| Literature DB >> 28805735 |
Kai Wang1,2,3, Xiaolu Jin4, Mengmeng You5, Wenli Tian6, Richard K Le Leu7, David L Topping8, Michael A Conlon9, Liming Wu10, Fuliang Hu11.
Abstract
Propolis is an important hive product and considered beneficial to health. However, evidence of its potential for improving gut health is still lacking. Here we use rats to examine whether dietary supplementation with propolis could be used as a therapy for ulcerative colitis. Rats were fed with a Western style diet alone (controls) or supplemented with different amounts of Chinese propolis (0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.3%) to examine effects on acute colitis induced by 3% dextran sulphate sodium (DSS) in drinking water. Propolis at 0.3%, but not lower levels, significantly improved colitis symptoms compared with the control group, with a less pronounced disease activity index (DAI) (p < 0.001), a significant increase in colon length/weight ratio (p < 0.05) and an improved distal colon tissue structure as assessed by histology. Although short chain fatty acid levels in digesta were not altered by propolis supplementation, 16S rRNA phylogenetic sequencing revealed a significant increase in gut microbial diversity after 21 days of 0.3% propolis supplementation compared with controls including a significant increase in bacteria belonging to the Proteobacteria and Acidobacteria phyla. This is the first study to demonstrate that propolis can attenuate DSS-induced colitis and provides new insight into diet-microbiota interactions during inflammatory bowel disease.Entities:
Keywords: colitis; gut microbiota; propolis; rats
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28805735 PMCID: PMC5579668 DOI: 10.3390/nu9080875
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Composition of control (Western) diet.
| Components | g/kg Diet |
|---|---|
| Casein | 250 |
| Cornstarch | 350 |
| Sucrose | 100 |
| Fat Blend (Canola and Palm oils) | 200 |
| Wheat bran | 50 |
| 3 | |
| Choline bitartrate | 2.5 |
| Vitamins (AIN 93) | 10 |
| Minerals | 35 |
| Tert-butyl hydroquinol | 0.014 |
Figure 1Effects of propolis administration on severity of DSS-induced colitis. Rats were fed with Western diet containing different levels of propolis (0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.3%) starting for one week before experiment treatment (DSS, MW 36–50 kDa, 3% in the drinking water) started. (a) Disease activity index (DAI) over the period of experiment; (b) weight gain at the end of the experiment; (c) colon length/weight ratio was calculated at the end of the experiment; (d) Representative H and E-stained sections from 0% propolis, 0.3% propolis, and the untreated control group; (e) The histologic scores of rats (0 for no inflammation, 6 for maximal tissue damage and cell infiltration). The data represent the mean ± SEM of eight rats per group. * p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.001 significant difference versus the 0% propolis group.
Organ and fat pad weights 1.
| Indices | 0% Propolis | 0.1% Propolis | 0.2% Propolis | 0.3% Propolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total fat pad (mg/g) | 20.2 ± 1.3 | 18.4 ± 1.0 | 23.0 ± 2.4 | 20.4 ± 1.1 |
| Liver (mg/g) | 40.8 ± 1.3 | 38.5 ± 0.8 | 43.1 ± 2.1 | 40.8 ± 1.1 |
| Spleen(mg/g) | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.1 |
| Kidney (mg/g) | 7.6 ± 0.2 | 7.4 ± 0.2 | 7.8 ± 0.4 | 7.4 ± 0.2 |
1 Data are expressed as means ± SEM (n = 8). Fat pad weights were measured as the sum of the epididymal, retroperitoneal, and mesenteric fat pads.
Effects of propolis administration on individual and total SCFA levels in caecal digesta of DSS-induced colitis rats 1.
| Variables | Treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cecum weights, g | 0% propolis | 0.1% propolis | 0.2% propolis | 0.3% propolis |
| Tissue | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 |
| Digesta | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.1 |
| Cecum pH | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 7.9 ± 0.1 | 7.7 ± 0.1 |
| Pool, μmol | 0% propolis | 0.1% propolis | 0.2% propolis | 0.3% propolis |
| Acetate | 79.6 ± 6.9 a,b | 89.5 ± 5.3 a | 66.8 ± 4.1 b | 74.9 ± 3.5 a,b |
| Propionate | 20.3 ± 1.4 | 19.5 ± 0.8 | 17.2 ± 0.8 | 19.2 ± 0.9 |
| Butyrate | 13.0 ± 1.1 | 12.6 ± 1.3 | 12.1 ± 0.9 | 12.7 ± 0.8 |
| Total SCFA | 116.1 ± 8.9 a,b | 124.7 ± 4.2 a | 99.3 ± 5.1 b | 110.1 ± 4.7 a,b |
| Percentage of total, % | 0% propolis | 0.1% propolis | 0.2% propolis | 0.3% propolis |
| Acetate | 68.2 ± 1.1 | 71.4 ± 2.1 | 67.0 ± 1.5 | 68.1 ± 0.8 |
| Propionate | 17.7 ± 0.7 | 15.8 ± 0.9 | 17.5 ± 0.8 | 17.5 ± 0.5 |
| Butyrate | 11.3 ± 0.7 | 10.3 ± 1.2 | 12.2 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 0.4 |
1 Data are expressed as means ± SEM (n = 8). The means with different letters are significantly different means without a common letter differ, p < 0.05.
Figure 2Propolis altered the composition of the intestinal microbiota in colitis rats. Rats’ caecal digesta from untreated control, 0% propolis and 0.3% propolis groups were collected and the intestinal microbiota were examined by 16S rRNA sequencing. (a) Alpha diversity was analysed by Shannon diversity index; Data are presented as box plots, n = 8 rats/group; * p < 0.05, and ** p < 0.01 significant difference among two groups; (b) Beta diversity between the groups was analysed by weighted UniFrac distance. Data are the mean ± SEM (n = 8). *** p < 0.001 significant difference among two groups; (c) PCoA plot of the gut microbiota based on an unweighted UniFrac metric; (d) Venn diagram of OTUs showed microbiota differences between untreated control (green area) and 0% propolis (red area) and between 0.3% propolis (blue area), showing strains altered in these groups, and the overlap among them; and (e) relative abundance of predominant bacteria at the phylum level. Data are presented as a staked bar chart, n = 8 per group.
Figure 3Characteristics of microbial community composition using LEfSe analysis. (a) Taxonomic cladogram obtained from LEfSe analysis of 16S rRNA sequencing. Red shaded areas indicate the 0.3% propolis supplement taxa; green shaded areas indicate the 0% propolis taxa and blue shaded indicate untreated control taxa; (b) Taxa value meeting a significant LDA threshold value of >4.0 are shown, which are displayed with a positive LDA score.