| Literature DB >> 26540033 |
Seon Beom Kim1, Yang Hee Jo2, Qing Liu3, Jong Hoon Ahn4, In Pyo Hong5, Sang Mi Han6, Bang Yeon Hwang7, Mi Kyeong Lee8.
Abstract
Bee pollen is flower pollen with nectar and salivary substances of bees and rich in essential components. Bee pollen showed antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitory activity in our assay system. To maximize the antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitory activity of bee pollen, extraction conditions, such as extraction solvent, extraction time, and extraction temperature, were optimized using response surface methodology. Regression analysis showed a good fit of this model and yielded the second-order polynomial regression for tyrosinase inhibition and antioxidant activity. Among the extraction variables, extraction solvent greatly affected the activity. The optimal condition was determined as EtOAc concentration in MeOH, 69.6%; temperature, 10.0 °C; and extraction time, 24.2 h, and the tyrosinase inhibitory and antioxidant activity under optimal condition were found to be 57.9% and 49.3%, respectively. Further analysis showed the close correlation between activities and phenolic content, which suggested phenolic compounds are active constituents of bee pollen for tyrosinase inhibition and antioxidant activity. Taken together, these results provide useful information about bee pollen as cosmetic therapeutics to reduce oxidative stress and hyperpigmentation.Entities:
Keywords: bee pollen; melanogenesis; optimization; oxidative stress; phenolic content; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26540033 PMCID: PMC6331901 DOI: 10.3390/molecules201119656
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effect of total extract and each fraction of bee pollen on (A) tyrosinase inhibition and (B) radical-scavenging activity.
A Box-Behnken design for independent variables and their responses.
| Run | Actual Variables | Observed Values | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EtOAc in MeOH (%) | Extraction Temperature (°C) | Extraction Time (h) | Tyrosinase Inhibition a (%) | Antioxidant Activity b (%) | Total Phenolic (μg GAE/mg Extract) | |
| 1 | 100 | 30 | 43 | 29.8 | 14.4 | 8.7 |
| 2 | 50 | 30 | 43 | 42.2 | 31.1 | 13.4 |
| 3 | 75 | 50 | 19 | 49.1 | 37.9 | 16.8 |
| 4 | 75 | 30 | 31 | 53.9 | 50.1 | 20.4 |
| 5 | 100 | 50 | 31 | 29.7 | 12.7 | 7.5 |
| 6 | 75 | 30 | 31 | 49.1 | 46.5 | 18.4 |
| 7 | 75 | 30 | 31 | 55.9 | 46.7 | 19.3 |
| 8 | 75 | 50 | 43 | 50.6 | 38.6 | 17.7 |
| 9 | 100 | 30 | 19 | 28.3 | 12.7 | 8.0 |
| 10 | 50 | 50 | 31 | 32.3 | 25.4 | 13.6 |
| 11 | 50 | 10 | 31 | 45.7 | 32.8 | 14.1 |
| 12 | 50 | 30 | 19 | 40.8 | 32.9 | 13.8 |
| 13 | 75 | 10 | 43 | 57.9 | 42.0 | 18.4 |
| 14 | 75 | 10 | 19 | 55.3 | 48.5 | 20.4 |
| 15 | 100 | 10 | 31 | 18.4 | 13.0 | 7.4 |
a Tyrosinase inhibition (%) was measured at 100 μg/mL. b Antioxidant activity (%) was measured at 300 μg/mL.
Regression coefficients and their significances in the second-order polynomial regression equation.
| Coefficient | Standard Error | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Tyrosinase Inhibition) | ||||
| Intercept | 52.96 | 1.707 | 31.032 | <0.001 |
| −6.868 | 1.045 | −6.571 | 0.001 | |
| 0.883 | 1.045 | 0.844 | 0.437 | |
| −1.943 | 1.045 | −1.859 | 0.122 | |
| −19.69 | 1.538 | −12.8 | <0.001 | |
| 2.015 | 1.538 | 1.31 | 0.247 | |
| −1.755 | 1.538 | −1.141 | 0.306 | |
| 0.04 | 1.478 | 0.027 | 0.979 | |
| 0.16 | 1.478 | 4.168 | 0.009 | |
| −0.315 | 1.478 | −0.213 | 0.84 | |
| (Antioxidant Activity) | ||||
| Intercept | 47.473 | 1.15 | 41.534 | <0.001 |
| −8.663 | 0.704 | −12.306 | <0.001 | |
| -0.75 | 0.704 | −1.065 | 0.335 | |
| −2.723 | 0.704 | −3.868 | 0.012 | |
| −22.884 | 1.036 | −22.086 | <0.001 | |
| −2.089 | 1.036 | −2.016 | 0.1 | |
| −3.889 | 1.036 | −3.754 | 0.013 | |
| 0.9 | 0.996 | 0.904 | 0.407 | |
| 1.755 | 0.996 | 1.763 | 0.138 | |
| 1.8 | 0.996 | 1.808 | 0.13 | |
ANOVA for response surface regression equation.
| Sum of Square | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Tyrosinase inhibition) | |||||
| Regression | 2044.58 | 9 | 227.175 | 26 | 0.001 |
| Linear | 413.72 | 3 | 137.906 | 15.78 | 0.006 |
| Square | 1478.67 | 3 | 492.891 | 56.41 | <0.000 |
| Interaction | 152.19 | 3 | 50.729 | 5.81 | 0.044 |
| Residual error | 43.69 | 5 | 8.737 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 19.72 | 3 | 6.573 | 0.55 | 0.697 |
| Pure error | 23.97 | 2 | 11.985 | ||
| Total | 2088.26 | 14 | |||
| (Antioxidant activity) | |||||
| Regression | 2643.18 | 9 | 293.687 | 74.09 | <0.001 |
| Linear | 664.11 | 3 | 221.369 | 55.84 | <0.001 |
| Square | 1950.56 | 3 | 650.185 | 164.02 | <0.001 |
| Interaction | 28.52 | 3 | 9.507 | 2.4 | 0.184 |
| Residual error | 19.82 | 5 | 3.964 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 11.54 | 3 | 3.848 | 0.93 | 0.556 |
| Pure error | 8.28 | 2 | 4.138 | ||
| Total | 2663 | 14 | |||
Figure 2Response surface plots and contour plots show the effect of extraction variables on tyrosinase inhibition (A–C) and antioxidant activity (D–F). Three variables are EtOAc concentration (X1), extraction time (X2), and extraction temperature (X3).
Predicted and observed values of tyrosinase inhibition and antioxidant activity under optimized condition.
| Extraction Condition | Tyrosinase Inhibition a | Antioxidant Activity b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EtOAc in MeOH (%) | Extraction Temperature (°C) | Extraction Time (h) | Predicted | Observed | Predicted | Observed |
| 69.6 | 10.0 | 24.2 | 55.0 | 57.9 | 48.6 | 49.3 |
a Tyrosinase inhibition (%) was measured at 100 μg/mL. b Antioxidant activity (%) was measured at 300 μg/mL.
Figure 3Correlation between tyrosinase inhibition and phenolic content (A) and between antioxidant activity and phenolic content (B).