence/absence of growth after 24 h incubation at 37 °C, and the lowest concentrations for which no growth was detected were registered as the MIC values.
BacteriaG18.EEG18.EE70G18.HBEG18.MEG18.PGEG18.WE
MIC (µg/mL)
Bacillus megaterium505050500502000
Bacillus subtilis505050500502000
Bacillus cereus505050500501000
MSSA2002001007502002000
MRSA>2000>2000>2000750>2000>2000
Propionibacterium acnes5005002005005002000
Escherichia coli>2000>2000>2000750>2000>2000
MSSA—methicillin-snsitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; EE—ethanol extract; EE70—ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE—honey brandy extract; ME—mead extract; PGE—propylene glycol extract; WE—water extract.
Table
Table 3. MIC values (µg/mL) obtained against the two-susceptibility indicator yeasts. Mid-exponential phase microbial cultures were transferred to plates supplemented with increasing concentrations of each of the six extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Plates were observed for the presence/absence of growth after 48 h incubation at 30 °C, and the lowest concentrations for which no growth was detected were registered as the MIC values.
Table 3. MIC values (µg/mL) obtained against the two-susceptibility indicator yeasts. Mid-exponential phase microbial cultures were transferred to plates supplemented with increasing concentrations of each of the six extracts—G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Plates were observed for the presence/absence of growth after 48 h incubation at 30 °C, and the lowest concentrations for which no growth was detected were registered as the MIC values.
YeastG18.EEG18.EE70G18.HBEG18.MEG18.PGEG18.WE
MIC (µg/mL)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae1500150050015002000>2000
Candida albicans2000150050015001500>2000
EE—ethanol; EE70—ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE—honey brandy extract; ME—mead extract; PGE—propylene glycol extract; WE—water extract.
Table
Table 4. Antioxidant potential of G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE, measured by the in vitro DPPH free-radical-scavenging assay and expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL) and respective standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. Mean values with the same letters (a, b, c or d) are not statistically different.
Table 4. Antioxidant potential of G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE, measured by the in vitro DPPH free-radical-scavenging assay and expressed as a mean of EC50 values (μg/mL) and respective standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. Mean values with the same letters (a, b, c or d) are not statistically different.
Propolis ExtractsG18.EEG18.EE70G18.HBEG18.MEG18.PGEG18.WE
DPPH• scavenging activity
EC50 (µg/mL)		10.78 ± 0.43 a9.91 ± 1.07 a4.90 ± 0.10 c1.63 ± 0.27 d8.17 ± 0.14 b4.54 ± 0.23 c
EE—ethanol extract; EE70—ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE—honey brandy extract; ME—mead extract; PGE—propylene glycol extract; WE—water extract.
Table
Table 5. Total ortho-diphenols (TOC), phenolics (TPC) and flavonoids (TFC) contents of G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of mg of gallic acid equivalents per g of extract (mg GAE/g extract) for TOC and TPC, and as mg of quercetin equivalents per g of extract (mg QE/g extract) for TFC. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. For each variable, mean values followed by the same letter (a, b, c, d, e or f) are not statistically different.
Table 5. Total ortho-diphenols (TOC), phenolics (TPC) and flavonoids (TFC) contents of G18.EE, G18.EE70, G18.HBE, G18.ME, G18.PGE and G18.WE. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of mg of gallic acid equivalents per g of extract (mg GAE/g extract) for TOC and TPC, and as mg of quercetin equivalents per g of extract (mg QE/g extract) for TFC. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons. For each variable, mean values followed by the same letter (a, b, c, d, e or f) are not statistically different.
Propolis
Extracts		Total Ortho-Diphenol ContentTotal Phenolics ContentTotal Flavonoid Content
mg GAE/gmg GAE/gmg QE/g
G18.EE263.05 ± 15.19 a224.60 ± 10.86 a44.74 ± 1.26 a
G18.EE70367.71 ± 18.86 b255.30 ± 3.26 a48.56 ± 0.64 b
G18.HBE664.16 ± 24.44 c581.40 ± 35.51 b50.97 ± 0.26 b
G18.ME1067.79 ± 37.24 d1267.57 ± 5.27 c13.26 ± 0.69 c
G18.PGE492.30 ± 6.52 f207.49 ± 8.55 a34.53 ± 2.43 e
G18.WE977.71 ± 51.59 e1261.11 ± 27.86 c7.40 ± 0.14 d
EE—ethanol extract; EE70—ethanol/water (7:3) extract; HBE—honey brandy extract; ME—mead extract; PGE—propylene glycol extract; WE—water extract.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Freitas, A.S.; Cunha, A.; Parpot, P.; Cardoso, S.M.; Oliveira, R.; Almeida-Aguiar, C. Propolis Efficacy: The Quest for Eco-Friendly Solvents. Molecules 2022, 27, 7531. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217531

AMA Style

Freitas AS, Cunha A, Parpot P, Cardoso SM, Oliveira R, Almeida-Aguiar C. Propolis Efficacy: The Quest for Eco-Friendly Solvents. Molecules. 2022; 27(21):7531. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217531

Chicago/Turabian Style

Freitas, Ana Sofia, Ana Cunha, Pier Parpot, Susana M. Cardoso, Rui Oliveira, and Cristina Almeida-Aguiar. 2022. "Propolis Efficacy: The Quest for Eco-Friendly Solvents" Molecules 27, no. 21: 7531. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217531

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop