| Literature DB >> 22053900 |
Silvana A Liberio1, Antônio Luís A Pereira, Richard P Dutra, Aramys S Reis, Maria José A M Araújo, Nadia S Mattar, Lucilene A Silva, Maria Nilce S Ribeiro, Flávia Raquel F Nascimento, Rosane N M Guerra, Valério Monteiro-Neto.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Native bees of the tribe Meliponini produce a distinct kind of propolis called geopropolis. Although many pharmacological activities of propolis have already been demonstrated, little is known about geopropolis, particularly regarding its antimicrobial activity against oral pathogens. The present study aimed at investigating the antimicrobial activity of M. fasciculata geopropolis against oral pathogens, its effects on S. mutans biofilms, and the chemical contents of the extracts. A gel prepared with a geopropolis extract was also analyzed for its activity on S. mutans and its immunotoxicological potential.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22053900 PMCID: PMC3225302 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-11-108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
In vitro activity of geopropolis extracts against Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilus acidophilus and Candida albicans
| 0d | 0d | 0d | |
| 13 ± 1cd | 13 ± 3b | 0d | |
| 10 ± 2cd | 9 ± 1cd | 0d | |
| 13 ± 2cd | 0d | 0d | |
| 0d | 0d | 0d | |
| 23 ± 1 | 15 ± 2 | 20 ± 3 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
a Extracts of geopropolis from different municipalities, as shown in Table 1.
b Average of agar diffusion tests performed in duplicate in three independent experiments.
c Significantly different from negative control (70% ethanol).
d Significantly different from positive control (0.12% chlorhexidine) (p < 0.05; Mann-Whitney test).
Figure 1Bactericidal effects of HAE-2 on the viability of . (a) p < 0.05 Effects in relation to time 0; (b) p < 0.05 Comparison of geopropolis activity on the biofilm viability in relation to the control (1% peptone broth) and (c) p < 0.05 Comparison of geopropolis activity on the biofilm viability relative to chlorhexidine. Comparisons were analyzed using the Tukey test.
Phenol and flavonoid concentrations of hydroalcoholic geopropolis extracts
| Fernando Falcão | 67.4 (2.0) d | 1.07 (0.04) f | |
| Palmeirândia | 14.6 (2.3) e | 2.91 (0.22) d | |
| São Bento | 51.2 (3.9) f | 1.11 (0.01) f | |
a Results are expressed as the average of assays carried out in triplicate.
b Expressed as percentage of gallic acid.
c Expressed as percentage of quercetin.
d, e, f Values followed by different superscripts are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05; Tukey test).
Figure 2Biochemical assessment. Biochemical assessment of C57Bl/6 mice submitted to topical oral treatment with gel containing propolis (GP), compared to the group treated with the gel base (GS) or with saline (S). The serum concentrations of calcium (A); albumin (B); urea (C); cholesterol (D); triglycerides (E); and glucose (F) were determined. The results represent mean ± standard deviation of 6 animals/group. (*) p < 0.05 in relation to control and (#) p < 0.05 in relation to the other experimental group.
Figure 3Serum concentration of cytokines. Serum concentration of cytokines in C57Bl/6 mice treated with topical oral gel containing propolis (GP) in comparison with the group treated only with the gel base (GS), or with saline (S). ELISA was used to determine the serum concentrations of IL-4 (A); IL-10 (B); IFN-γ (C) and TNF-α (D). The results represent mean ± standard deviation of 6 animals/group. (*) p < 0.05 in relation to the control and (#) p < 0.05 in relation to the other experimental group.
Effect of topical oral treatment with a gel based on geopropolis (GP) from Melipona fasciculata Smith on organ weight in mice.
| 25 ± 4 | 0.2 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | |
| 28 ± 2 | -0.2 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | |
| 27 ± 2 | -0.2 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.55 ± 0.08* | 1.5 ± 0.2 | |
* p < 0.05 (ANOVA, followed by Tukey's test.)
Histopathological analysis of the tongue in mice that received topical oral treatment with a gel based on geopropolis (GP) from Melipona fasciculata Smith.
| 0.4 ± 0.1*# | 1.8 ± 0.2 b | 1.6 ± 0.1 | |
| 0 *# | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.1* | |
| 0.2 ± 0.1* | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0 * | |
| 0.4 ± 0.1* | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.1* | |
(a) Tissue changes were scored as: 0 for absent, 1 for scarce, 2 for moderate and 3 for intense. Data represent the mean ± SEM of 6 animals per group
(b) GP - gel with geopropolis; GS - gel base and S - Saline
(*) p < 0.05 in relation to GP
(#) p < 0.05 in relation to S