| Literature DB >> 28109283 |
Stéphane Zingue1,2, Chantal Beatrice Magne Nde3, Thomas Michel4, Derek Tantoh Ndinteh5, Jules Tchatchou6, Moïse Adamou7, Xavier Fernandez4, Fernand-Nestor Tchuenguem Fohouo7, Colin Clyne3, Dieudonné Njamen8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the biological properties of propolis depend to the plants that can be found in a specific region, propolis from unexplored regions attracts the attention of scientists. Ethanolic extract of Cameroonian propolis (EEP) is used to treat various ailments including gynecological problems and amenorrhea. Since there were no scientific data to support the above claims, the present study was therefore undertaken to assess estrogenic properties of Cameroonian propolis.Entities:
Keywords: Cameroonian propolis; E-screen assay; Ethanolic extract of propolis; Hot flushes; Ovariectomized rat; Phytoestrogens
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28109283 PMCID: PMC5477728 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1568-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Recapitulative informations on propolis from Adamawa Region, Cameroon
| Propolis samples (Year) | Solvant of extraction (Yield) | Phytochemical constituent | Biological activities | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Propolis Meiganga (2003 & 2005) | Ethanol (3.27%) | Detection of phenolic compounds with HPLC-PDA | Antibacterial activity against gram positive bacteria. Relation between phenolic compounds amount and antibacterial activity. | [ |
| Propolis Meiganga (2006) | Methanol (3.7%) | lup-20(29)-en-3-one, lupeol, erythrodiol palmitate, 18-iso-olean-12-ene-3,11-dione, Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) | Antinociceptive activity of all the three pentacyclic triterpenoids in the test models of chemical nociception and mechanical hypernociception | [ |
| Propolis Meiganga (2008) | Hexane (44.8%) | Alkaloids, Coumarins, Steroids, Triterpenes, Volatile, 2 compound was not yet elucidated | Absence of antibacterial activity | [ |
| Propolis Meiganga (2008) | Methanol (3.5%) | Alkaloids, Reducing compounds, Coumarins, Flavonoids, Saponins, Tannins | Antibacterial activities; It was active against | [ |
| Propolis Adamawa (2013) | Acetone and methanol (70%) | Terpenoids, phenolic acids, ursolic acid, β-amyrin, Prenylated phloroglucinone, cycloartenol acetate | Phlorogucinonone was found to possess the highest potency against | [ |
| Propolis Adamawa (2007) | Ethanol (missing data) | Missing data | Among all African propolis sample tested, Cameroonian propolis was the most potent. | [ |
| Propolis Ngaoundal (2011) | Ethanol (5.25%), methanol (9%) and water (1.5%) | Volatile oils, Phenolic compounds, Saponins, Reducing substances, Coumarines, Flavonoids, Triterpenes, Catechic tannins, Fatty acids. | All extracts contain phenolic compounds and present antiradical activities Antioxidant capacities: the order of decreasing antiradical activity is Water > Methanol > Ethanol | [ |
| Propolis Ngaoundere (2004) | Ethanol (missing data) | Total polyphenols (mg/L) 10.99 ± 2.56; Tannins (mg/L): 1.57 ± 1.62 | The Cameroonians propolis exhibited higher scavenging (antiradical activity (%):83.4 ± 2.3); activity which could justify their commercialisation and role in the management of some chronic diseases | [ |
| Propolis Ngaoundere (2003) | Ethanol (missing data) | Total polyphenols (mg/L) 227.8 ± 36.0; Tannins (mg/L): 16.3 ± 12.6 (PROMAX-C, 2003) | All PROMAX-C samples tested showed evidence of radical scavenging properties with values ranging from 28 to 70%. Radical scavenging activity: Antiradical activity (%):43.7 ± 13.8 for PROMAX-C made in 2003 and Antiradical activity (%):67.3 ± 3.0 for PROMAX-C made in 2006. | [ |
| Propolis | Ethanol (4%) | Contains phenolic compounds | Antibacterial activity against gram positive bacterial strain tested except | [ |
| Propolis | Ethanol (3.5%) | Most active than PROMAX-C from Meiganga with a most higher phenolic content | Antibacterial activity against gram positive bacterial strain tested except | [ |
Fig. 1UHPLC–ESI-HRMS base peak chromatogram of EEP in the negative ionisation mode
Summary of compounds separated and identified in Cameroonian propolis by UHPLC-ESI-HRMS analysis in the negative ion mode. Rt, [M-H]−, [2 M-H]−, EC and RDBeq information are given together with main fragments at MS/MS level
| Pick N° | Tr (min) | [M-H]−
| [2 M-H]− ( | EC | Mass errors (ppm) | RDBeq | Fragment ions (m/z) | Tentative identification | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.30 | 311.0768 | C14H15O8 | 0.3 | 7.5 | 137.0236 | caffeic acid 4-O-pentoside | [ | |
| 2 | 2.38 | 311.0768 | C14H15O8 | 0.6 | 7.5 | 137.0236 | caffeic acid 4-O-pentosside | [ | |
| 3 | 2.60 | 341.0868 | C15H17O9 | 1.5 | 7.5 | 167.0317 | Caffeic acid 4-O-glucoside | [ | |
| 4 | 2.80 | 353.0878 | C16H17O9 | 1.4 | 8.5 | 191.0558 | caffeoylquinic acid | [ | |
| 5 | 3.71 | 163.0386 | C9H7O3 | −5.5 | 6.5 | Coumaric acid | [ | ||
| 6 | 6.21 | 207.0656 | C11H11O4 | −0.5 | 6.5 | 3.4-Dimethyl caffeic acid (DMCA) | [ | ||
| 7 | 6.26 | 165.0543 | C9H9O3 | −5.5 | 5.5 | Phloretic acid | [ | ||
| 8 | 10.332 | 477.3204 | C28H45O6 | −2.5 | 6.5 | 431.3155 | Terpenoid derivative | ||
| 9 | 12.36 | 503.3375 | C30H47O6 | 0.4 | 7.5 | 487.3423 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 10 | 12.42 | 487.3424 | C30H47O5 | 0.2 | 7.5 | Triterpenoid | |||
| 11 | 13.503 | 473.3275 | C29H45O5 | 1.7 | 7.5 | 411.3252 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 12 | 13.7 | 469.3315 | C30H45O4 | −0.6 | 8.5 | 415.3215 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 13 | 13.82 | 487.3419 | C30H47O5 | −0.8 | 7.5 | 425.3147 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 14 | 14.399 | 485.3278 | C30H45O5 | 2.3 | 8.5 | 471.3471 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 15 | 14.57 | 487.3427 | C30H47O5 | 0.8 | 7.5 | 459.347 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 16 | 15.01 | 485.3278 | C30H45O5 | 0 | 8.5 | 433.3362 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 17 | 15.07 | 471.3468 | C30H47O4 | 0.5 | 7.5 | 453.3362 | Maslinic or corosolic or cycloanostoic acid derivatives | [ | |
| 18 | 15.374 | 469.3315 | C30H45O4 | −0.6 | 8.5 | 425.3418 | Triterpenoid | ||
| 19 | 15.857 | 299.2596 | C18H35O3 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 3-hydroxystearic acid | |||
| 20 | 16.2 | 431.3159 | C27H43O4 | −0.5 | 6.5 | 369.3164 | Terpenoid derivative | ||
| 21 | 16.40 | 455.3513 | 911.7104 | C30H47O3 C60H95O6 | −2.4 -2.7 | 7.5 | Mangiferolic or isomangiferolic acids | ||
| 22 | 16.42 | 501.3576 | C31H49O5 | −0.8 | 7.5 | Triterpenoid | |||
| 23 | 16.46 | 469.3313 | 939.6696 | C30H45O4 C60H91O8 | −1.1 | 8.5 | Ambolic acid | ||
| 24 | 16.63 | 453.3368 | 907.6818 | C30H45O3 C60H91O6 | −0.2 | 8.5 | Mangiferonic acid | ||
| 25 | 16.91 | 471.347 | 943.7007 | C30H47O4 C60H95O8 | −0.8 | 7.5 | 409.3465 | Maslinic or corosolic or cycloanostoic acid derivatives | [ |
| 26 | 17.17 | 471.3467 | C30H47O4 | −0.4 | 7.5 | 455.3512 | Maslinic or corosolic or cycloanostoic acid derivatives | [ | |
| 27 | 17.38 | 471.3467 | C30H47O4 | −0.8 | 7.5 | 409.347 | Maslinic or corosolic or cycloanostoic acid derivatives | [ | |
| 28 | 17.96 | 455.3525 | C30H47O3 | −2 | 7.5 | Mangiferolic or isomangiferolic acids | |||
| 29 | 18.02 | 457.3676 | 915.7413 | C30H49O3 C60H99O6 | −1.3 | 6.5 | 457.3644 | Ocotillone isomer | [ |
Fig. 2Effects of EEP on MCF-7 cells proliferation. Its effect was investigated by measuring E-screen assay. The relative MCF-7 cells yields (PE) were measured in the presence of DMSO (0.01%), 17β-estradiol (E2B, 10 nM) and EEP (PRO). PE = max cell number of sample/cell number of DMSO control; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 as compared to the DMSO control
Fig. 3Effects of EEP on the activation of estrogen α and β receptors in HEK293T cells. The effect of EEP on estrogen α and β receptors activity in the transiently transfected HEK293T-ERα and HEK293T-ERβ cells was investigated by measuring reporter gene-coupled luciferase activity. The relative luciferase units (RLU) were measured in the presence of DMSO (0.1%), E2B (10 nM) and Cameroonian propolis; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 as compared with control
Effects of EEP in MCF-7 cells proliferation assay
| Group | Concentration (μg/mL) | PE | RPE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO | - | 1 ± 0.03 | 47.17 |
| E2B (10−8 M) | 10−8 | 2.12 ± 0.13 | 100 |
| Propolis | 10−8 | 1.21 ± 0.15 | 57.07 |
| 10−7 | 1.32 ± 0.18 | 62.26 | |
| 10−6 | 0.72 ± 0.08 | 33.96 | |
| 10−5 | 0.48 ± 0.16 | 22.64 | |
| Propolis | 10−8 | 1.95 ± 0.03 | 91.98 |
| 10−7 | 1.72 ± 0.19 | 81.13 | |
| 10−6 | 1.31 ± 0.06 | 61.79 | |
| 10−5 | 1.21 ± 0.15 | 57.07 |
DMSO negative control, E2B Estradiol benzoate, served as positive control, PE Proliferative effect calculated as the effect on solvent control, RPE Relative proliferative effect, compares the maximum proliferation induced by a sample with that induced by 17β-estradiol
Fig. 4Effects of a 3-day treatment with EEP on the uterine wet weight (a), total protein levels in uterine (b), uterine epithelial height (c) and microphotographs (d). OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; Propolis = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 as compared with control. Lu: uterine lumen; En: Endometrium; St: Stroma
Fig. 5Effects of a 3-day treatment with EEP on the vaginal epithelium: microphotographs (a) and epithelial height (b). OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; Propolis = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as compared with control. Lv = vaginal lumen, Co = stratum corneum, Gr = stratum granulosum, Ge = stratum germinativum, St: Stroma
Fig. 6Effects of a 3-day treatment with EEP on mammary gland. OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; Propolis = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. La = lumen of alveoli; Ep = aveoli epitheluim; At = adiposite tissue; Se = eosinophil secretion
Fig. 7Effects of a 3-day treatment with EEP on mean core temperature (a & b) and core temperature changes (c & d). SHAM = Sham operated rats treated with the vehicle; OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; PRO = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as compared to control. p < 0.05 as compared to Sham. T = treatment. The red line depicts the normal core temperature and variation of core temperature in rat
Effects of EPP on core temperature changes (Δ)
| Groups | Mean Δ Core temperature (°C) | Max Δ Core temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| Sham | 1.22 ± 0.13 | 1.63 ± 0.23 |
| OVX | 1.5 ± 0.15 # | 2.07 ± 0.10 # |
| E2V | 1.1 ± 0.15** | 1.71 ± 0.21 * |
| GEN | 1.23 ± 0.12* | 1.59 ± 0.17 * |
| Propolis 50 | 1.35 ± 0.13 | 1.60 ± 0.16 |
| Propolis 150 | 1.09 ± 0.10** | 1.40 ± 0.32 ** |
| Propolis 300 | 1.27 ± 0.12 | 1.55 ± 0.21* |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as compared to OVX control. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 as compared to Sham
Fig. 8Effects of a 3-day treatment with EEP on total number (a) and average duration (b) of hot flushes. SHAM = Sham operated rats treated with the vehicle; OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; Propolis = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as compared to control. p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 as compared to Sham
Fig. 9Effects of a 3-day treatment with standard drugs (a) and EEP (b) on frequency of hot flushes. SHAM = Sham operated rats treated with the vehicle; OVX = OVX animals treated with the vehicle; E2V = OVX animals treated with estradiol valerate at 1 mg/kg BW; GEN = OVX animals treated with genistein at 10 mg/kg BW; PRO = OVX animals treated with EEP at doses of 50, 150 and 300 mg/kg BW. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as compared to control. p < 0.05, p < 0.01 as compared to Sham