CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF HARAMAYA PROPOLIS (BEE GLUE), ETHIOPIAHTML Full Text
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF HARAMAYA PROPOLIS (BEE GLUE), ETHIOPIA
Kesatebrhan Haile*1and Aman Dekebo 2
Department of Chemistry, Haramaya University 1, P.O. Box: 138, Haramaya, Ethiopia
Department of Chemistry, Adama Science and Technology University 2, P.O. Box: 1888, Adama, Ethiopia
The present study was aimed at investigating the chemical composition and antifungal activity of Ethanol Extracted Haramaya propolis (EEHP). The GC-MS analysis of EEHP showed the presence of sixteen compounds and twelve compounds were identified by means of their retention times, by comparison of their mass spectra with the NIST 2005 library data and literature. The major constituents of EEHP were Benzenamine, N, N-dibutyl- (21.94%), Paromomycin (9.74%), 4-Aminobutyramide, N-methyl-N-[4-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-2-butynyl]- (9.26%) and DL-Tryptophan, 5-methoxy (7.43%). The Crude EEHP showed antifungal activities against Fusarium sp., Aspergillus niger and Colletotrichum sp. GC-MS results showed that the antifungal activities of Haramaya propolis could be because of the presence of 3-(α-Hydroxyethyl)-aniline, Benzenamine,N, N-dibutyl, DL-Tryptophan,5-methoxy, 6-Amino-5, 8-dimethoxyquinazoline, Paromomycin and Imidazole, 2-fluoro-5-[2-carboxyvinyl].
Haramaya propolis, Chemical composition, Paromomycin, Antifungal activities
INTRODUCTION: Propolis (bee glue) is a sticky dark-colored material that honeybees (Apis mellifera) collect from living plants, mix it with wax and use it in the construction and adaptation of their nests, mainly to fill out cracks in the bee hive. It also functions to repair the hive, to seal openings in the hive and to eliminate contaminating microorganisms in the hive 1, 2. Propolis is not only a building material; it is the most important “chemical weapon” of bees against pathogen microorganisms and has been used as a remedy by humans since ancient times.
The word propolis was probably coined by Aristotle from the Greek words “pro” meaning “in front of” and “polis” meaning “city”. The combined meaning then becomes “In front of the City” or “Defender of the City (or Beehive)” and this is how bees use propolis. It has been used in folk medicine since ancient times and is now known to be a natural medicine with antibacterial, antifungal, anesthetic, antitumoral, antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, imuno-modulatory, cancer prevention, anti-viral, anti-yeast, antimicrobial, cardiovascular and other beneficial activities 3.
With the advent of modern chromatographic techniques frequently associated with Mass Spectrometry (MS), many compounds have been isolated and identified in propolis 4. But the complex chemical composition of propolis is frequently updated due to many regional variations.
More than 300 propolis constituents have been identified by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), chromatographic and spectroscopic techniques. These compounds are composed of 50% resin (polyphenolic fraction) and balsam (cream), 30% wax, 10% essential and aromatic oils, 5% pollen, and 5% other substances 5.
Literature survey revealed that flavonoids, aromatic acids, diterpenic acids and phenolic compounds appear to be the principal components of propolis samples. The properties and actual contents of propolis depend on the collecting location of the bees, time of year and plant source 6. For many years, GC-MS has been used for the detailed analysis of the main volatile and semi-volatile components of propolis 7, 8.
As volatile components, various mono and sesquiterpenes are found in propolis 9. Other constituents of volatile oils include alcohols; mainly aromatic alcohols, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, acids (from acetic to stearic acid), esters, a series of alkanes, alkylated benzenes and naphthalene 10. Propolis contains, however, many components that are not volatile enough for direct GC- MS analysis even upon derivatization or high-temperature 10.
The great variability in chemical composition of the propolis from different regions is because honeybees extract raw materials from different plants in different ecosystems for their production of propolis 11. Crude Ethanol Extract of Propolis (EEP) collected from Egypt and South Africa showed antimicrobial activity against a wide range of pathogenic bacteria, fungi, yeasts and viruses 12, 13.
Although, numerous researchers have reported the antimicrobial activity and chemical composition of propolis collected worldwide, information about Ethiopian propolis are still insufficient. The aim of this study was to investigate antifungal activity and chemical composition of propolis sample collected from Haramaya in Ethiopia. Besides, the chemical composition of propolis as well as its color, aroma and probably its medicinal characteristics are changed according to the geographical zones and the season of the year.
Description of the Study Area: Haramaya University is located at a latitude of 9o 20’ north of the Equator and 42o 03’ longitude east of meridian. The university has a total area of about 46 km2. It has a moderate average temperature of 16oC, and the mean maximum and minimum annual temperature is 24.02 and 9.73oC, respectively 14.
The mean annual rainfall is 780 mm. The 1980 m elevation of the area (weinadega) ensures that it enjoys a relatively moderate and pleasant climate throughout the year. There were 12 beehives in the university. Among these 5 hives are traditional and 7 of them are modern beehives. Eucalyptus glublus, Eucalyptus camnadulesis (exotic), Vernonia amygdalina (indigenous), Spathodea nilotica (exotic), Jacaranda mimosifolia (exotic), Pinus radiate(exotic), Olea africana, Cordial Africana and Grevillea robusta are dominant plants and vegetations in Haramaya 14.
Propolis Samples Collection: Samples of propolis (150 g) was collected by hand (by scrapping from frames and walls of the beehives) from Haramaya University Beekeeping Sections from October 2010 to November 2010 and kept in the refrigerator until processed.
FIG. 1. HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY BEEKEEPING SECTION
Extraction and Sample Preparation: The propolis sample collected was air dried, crushed into pieces and then weighed and 100 g was mixed vigorously with 70% absolute ethyl alcohol (Analytical reagent grade, Eastwayspark, U.K) in a ratio of 1 g: 5 mL (w/v) and then sealed in a container with intermittent shaking twice a day for two weeks 15. It is important to allow the alcohol molecules to come into contact with as many propolis compounds as possible, in order to extract them from the solid mass. After two weeks, the supernatant liquid was filtered with Whatman No. 1 filter paper. The liquid portion was stored in a dark brown bottle in a cool, dry and dark place. The EEHP solution was then filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper to avoid waxes. The alcohol was evaporated with a Rota vapor under vacuum and reduced pressure to yield 38.5 g.
It was kept in a clean dark, airtight bottle in a refrigerator at 5oC until used. About 10 mg of the crude extract was subjected to GC-MS analysis by head space sampler in Ambo University.
GC-MS Analysis of Ethanol Extract of Haramaya Propolis (EEHP): GC-MS analysis of EEHP was performed using a Perkin Elmer Clarus 600 GC-MS fitted with a HP-5 MS capillary column (30 m length x 320 µm internal diameter coated with 5% diphenyl 95% dimethylpolysiloxane, film thickness 0.25µm). The column oven temperature was initially held at 60oC for 2 min, then programmed to rise to 170oC at a rate of 20 oC/min and held for 3 min. The temperatures of the injector port and the MS interface were set at 220 and 200 oC, respectively.
Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL/min with a column inlet pressure of 40 psi. The mass spectra were recorded in electron ionization (EI) mode at 70 eV with scanning from m/z 35 to m/z 450 amu with a run time of 60 min and mass source of 230 °C. The oven, needle and transfer temperature of the head space sampler were 150 and 170oC, respectively at a constant mode of operation. The time of coc cycle, thermostat, pressurization, injection and withdrawal of the head space sampler was 60, 10, 3, 0.05 and 0.2 min, respectively.
The identification of various compounds present in propolis sample were carried out by computer search on a NIST 2005 MS data library. In some cases, when identical spectra have not been found, only the structural type of the corresponding component was proposed on the basis of its mass-spectral fragmentation. The components of EEP were determined by considering their areas as percentage of total ion chromatogram. Some compounds could not be identified due to the lack of authentic samples and their library spectra.
Antimicrobial Assay: Bioassays of the antifungal activities of crude EEHP towards three common phytopathogenic fungi namely; Fusarium sp., Aspergillus niger and Colletotrichum sp. was tested only by the Petridish bioassay method 13. These phytopathogenic fungi were taken from infected avocado fruits. The hosts were first dipped in Sodium hypochlorite (Clorax) at 10% concentration for 2 minutes and then rinsed with sterile distilled water twice and plated on Malt Extract Agar (MEA) in petridishes and incubated at 25oC for 7 days. The fungi were only identified to genus level based on hyphal and spore morphology 16, 17.
A B C D
FIG. 2: (A) INFECTED AVOCADO FRUITS BY FUNGI (B) CULTURED FUSARIUM SP. (C) ASPERGILLUS NIGER AND (D) COLLETOTRICHUM SP. IN MEA MEDIA.
Though extraction of propolis was done with 70% ethanol, treatments were done with 60% ethanol to minimize the effect of a highly concentrated solvent. Propolis concentrations 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 mg/mL were prepared using 60% ethanol. The control for all experiments was 60% ethanol in place of different extract concentrations. Each experiment was repeated three times 18. All the tripled MEA media were sterilized by autoclaving at 121oC and 1.03 bar for 15 min. Each of the grown fungi was placed onto the center of the MEA plates using a sterile cork borer of 10 mm diameter and then incubated at 25oC. The zone of inhibition on the mycelium growth of each fungus for each replicate was measured in mm as the average of two cross diameters continuously after every 48 h of inoculation until they almost filled the petridishes without EEHP. Finally, the Relative Inhibition (RI) by the chemicals on mycelia growth of each fungus at different concentrations was calculated for the last day observation as percentage inhibition over control as follows:
(Hyphal extension of control [cm] – Hyphal extension of experiment [cm]) X 100
Hyphal extension of control [cm]
Statistical Analysis of Data: The RI was calculated for the 192 hincubation period.Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The data obtained were subjected to one-way ANOVA test to determine whether there was significant difference among each concentration and also between the lengths of incubation 13.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The chemical composition of propolis are dependent on its geographical location; as a result, its biological activity and chemical composition is closely related to the vegetation native to the site of collection 1, 19. The chemical composition of the EEHP has been determined by GC-MS analysis. The GC-MS analysis of Haramaya propolis showed the presence of sixteen components (Figure 3) and twelve compounds were identified by means of computer search on a NIST 2005 MS data library on the basis of mass spectral fragmentation representing 84.8% of the total compounds.
FIG. 3: GC OF EEHP
These include high content of Benzenamine, N, N-dibutyl- (21.94%) and a low content of 3-(α-Hydroxyethyl)-aniline (0.96%). The major constituents of EEHP were Benzenamine, N, N-dibutyl (21.94%), Paromomycin (9.74%), 4-Aminobutyramide, N-methyl-N-[4-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-2-butynyl]- (9.26%), DL-Tryptophan, 5-methoxy (7.43%), 6-Amino-5, 8 dimetho xyquinazoline (6.44%) and 2,7-Dioxatricyclo [126.96.36.199(3, 8)]decan-4-amine (6.25%) (Table 1).
Unidentified components were present in such low amounts that either no mass spectrum could be recorded or the spectrum was too poor for interpretation.
TABLE 1: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CRUDE ETHANOL EXTRACTS OF PROPOLIS OBTAINED FROM HARAMAYA BEEHIVES ANALYZED BY GC-MS
A comparison of the results of this work with those of previously reported composition of Ethiopian propolisreveals significant differences. The major constituents of Ethiopian propolis collected from Holeta Honeybee Research Center are amryn type triterpenic alcohols (26.2%), sugars (24.9%) and fatty acids (7.5%), with significant amount of aromatic acids, caffeic acid, esters and other alcohols including diterpenic acids 20. Previous GC-MS analysis of Ethiopian propolis collected from Holeta confirmed the absence of flavonoids 20.
However, the major components of propolis in Croatia, Bulgaria, Italy, Switzerland, Brazil, Egypt and China are terpenoids (various mono and sesquiterpenes), flavonoids (pinocembrin, pinostrobin, pinobanksin, pinobankasin-3-O-acetate, chrysin, galangin, flavones, flavanone and flavonones) and phenolic acid (prenyl esters of caffeic, ferulic acids, p-coumaric acid and acrylic acid) 21-25.
The variability of constituents of propolis samples could be due to the difference in propolis collecting honeybee species from different plants depending on the geographic location. Apis mellifera jementica (propolis collecting Honeybee race in Haramaya)is a type of bee species that collect propolis in the eastern, semi-arid lowlands and northwest low lands areas of Ethiopia 26.
These Honeybee race added other materials during the production of propolis from different plants depending on the geographic location. The plant sources of identified compounds from Haramaya propolis remain unknown in the present study. However, Baccharis dracunculifolia, Araucaria angustifolia, Araucaria heterophylla, Clusia minor and Eucalyptus citriodora are the main sources of the bee glue in Brazil 27.
The antimicrobial constituents of propolis resins and extracts are commonly phenols, flavonoids, aromatic acids and diterpenic acids 28, 29. The inhibition effect of the crude EEHP, against mycelia growth of three common phytopathogenic fungi namely; Fusarium sp., Aspergillus niger and Colletotrichum sp. was tested at five different concentrations (1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 mg/mL) by the Petri dish bioassay method and are recorded in Table 2.
The mycelium growth of each fungus for the crude extract treatment was measured as the average of two cross diameters continuously after every 48 h of inoculation, until they almost filled the petridish without EEP (Table 2 and Figure 4). Then the inhibition effect of the crude extract on mycelia growth of each fungus at different concentrations was calculated for the last day observation as percentage inhibition over control.
FIG. 4: INHIBITION EFFECT OF THE CRUDE EEHP ON: (A) ASPERGILLUS NIGER GROWTH (B) FUSARIUM SP. (C) COLLETOTRICHUM SP.
Table 2 showed that the crude extract caused inhibition of mycelia growth of Aspergillus niger, at all concentrations; 1 mg mL-1 (2.90%), 2 mg mL-1 (9.10%), 5 mg mL-1 (5.18%), 7 mg mL-1 (11.1%) and 10 mg mL-1 (15.70%). Similarly, the crude ethanol extract at all concentrations caused inhibition of mycelia growth of Fusarium sp. and Colletotrichum sp and inhibition increased with increasing concentration.
The results of the antifungal activity of Haramaya propolis are in agreement with the findings of 12 who determined the antifungal activities of Egyptian propolis against nine fungal genera namely Cladosporium, Mucor, Scopulariopis, Penicillium, Rhizopus, Fusarium, Aspergillus, Alternaria and Rhodotorula.
The GC-MS results showed that the antifungal activities of Haramaya propolis could be because of the presence of 3-(α-Hydroxyethyl)-aniline, Benzenamine, N, N-dibutyl, DL-Tryptophan, 5-methoxy, 6-Amino-5, 8-dimethoxyquinazoline, Paromomycin and Imidazole,2-fluoro-5-[2-carboxyvinyl].
Significant inhibition were achieved at EEP concentration of 10 mg mL-1 for Aspergillus niger and Fusarium sp. (P<0.0001). No significant difference (P>0.05) was observed at all concentrations against Colletotrichum sp. There was no also significant difference (P > 0.05) between 1 and 5 mg mL-1 against Aspergillus niger and Fusarium sp.
Data showed that mycelium growth of Fusarium sp. and Colletotrichum sp. were inhibited by the crude extract while fast growing mycelium Aspergillus niger was not affected much.
These findings are also supported by earlier reports on Evaluation of an EEP as a Potential Pre andPost-Harvest Fungicide for ‘Fuerte’ Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Fruits and Orchards 13.
Egyptian, Albanian, Austrian, Bulgarian, French, German, Mongolian and British propolis also showed antiviral antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus; Escherichia coli and Candida albicans 12.
TABLE 2: EFFECT OF THE CRUDE EEHP ON THE GROWTH OF THREE PHYTO PATHOGENIC FUNGI
|Relative Inhibition (RI) of mycelium growth (%) of three phyto pathogenic fungi with incubation period (h)|
|48 h||96 h||144 h||192 h||Overall results|
|RI||RI||RI||RI||Mean RI||Std. Dev. of RI|
Key: Fun: Fungi, h= hour, As: Aspergillus niger, Fus: Fusarium sp. and Coll : Colletotrichum sp.
EEHP concentration of 10 mg mL-1 showed greater inhibition than 7 mg mL-1 against Fusarium sp., Aspergillus niger and Colletotrichum sp. No significant difference between 2 and 5 mg mL-1 were found (P > 0.05) against Fusarium sp and Colletotrichum sp. except Aspergillus niger, which showed a significantly higher inhibition at 2 mg mL-1 (P < 0.0001). All the five different concentrations showed different inhibitory effects against Aspergillus niger, Fusarium sp. and Colletotrichum sp (Table 2).
CONCLUSION: A matter of great concern regarding the production and use of propolis is the variation of its chemical composition, which has motivated proposals for quality chemical control 29, 30.
This study has confirmed that the identified components and their composition of Haramaya Propolis are different from previous research works. The composition of propolis may be affected by the bee race, soil, climate, vegetation native, trapping mechanism and altitude. The crude EEHP showed antifungal activities against Fusarium sp., Aspergillus niger and Colletotrichum sp.
The GC-MS results showed that the antifungal activities of Haramaya propolis can be attributed to its components as 3-(α-Hydroxyethyl)-aniline, Benzenamine, N, N-dibutyl, DL-Tryptophan, 5-methoxy, 6-Amino-5, 8-dimethoxyquinazoline, Paromomycin and Imidazole, 2-fluoro-5-[2-carboxyvinyl].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We wish to thank Mr Lemmesa Benti for his help in running GC-MS experiment in Ambo University, Ethiopia. The authors are thankful to Dr Amare Ayalew and Miss Haymanot Bizuneh, Department of Pathology, Haramaya University for antifungal screening.
- Park YK, Alencar S M and Aguiar CL: Botanical origin and chemical composition of Brazilian propolis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002; 50: 2502- 2506.
- Gomez-Caravaca AM, Goomez-Romero M, Arraez Roman D, Segura-Carretero A and Fernandez Gutierrez A: Advances in the analysis of phenolic compounds in products derived from bees of Brazilian propolis. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 2006; 41: 1220-1234.
- Burdock GA: Review of the Biological Properties and Toxicity of Bee Propolis (Propolis). Food and Chem. Toxic. 1998; 36: 347-363.
- Marcucci MC: Propolis: Chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie. 1995; 26: 83–99.
- Almeida EC and Menezes H: Anti-inflammatory activity of propolis extracts: a review. J. Venom. Anim. Toxins, Botucatu, 2002; 8: 191-212.
- Markham KE, Mitchel AL,Wilkins JA, Daldy and Y Lu: HPLC and GC-MS identification of the major organic constituents in New Zealand propolis. Phytochemistry. 1996; 42: 205-211.
- Bankova V, Dyulgerov A, Popov S, Evstatieva L, Kuleva L, Purb O and Zamjansan Z: Propolis produced in Bulgaria and Mongolia: Phenolic compounds and plant origin. Apidologie, 1992; 23: 79-85
- Marcucci MC, Ferreres F, Garcia-Viguera C, Bankova VS, De Castro SL, Dantas AP, Valente PHM and Paulino N: Phenolic compounds from Brazilian propolis with pharmacological activities. J.Ethnopharmacol. 2001; 74:105-112.
- Bankova V: Volatile constituents of propolis. Z. Naturforsch1994; 49:6-10.
- Ferracini V L: Essential Oils of Seven Brazilian Baccharis Species. J. Essent. Oil Res. 1995; 7: 355-367.
- Cuesta-Rubio O, Frontana-Uribe BA, Ramirez-Apan T and Cardenas J Z. Naturforsch 2002; 372–378.
- Hegazi AG and Abd El Hady FK: Egyptian Propolis: Chemical Composition, Antiviral and Antimicrobial Activities of East Nile Delta Propolis. Z. Naturforsch. 2002; 57: 395
- Lorenzo CG: Evaluation of an Ethanolic Extract of Propolis as a Potential Pre- andPost-Harvest Fungicide for ‘Fuerte’ Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Fruits and Orchards, MSc Thesis Desertation University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. 2008; 51-66.
- Kesatebrhan H,Tesfahun K and Aman D: A comparative study of volatile components of propolis (bee glue) collected from Haramaya University and Assela Beekeeping centers, Ethiopia.Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 2012; 26: 1-8.
- Krell R: Value added products from beekeeping, FAO. Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 124. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. 1996.
- Barnett HL and Hunter BB: Illustrated Genera of Imperfect Fungi. Fourth edition. Macmillan, New York. 1987; 218.
- Baxter AP, Rong IH, Roux C, Schutte L and van der Linde E : Elementary Keys to Common Fungi in South Africa. Plant Protection Research InstituteHandboo InstituteHa. 1994
- Ngoepe EC and Straker C: Propolis as a natural antimicrobial agent for control of fungal pathogens of plants. Honours dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand. South Africa, 2004.
- Bankova V, Christov R, Trusheva B, Popova M and Bertrand M: Chemical composition of Propolis from Canada, its antiradical activity and plant origin. Natural Product Reaearch. 2005; 19: 673-678.
- Dubero S: Gastro protective effect of crude ethanol extracts propolis against chemical induced gastric mucosal lesions in mice, Addis Ababa University, M.Sc. Thesis. 2007; 16-20
- Polyakov VV, Shukenova R ZH and Orlov VK : Fatty acids in propolis Pchelovodstvo. 1988; 10: 30.
- Bankova VS, Castro SLD and Marcucci MC: Propolis: Recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie. 2000; 31: 3–15.
- Bankova V, Milena Popovaa, Stefan Bogdanovb and Anna-Gloria Sabatini: Chemical Composition of European Propolis: Expected and Unexpected Results. Z. Naturforsch, 2002; 57: 530-533
- Chia-Chi Chang, Ming-Hua Yang, Hwei-Mei Wen and Jiing-Chuan Chern: Estimation of Total Flavonoid Content in Propolis by Two Complementary Colorimetric Methods. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 2002; 10; 178-182.
- Sobhi A, Said Saeed A, Khan Iqbal Ahmad and Hayam SA: Chemical Composition of Egyptian and UAE Propolis. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2006; 19: 58-61.
- Amsalu B, Nuru A, Radloff SE and Hepburn HR: Apidologie, 2004: 35: 71.
- Bankova V, Boudourova-Krasteva G, Sforcin JM,Frete X, Kujumgiev A, Maimoni-Rodella R and Popov SZ: Naturforsch. 1999, 54: 401-405
- Silici S and Kutluca S: Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of propolis collected by three different races of honeybees in the same region. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005; 99: 69.
- Uzel A, Sorkun K, Onçag O, Çogulu D, Gençay O and Salih B: Chemical composition and antimicrobial activities of four different Anatolian propolis samples. Microbiol. Res. 2005; 160: 189-195.
- Woisky RG and Salatino A: Analysis of propolis: some parameters and procedures for chemical quality control. J Apicultural Res. 1998; 37: 99–105.
How to cite this article:
Haile K Dekebo A: Chemical composition and Antimicrobial activity of Haramaya propolis (Bee Glue), Ethiopia.Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2013; 4(2); 734-740.
Kesatebrhan Haile*and Aman Dekebo
Department of Chemistry, Haramaya University, P.O. Box: 138, Haramaya, Ethiopia
26 October, 2012
01 December, 2012
28 January, 2013
01 February, 2013