World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 1797–1803 | Cite as

Antibacterial activity and phytochemical evidence for the plant origin of Turkish propolis from different regions

  • Sibel Silici
  • Mehmet Ünlü
  • Gülhan Vardar-Ünlü
Original Paper

Abstract

Honeybees collect propolis from practically any abundant plant source in the neighborhood of the hive, be it populus, eucalyptus, pine, sugarcane, cashew nut or orange trees. We have described that the origin plants of Turkish propolis are Populus sp., Eucalyptus sp. and Castanea sativa. In our previous study, propolis samples from Middle Anatolia displayed the typical pattern of “poplar” propolis: they contained pinobanksin, caffeic and ferulic acids and their esters. The propolis samples examined in this study were shown not to contain polar phenolics. The main components of Eucalyptus propolis were aromatic acids, mainly cinnamic acid and its esters, that are usually found in Eucalyptus species resins. The second distinct sample originated from West Anatolia. Although it contained low amounts of phenolic substances and aromatic acids, its main components were sugars and glycosides. The study revealed that there was no significant difference between propolis samples in antibacterial activity, however the yeasts were shown to be more sensitive to eucalyptus-propolis. Gram negative bacteria were susceptible to none of the samples tested.

Keywords

Propolis Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus type propolis Castanea sativa Castanea type propolis Antimicrobial activity 

References

  1. Abdel-Sattar E, Kohiel MA, Shihata IA et al (2000) Phenolic compounds from Eucalyptus maculate. Pharmazie 55:623–624Google Scholar
  2. Amoros M, Sauvager F, Girre L et al (1992) In vitro antiviral activity of propolis. Apidologie 23:231–240Google Scholar
  3. Bankova V (2005) Recent trends and important developments in propolis research. eCAM 2:29–32Google Scholar
  4. Bankova V, Marcucci MC (2000) Standardization of propolis: present status and perspectives. Bee World 81:182–188Google Scholar
  5. Bankova V, Christov R, Stoev G et al (1992) Determination of phenolics from propolis by capillary gas chromatography. J Chromatogr 607:150–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bankova V, Boudoureva-Krasteva G, Sforcin JM et al (1999) Phytochemical evidence for the plant origin of Brazilian propolis from Sao Paulo State. Z Naturforsch C 54:401–405Google Scholar
  7. Bankova V, De Castro SL, Marcucci MC (2000) Propolis: recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie 31:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bankova V, Popova M, Bogdanov S et al (2002) Chemical composition of European propolis : expected and unexpected results. Z. Naturforsch. 57c:530–533Google Scholar
  9. Banskota AH, Tezuka Y, Adnyana IK et al (2001) Hepatoprotective and anti Helicobacter pylori activities of constituents of Brazilian propolis. Phytomedicine 8:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonvehi JS, Coll FV (2000) Study on propolis quality from China and Uruguay. Z Naturforsch 55c:778–784Google Scholar
  11. Bonvehi S, Ventura Coll F, Escola Jorda E (1994) The composition, active components and bacteriostatic activity of propolis in dietetics. J Am Oil Chem Soc 71:529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Z, Landman P, Colmer TD et al (1998) Simultaneous analysis of amino and organic acids in extracts of plant leaves as tert-Butyldimethylsily derivatives by capillary gas chromatograpy. Anal Biochem 259:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimov V, Ivanovska N, Bankova V et al (1992) Immunomodulatory action of propolis: IV. Prophylactic activity against gram negative infections and adjuvant effect of the water soluble derivative. Vaccine 10:817–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia-Viguera C (1992) Composition of propolis from two different Spanish regions. Z Naturforsch 47c:634–637Google Scholar
  15. Garcia-Viguera C, Ferreres F, Tomas-Barberan FA (1993) Study of Canadian propolis by GC-MS and HPLC. Z Naturforsch 48c:731–735Google Scholar
  16. Greenaway W, Whatley FR (1990) Analysis of phenolics of bud exudates of Populus angustifolia by GC-MS. Phytochemistry 29:2551–2554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenaway W, Scaysbrook T, Whatley FR (1988) Composition of propolis in Oxfordshire, U.K.and its relation the poplar bud exudates. Z Naturforsch 43c:301–305Google Scholar
  18. Greenaway W, English S, Whatley FR (1990) Phenolic composition of bud exudates of Populus deltoids. Z Naturforsch 45c:587–593Google Scholar
  19. Greenaway W, May J, Scaysbrook T et al (1991) Identification by gas chromatography- mass spectrometry of 150 compounds in propolis. Z. Naturforsch C 46:111–121Google Scholar
  20. Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV (1999) Influence of organic matter, cations and surfactanys on the antimicrobial activity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil in vitro. J Appl Microbiol 86:446–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson EM, Richardson MD, Warnock DW (1984) In-vitro resistance to imidazole antifungals in Candida albicans. J Antimicrob Chemother 13:547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kujumgiev A, Tsvetkova I, Serkedjieva Yu et al (1999) Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. J Ethnopharmacol 64:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumazawa S, Yoneda M, Shıbata I et al (2003) Direct evidence for the plant origin of Brazilian propolis by the observation of honeybee behavior and phytochemical analysis. Chem Pharm Bull 51:740–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kustimur S, Kalkanci A, Mansuroglu H et al (2001) Determination of fluconazole susceptibility of Candida species: comparison of two microdlution methods. Turkish J Infect 15:349–351Google Scholar
  25. Koenig B (1985) Plant sources of propolis. Bee World 66:136–139Google Scholar
  26. Lampire O, Mila I, Raminosa M, Michon V et al (1998). Polyphenols isolated from the bark of Castanea sativa Mill. Chemical structures and auto-association. Phytochemistry 49:623–631Google Scholar
  27. Lopes FC, Bankova V, Sforcin JM (2003) Effect of three vegetal sources of propolis on macrophages activation. Phytomedicine 10:343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcucci MC (1995) Propolis:chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie 26:83–99Google Scholar
  29. Martos I, Cossentini M, Ferreres F, Tomas-Barberan FA (1997) Flavanoid composition of Tunisian honeys and propolis. J Agric Food Chem 45:2824–2829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metzner J, Schneidewind E, Frienfich E (1977) Effects of propolis and pinocembrin on yeasts. Pharmazie 32:730Google Scholar
  31. NCCLS (National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) (1999) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 9th International Supplement; M100–S9; Wayne, PaGoogle Scholar
  32. Popova M, Silici S, Kaftanoglu O et al (2005) Antibacterial activity of Turkish propolis and its qualitative and quantitative chemical composition. Phytomedicine 12:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Popravko SA, Sokolov MV (1980) Plant sources of propolis. Pchelovodstvoz 2:28–29Google Scholar
  34. Pereira-Lorenzo S, Ramos-Cabrer AM, Diaz-Hernandez MB et al (2006) Chemical composition of chestnut cultivars from Spain. Scientia Horticulture 107(3):306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salatino A, Teixeira EW, Negri G et al (2005) Origin and chemical variation of Brazilian propolis. eCAM 2:33–38Google Scholar
  36. Sorkun K, Süer B, Salih B (2001) Determination of chemical composition of Turkish propolis. Z Naturforsch 56c:666–668Google Scholar
  37. Velikova M, Bankova V, Sorkun K et al (2000) Propolis from Mediterranean region: chemical composition and antimicrobial activity. Z Naturforsch 55c:1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Silici
    • 1
  • Mehmet Ünlü
    • 2
  • Gülhan Vardar-Ünlü
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal Science, S. Çıkrıkçıoğlu Vocational CollegeErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology, Faculty of MedicineCumhuriyet UniversitySivasTurkey

Personalised recommendations