Next Article in Journal
The Presence of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein (CETP) in Endothelial Cells Generates Vascular Oxidative Stress and Endothelial Dysfunction
Previous Article in Journal
Diesel Exhaust Particulates Enhances Susceptibility of LPS-Induced Acute Lung Injury through Upregulation of the IL-17 Cytokine-Derived TGF-β1/Collagen I Expression and Activation of NLRP3 Inflammasome Signaling in Mice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomolecules
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/biom11010068
biomolecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Plant Origin on Eurasian Propolis on Phenolic Profile and Classical Antioxidant Activity

by
Piotr Okińczyc
1,*,
Jarosław Widelski
2,
Jakub Szperlik
3,*,
Magdalena Żuk
3,
Tomasz Mroczek
4,
Krystyna Skalicka-Woźniak
4,
Zuriyadda Sakipova
5,
Gabriela Widelska
6 and
Piotr Marek Kuś
1
1
Department of Pharmacognosy and Herbal Medicines, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wrocław, Poland
2
Department of Pharmacognosy with Medicinal Plant Unit, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
3
Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Wroclaw, 50-383 Wrocław, Poland
4
Independent Laboratory of Natural Products Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
5
School of Pharmacy, S.D. Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan
6
Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomolecules 2021, 11(1), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11010068
Submission received: 18 November 2020 / Revised: 3 January 2021 / Accepted: 4 January 2021 / Published: 6 January 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Propolis is a bee product with known medical properties, including antioxidant activity. The scope of the study is profiling 19 different Eurasian propolis samples (mostly from Russia and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Ukraine, and Slovakia). Profiles of propolises were investigated by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–diode array detector–mass spectrometry (UPLC-DAD-MS). Classical antioxidant properties, which are based on electron donation mechanism, were assessed by DPPH, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assays. Total phenolic and flavonoid contents were also evaluated by colorimetric tests. Most of the samples exhibited significant content of polyphenols (from 30.28 to 145.24 mg GAE/g of propolis) and flavonoids (from 10.45 to 82.71 mg GAE/g of propolis). Most of the propolis samples exhibited potent antiradical (DPPH test—from 8.83 to 64.47 mg GAE/g of propolis) and reducing activity (FRAP test—from 0.08 to 1.17 mmol Fe2+/g of propolis). Based on the occurrence of marker compounds, propolis samples were classified as poplar, aspen–birch, aspen–poplar, and aspen–birch–poplar type. Main markers present in propolis of poplar (e.g., chrysin, pinocembrin, galangin, and 3-O-acetyl-pinobanksin), birch (ermanin and acacetin) and aspen (2-acetyl-1,3-di-p-coumaroylglycerol) origin were used. DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC tests results were correlated with flavonoids, total polyphenols, or the polyphenols other than flavonoids content. In term of activity, poplar propolis type was variable, while aspen–birch–poplar type usually exhibited high DPPH and FRAP activity.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Propolis (bee glue) is a bee product known to possess multiple medicinal properties such as antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, cytotoxic, and wound-healing [1]. Today, these properties are still used in traditional and experimental medicine.
The main sources of biologically active substances in propolis are plant exudates [1,2].
Due to high variability of flora around the world and other factors, chemical composition of propolis as a substance is unstable [2]. However, bees demonstrate notable preferences in relation to collected plant exudates [3]. Therefore, propolis from one beehive usually consists of exudates from one, two, and rarely three or more dominant plant species (plant precursors of propolis). As a result, propolis types around the world usually coincide with the spread of bees “favorite” plant precursors [3]. Bee’s selectivity is so high, that sometimes plants of foreign species may exclude local flora as a plant precursor.
Despite the unstable composition of globally assessed propolis, its profile of biological activity is usually not so variable [2,4]. Differences were often noted for level of single activity [2,4]. Propolis researchers usually explained this fact by bees’ discrimination of propolis plant precursors: probably, honey bees look for sources with similar physiochemical properties. Moreover, some components of exudates such as terpenes, terpenoids, and polyphenols are suspected to be bee’s attractants [3].
Data on propolis from some of the investigated regions is known, while from others remains unknown or partially investigated. Main unexplored and weakly explored regions are Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Propolis from Russia (main area of this research) was previously investigated by means of LC-DAD [5,6], LC-MS [5,7,8,9], GC-MS after silylation [10], and some antioxidant assays [5,8]. However, most of these studies investigated only a few antioxidant properties of Russian propolis samples or LC-MS, and antioxidant properties were not the target of the research. Moreover, wide chemical composition screening was performed only via GC-MS after silylation by Isidorov et al. [10]. While GC-MS after sylilation is probably the best method for simultaneous screening of polar and non-polar components, it may fall short for accurate research of polar polyphenols.
The aims of this study were to:
  • investigate chemical profiles of Eurasian propolis samples, including weakly researched, rare samples from Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan through ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–diode array detector–mass spectrometry (UPLC-DAD-MS);
  • evaluate the classical antioxidant properties, which are based on electron donation mechanism, by using DPPH radical scavenging assay, oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays;
  • assess the relations between the polyphenolic profile of propolis, plant origin, and classical antioxidant activity.
Our direct target of research was aqueous ethanol extract (70:30; ethanol: water; v/v) due to its wide use in folk medicine and good extracting capacity of polyphenols. UPLC-DAD-MS was chosen as an analytical method because of its adequacy and being an up to date method for polyphenol research in bee products such as propolis [1,2,5]. Antioxidant tests were chosen due to their complementarity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Acetonitrile, formic acid, and water MS grade were obtained from Waters (Milford, CT, USA). Deionized water, gallic acid, and quercetine were purchased from Extrasynthese (Genay, France). DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), TPTZ (complex of 2,4,6-Tri(2-pyridyl)-s-triazine), iron(II) sulfate heptahydrate, and aluminium chloride hexahydrate were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, MO, USA). Folin-Ciocalteu reagent, ethanol (analytical grade), and methanol (analytical grade) was purchased from ChemPur (Piekary Śląskie, Poland). OxiSelect™ ORAC Activity Assay was purchased from Cell Biolabs (San Diego, CA, USA). Disodium hydrogen phosphate and sodium chloride was obtained from POCH (Gliwice, Poland).

2.2. Sample Preparation

Propolis from the following states was obtained: 11 samples from Russia (regions: Barnaul, Bashikiria, Khabarovsk Krai, Krasnodar Krai, Novosybirsk, Perm, Tomsk and Vologoda Oblast, and Kedrovaja Pad), three samples from Ukraine (Khmelnitsky Village and Tarnopol), and from Kirgizja, Kazahstan (Almastka Oblast), Slovakia (Nova Bana), and Poland (Lubelszczyzna region) were obtained one sample per state. Russian samples were obtained from Professor Valery Isidorov.
Obtained propolis was frozen in liquid nitrogen and crushed in mortar. Freezing and crushing were performed in triplicate (until powdering of propolis). Previously ground research material was extracted by ethanol in water (70:30; v/v) in proportion with 1.0 g of propolis per 10 mL of solution. Extraction was performed in an ultrasonic bath (Sonorex, Bandelin, Germany). Extraction conditions were set on 40 °C for 45 min and 756 W (90% of ultrasound bath power). Next, extracts were stored at room temperature for 12 h and then filtered through Whattman No. 10 filtrate paper (Cytiva, Marlborough, MA, USA).

2.3. UPLC-DAD-MS

Composition of propolis extracts was analyzed by Waters Acquity UPLC system (Waters, Milford, CT, USA) equipped with PDA 200–500 nm, mass spectrometer Xevo-Q-TOF (Waters, Milford, CT, USA) and column BEH C18 130 Å, (1.7 μm, 2.1 × 150 mm) (Waters, Milford, CT, USA). Analyses were performed according to modified previous methods [11]. A longer column (150 mm compared to previous 100 mm) was used, and eluent gradient was modified. The rest of the parameters of analysis remained the same. Measurements were performed in UV mode and electrospray negative ionization mode. The new elution system consisted of acetonitrile/0.1% solution formic acid in water. The gradient elution program began with 20% acetonitrile and maintained to 3.10 min, then set on 30% in 20.70 min, 31% in 23.30 min and maintained to 25.9 min, 32% in 28.00 min, 33% in 30.50 min, 34% in 36.00 min, 36% in 40.30 min, 40% in 45.50 min, 45% in 47.5 min, 50% in 48.70 min, 75% in 53.0 min, 100% in 56.00 and maintained to 59.00 min, 20% in 60.00 min.
Data was processed using Masslynx 2.0 (Waters, Milford, CT, USA). Single components were identified by comparison of experimental pseudomolecular (precursor) ion mass, mass fragmentation spectra, UV absorption spectra, and retention time to standards and the literature data (articles and metabolite databases).
UV peaks were integrated in range 200–500 nm. For statistical analysis of chemical composition, peaks of UV chromatograms were integrated in the range of 200–500 nm. Area of integrated peaks was calculated as a percentage (%) of combined area of all peaks.
Moreover, the area of these peaks was used for the relative evaluation of components concentration. Relative concentration was classified as trace (tr), + (low), ++ (average), and abundant (+++).

2.4. Antioxidant and Reducing Activity Determination

Antiradical activity (DPPH Test), reducing activity (FRAP Assay), total phenolic content (TPC), and total flavonoid content (TFC) assays were performed according to previously described methods [12]. Total antioxidant capacity (ORAC measurement) was performed according to Thaipong et al. [13]. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Results of DPPH and TPC were presented as gallic acid equivalents per gram of propolis [mg GAE/g], TFC as quercetin equivalents per gram of propolis [mg QE/g], FRAP as mmol of Fe2+ quercetin equivalents per gram of propolis [mmol Fe2+/g], and ORAC as mmol of Trolox equivalents per gram of propolis [mmol Trx/g]. For statistical purposes, non-flavonoid polyphenols content [TPC-TFC] was calculated as difference between TPC and TFC.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft Power Solutions, Inc./Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA). Analyses include Pearson-correlation tests (between DPPH, FRAP, ORAC, TPC and TFC) and principal component analysis. Principal component analysis was performed in the matrix correlation model. DPPH, FRAP, ORAC, TPC, and TFC were used as variables. All data was normalized before PCA.
Comparison and classification of propolis chemical compositions were performed by cluster analysis based on Pearson correlation and complete linkage clustering by Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft Power Solutions, Inc./Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA). Matrix consisted of normalized UV peak areas (see Section 2.3).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Profile of Polyphenols and Classification of Eurasian Propolis

Results of UPLC-DAD-MS are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Main components of Eurasian propolis are shown in Figure 1. Eighty-six substances were identified or tentatively identified. Identification included components identified by comparison with standards or substances which MS, and UV spectra are well established in the literature. Moreover, these components were often isolated from different propolis or its precursors by researchers.
Some substances were classified as tentatively identified. This included geometric structure (regio- and stereoisomers, e.g., caffeic acids prenyl or isoprenyl esters) and substitution position (e.g., dimethyl quercetin and some phenolic acids glycerides). Moreover, some components were also tentatively identified due to lack of sufficient UV and mass data or trace concentration.
Generally, five main chemical groups were observed: flavonoids, free cinnamic acids, cinnamic acids monoesters, phenolic acids glycerides, and other components. Flavonoids aglycones were main components of most samples (10), but different aglycones dominated in different propolises. The rest of the samples were a mix of flavonoids and other polyphenols. However, among them, only SO (propolis from Saratov Oblast, Russia) contained low peaks of flavonoid in comparison to rest polyphenols. It was composed of free cinnamic acids, cinnamic acids monoesters, and phenolic acids glycerides.
The flavonoids group was the most extensive group of components and contained 43 substances. Moreover, peaks of these components were often dominant. The main flavonoids were chrysin, pinocembrin, acacetin, pinocembrin chalcone, galangin, 3-O-acetyl-pinobanksin, and pinostrobin. Among them, only chrysin was present in all of the samples, albeit in one as trace. Most of the flavonoids were aglycones, and only one substance was tentatively identified as glucoside (Apigenin-7-O-glucoside). Usually propolis exhibited the presence of a significant amount of flavonoid aglycones and absence of glucosides. Authors connected this fact with the protective function of plant exudates [14]. In terms of plant origin, flavonoid aglycones or absence thereof are usually specific markers of different propolis precursors around the world [15,16].
Five substances were identified in the free cinnamic acids group. The dominant peak belonged to p-coumaric acid, while rest of the substances (caffeic, ferulic, isoferulic acids, and cinnamic acids) exhibited trace, low, or intermediate peaks. However, at least one free cinnamic acid was observed in all samples. These components are usually present in most propolis samples [3,17], but for this reason, free cinnamic acids are usually non-specific markers of propolis plant precursors, with some exceptions such as C-prenylated p-coumaric acids [2,18].
Phenolic acids monoesters group was composed of 17 substances. Among them, the dominant peaks were of different isomers of caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl esters and benzyl esters of p-coumaric and caffeic acid. Some of the cinnamic acids monoesters may be markers of propolis plant origin [15,16].
The phenolic acids glycerides group consisted of 17 components. The dominant peaks were observed for 2-acetyl-1,3-di-p-coumaroylglycerol. Other considerable compounds were 2-acetyl-1-p-coumaroyl-3-feruloylglycerol and 2-acetyl-1,3-di-feruloylglycerol. Usually, this type of component—glycerol substituted by acetic acid and two cinnamic acids (p-coumaric, ferulic/isoferulic, caffeic and cinnamic acids)—is most often found in propolis [10,11,19]. Non acetylated derivatives and mono or three cinnamics acids substituted form are rarer in propolis [10,11,19]. Potentially, this fact may be connected with them being at the end of the metabolic pathway in plants (full substitution of glycerol) and/or protective function of acetylation [11]. Generally these components are considerably specific markers of P. tremula exudates [10,11,19], but these compounds are also present in others plants [12].
The last group included only four components, and the strongest peak was benzoic acid. Benzoic acid is suspected to be a product of benzoic acid esters degradation (especially benzyl benzoate, which is often a major component of propolis essential oils) [11].
Research on Eurasian propolis showed that it derives mainly from poplar, aspen [10,11,39], or birch [10,39], or has mixed origin [10,11,39]. Hierarchical fuzzy clustering analysis allowed the grouping of samples in the three major clusters (Figure 2). The clusters were directly connected with plant origin.
Cluster 3 consisted of propolis, which may be classified as poplar (or more accurately black poplar) type. Presence of other plant precursor markers, mainly aspen and birch, was low, or there were just traces. The main poplar markers in Cluster 3 were flavonoid aglycones (chrysin, pinocembrin, 3-O-acetyl-pinobanksin, and galangin [10,11]). These components are usually specific markers of black poplar origin determined by different analytical methods [10,11,24], but sometimes others components may be better markers due to variability of P. nigra chemotypes [10,11]. They include other flavonoid aglycones (e.g., pinocembrin and pinostrobin chalcones [11]), caffeic acid esters [10,11], or high amount of free cinnamic acids (especially isoferulic acid) [10,11]. Our research sample from Kyrgyzstan (KR) has shown a typical poplar profile. It contained typical poplar markers (chrysin, pinocembrin, 3-O-acetyl-pinobanksin, and galangin); however, there were also its own specific components such as pinocembrin chalcone and significant peaks of caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl esters present. Moreover, p-coumaric (and its esters), ferulic, and isoferulic acid were absent. Therefore, despite the evident poplar profile (presence of P. nigra flavonoids), it was grouped outside Cluster 3.
In the case of aspen propolis, wide spread of P. tremula suggested it as the main plant precursor of aspen propolis in Eurasian area. Markers of this type include different cinnamic acids glycerides, especially 2-acetyl-1,3-di-p-coumaroyl glycerol [10,11]. This component, known also as lasiocarpin A, was previously isolated from P. lasiocarpa buds by Asakawa et al. [40]. Apart from cinnamic acids glycerides, aspen buds contain low amounts of flavonoids, but typical poplar markers (chrysin, pinocembrin, 3-O-acetyl-pinobanksin, and galangin) are absent [10,11]. In the case of phenolic acids monoesters, some of these components are present in poplars and aspens (p-coumaric and caffeic acids benzyl ester and p-coumaric acids ferulic ester) [10,11], while others are characteristic for poplars (for example CAPE, different isomers of caffeic acids prenyl and isoprenyl esters) [10,11].
Birch propolis contains mainly sesquiterpenoids (birkenal, different isomers of caryophyllene alcohols, and acetates) [10] and some flavonoid aglycones (sakuranetin and pectolinaringenin) [10] as markers. Flavonoid aglycones were mainly components of Betula pubescens (white birch), while B. pendula (silver birch) contained trace amounts of these components [20]. In our previous research [11], sakurantetin was also present in both poplars and aspens (higher concentration in aspens), while other research showed absence or trace amounts in aspens and B. pendula [10,41], low concentration in some P. nigra, and high concentration in B. pubescens, respectively [10]. The pectolinaringenin situation is also complicated in researched propolises. Instead of pectolinaringenin in propolis, we found its isomer ermanin (kaempferol-3,4’-dimethyl ether, M = 314), which was isolated from B. pendula buds [42]. Pectolinaringenin was excluded due to a different UV spectrum. However, we find more common components of some B. pubescens buds chemotypes [41] such as acacetin (M = 284) and kaempferide (M = 300). Among these components, kaempferide was also observed in a considerable amount in P. tremula buds and less in P. nigra [11].
According to known information about poplars, aspens, and birch [10,20,41,42], propolis grouped in Cluster 1 (RPK, RKH, RT) may be classified as aspen–birch. The main aspen markers of Cluster 1 were lasiocarpin A, p-coumaric acid benzyl ester, p-coumaric, and ferulic acid. Birch markers of this cluster included acacetin and ermanin. There is also observed common birch–aspen marker—sakuranetin. Stronger peaks of aspen markers suggest domination of P. tremula exudates in the cluster rather than Betula.
Cluster 2 contained markers of aspen, poplar, and birch with unresolved dominance of precursors in most cases. Therefore, they are classified as mixed (aspen–birch–poplar propolis). It was worth adding that RV exhibited strong dominance of aspen markers (mainly 2-acetyl-1,3-di-p-coumaroyl glycerol), but due to strong peaks of kaempferide, RV is more similar to Cluster 2 than Cluster 1. Last two samples (RB1 and RS) were mixed propolis. However, the differences between them and rest of the samples excluded them from main clusters. RB1 exhibited a significant amount of caffeic acid esters, which was not observed in Cluster 2. The last sample (RS) is aspen–poplar propolis with dominance of aspen markers and without specific birch markers (ermanin).
Apart from known plant precursors such as P. nigra and P. tremula, other Populus species also produce sticky exudates and may be propolis precursors’ sources. Possible plant sources include many Populus species (ex. P. laurifolia or P. maximowiczii). Moreover, different Populus trees are known for their ease in forming hybrid species [43], and compositions of these species buds exudates are usually unknown. As a result, accurate prediction of plant precursors from poplar species is difficult. However, general classification of propolis is possible.

3.2. Antioxidant Properties and Phenolic Content of Eurasian Propolis

Results of colorimetric assays (TPC, TFC, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC) assays were shown in Table 3. Propolis was also divided into plant origin groups according to results of hierarchical fuzzy clustering analysis and chemical composition (described in the last section). The most abundant amount of polyphenols was observed in Ukrainian propolis from Tarnopol (UT, 145.24 mg GAE/g) while the lowest was in Kirgisian propolis (KR, 30.28 mg GAE/g). UT contained also the highest amount of flavonoids (82.71 mg GAE/g) and the lowest TFC was shown for Russian propolis from Saratov Oblast (10.45 mg GAE/g). Moreover, correlation between TFC and plant origin (p = 0.016) and the highest amount of flavonoid was observed for P group (Poplar origin).
DPPH test is used to evaluate the radical-scavenging activity—the ability to “catch free radicals”. Generally, components with high radical scavenging activity work as electron donors and can inactivate free radicals by different mechanisms (e.g., generation less reactive form of radical) and biological targets of oxidative stress are to be protected [44,45]. In our research, the highest radical scavenging activity was observed for samples from Barnaul (RB1, 64.47 mg GAE/g) and the lowest for KR (8.83 mg GAE/g). Statistical analysis showed that only [TPC-TFC] correlated with radical scavenging activity (p = 0.011). This suggests that flavonoids did not exhibit any role in radical scavenging activity. The structure of propolis flavonoids and other phenols may explain this observation. Propolis contains mainly flavonoid aglycones with B rings without hydroxyl groups (OH) or with OH groups in A, B, and C rings blocked by methyl groups (-CH3) or ester groups (-COR). It is known that free OH groups in these positions exhibit an important role in stabilization of flavonoid molecules after “attack of free radical” [44,45]. Phenolic OH groups (especially catechol rings) are critical determinants of the electron-/H-atom-donating activity [44,45]. Therefore, their amount and position in aryl rings is crucial for radical scavenging activity. Apart from flavonoids, cinnamics acids, and their esters and glycerides are mainly composed of cinnamic acid derivatives substituted by OH groups.
Comparison of caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) and chrysin, which are common propolis components, showed that CAPE exhibited better radical scavenging activity than chrysin due to better delocalization of electrons in radical form of CAPE [46]. According to the results, CAPE was more sensitive to free radical attack and exhibited higher radical scavenging activity [46]. However, it is worth adding that flavonoids with less OH groups may incorporate into cell membranes and protect them from free radical attacks [47]. As a result, more hydrophobic flavonoid aglycones also may play an important role in antioxidant activity. Apart from comparison of all samples, statistical analyses were also performed inside the propolis group. They were selected according to plant origin (see Table 3). Due to the amount of samples, three significant groups were selected. The first was poplar propolis group (P, n = 9) and aspen–birch–poplars (A-B-P, n = 6) and aspen–birch (A-B, n = 3). These results were more complex and depended on the tested group. While, in group A–B, DPPH was correlated only with TPC (p = 0.037), in group P correlations were observed between DPPH and TPC (p = 0.015), TFC (p = 0.06) and ORAC (p < 0.0005). For the A–B–P group, there was an observed correlation between DPPH and TPC (p = 0.007), TFC (p = 0.016), and [TPC-TFC] (p = 0.003) but not with ORAC. As a result, different polyphenols were considerable markers of radical scavenging activity. Distinguished from “global calculation”, TFC was a considerable marker of antioxidant activity due to a higher amount of flavonoids than non-flavonoid polyphenols in P group. But for A-B-P, TFC exhibited less significant impact on DPPH than TPC and [TPC-TFC]. This suggests that DPPH correlates with an amount of flavonoids and non-flavonoids polyphenols, but non-flavonoids polyphenols exhibited higher impact on radical scavenging activity of this group.
Distinguished from DPPH, FRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power assay) test and ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) is used to evaluate antioxidant capacity. In our research, the strongest FRAP activity was exhibited by RV (1.17 ± 0.06 mmol Fe2+/g) and the lowest by RT (0.06 ± 0.01 mmol Fe2+/g). FRAP activity was not correlated with TPC nor TFC among all propolis samples. Moreover, analysis inside groups (P and A-B-P) also showed this same result. This observation may suggest that reducing activity is a result of interaction between specific components. This hypothesis may be supported by high activity of mixed propolises (A-B-P). Composition of these propolises was the most complex among the samples, and potentially in FRAP’s activity, it may play a role in non-polyphenols components such as terpenoids. On the other hand, inside group A-B, FRAP was correlated with TPC (p = 0.014), which suggests connection between all phenols and FRAP activity.
ORAC is a test that evaluates how many free radicals can be deactivated by tested samples. Therefore, ORAC was correlated only with TPC (p = 0.034). Analysis among plant origin groups exhibited correlation between ORAC and TPC (p = 0.036), TFC (p = 0.039), and DPPH, but not with [TPC-TFC] in group P. This suggested that ORAC values were determined mainly by the amount of flavonoids according to Pearson correlation factor. Same non-flavonoid samples exhibited weak or no impact. However, no correlation with ORAC was observed inside groups A-B-P and A-B. This suggests that in all of the propolises, all polyphenols exhibit impact on ORAC results, but inside the poplar group, a considerable factor was only flavonoids. Results for A-B-P and A-B groups suggest that the ORAC test could be affected also by non-polyphenols components. Potentially, this group may be sesquiterpenoids, which are present in highly significant amounts in birch exudates [10,41]. It is worth adding that difference between samples for the ORAC test was quite less pronounced than in other colorimetric assays.
In summary, poplar propolis exhibited the most variable content of polyphenols and antioxidant activity (DPPH and FRAP assays), while mixed aspen-birch-poplar propolis usually had strong antioxidant activity (DPPH and FRAP assays).

4. Conclusions

The present research shows that Eurasian propolis is a rich source of polyphenols and potent antioxidant agent (in classical terms of electron donation mechanism). Different assays of antioxidant activity were correlated with flavonoids, total polyphenols content, or the content of polyphenols other than flavonoids. Results may suggest complex dependencies between propolis plant origin and its activity. Investigated propolis exhibited typical poplar or mixed plant origin (aspen-birch, aspen-poplar and aspen-birch-poplar).
Flavonoids aglycones were main components of most samples (10), but different aglycones dominated in different propolises, while the rest of the samples were a mix of flavonoids and other polyphenols. Only one sample consisted mostly of non-flavonoid polyphenols. Chemical markers have proven that the majority of samples were either poplar or poplar with admixtures of other species in origin. Samples from rare research areas exhibited poplar (Kyrgyzstan) and mixed origin (aspen-birch-poplar, Kazakhstan).
All of the investigated samples exhibited antioxidant and radical scavenging activity, albeit to different degrees. The results pointed out DPPH results correlating with the amount of both flavonoids and non-flavonoids polyphenols, but non-flavonoids polyphenols played a more important role in activity of the samples. FRAP results, on the other hand, seem to be correlated with general polyphenol content. The differences between samples for the ORAC test were significantly less pronounced than in other colorimetric assays and seemed to be correlated to both flavonoids and non-flavonoids polyphenols as well as non-phenolic compounds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: P.O. and J.W.; methodology: P.O., J.S. and P.M.K.; software: J.S. and M.Ż.; validation: P.O., J.S. and P.M.K.; formal analysis: P.O., J.S. and P.M.K.; investigation: P.O., J.S., P.M.K., G.W. and J.W.; resources: P.O., Z.S., J.W. and M.Ż.; data curation: P.O., J.S., P.M.K. and M.Ż.; writing—original draft preparation: P.O.; writing—review and editing: J.S., P.M.K., and J.W.; visualization: P.O.; supervision: M.Ż., T.M. and K.S.-W.; project administration: P.O.; funding acquisition: M.Ż., T.M. and K.S.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Wroclaw Medical University statutory research (SUB.D.110.19.005) and Grant 2017/25/B/NZ9/01060 from the National Centre of Science (NCN) as well as Medical University of Lublin statutory research (DS 27 and DS 28/20).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Valery Isidorov from Bialystok University of Technology for providing us with Russian propolis and Larysa Yakymchuk and Solomia Kozachok for Ukrainian propolis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bogdanov, S. Propolis: Composition, Health, Medicine: A Review. Bee Prod. Sci. 2014, 1, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bankova, V.; de Castro, S.; Marcucci, M. Propolis: Recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie 2000, 31, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Isidorov, V.A.; Bakier, S.; Pirożnikow, E.; Zambrzycka, M.; Swiecicka, I. Selective behaviour of honeybees in acquiring European propolis plant precursors. J. Chem. Ecol. 2016, 42, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kujumgiev, A.; Tsvetkova, I.; Serkedjieva, Y.; Bankova, V.; Christov, R.; Popov, S. Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1999, 64, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fedotova, V.V.; Konovalov, D.A. Propolis research in Russia. Indian J. Pharm. Educ. Res. 2019, 53, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Zhilyakova, E.T.; Novikov, O.O.; Novikova, M.Y.; Pisarev, D.I.; Lupina, T.V. Chemical study of the composition and quantitative analysis of hydroxycinnamic acids in experimental samples of propolis. Int. J. Green Pharm. 2017, 11, 470–475. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ambi, A.; Bryan, J.; Borbon, K.; Centeno, D.; Liu, T.; Chen, T.P.; Cattabiani, T.; Traba, C. Are Russian propolis ethanol extracts the future for the prevention of medical and biomedical implant contaminations? Phytomedicine 2017, 30, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ristivojević, P.; Stević, T.; Starović, M.; Pavlović, S.; Özcan, M.M.; Berić, T.; Dimkić, I. Phenolic composition and biological activities of geographically different type of propolis and black cottonwood resins against oral streptococci, vaginal microbiota and phytopathogenic Fusarium species. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 129, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ambi, A.; Vera, C.; Parikh, N.; Perez, N.; Lopez Rojas, A.; Kumar, S.; Stradford, C.; Borbon, K.; Bryan, J.; Traba, C. Plasma-initiated graft polymerization as an immobilization platform for metal free Russian propolis ethanol extracts designed specifically for biomaterials. Biofouling 2018, 34, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Isidorov, V.A.; Szczepaniak, L.; Bakier, S. Rapid GC/MS determination of botanical precursors of Eurasian propolis. Food Chem. 2014, 142, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Okinczyc, P.; Szumny, A.; Szperlik, J.; Kulma, A.; Franiczek, R.; Zbikowska, B.; Krzyzanowska, B.; Sroka, Z. Profile of polyphenolic and essential oil composition of polish propolis, black poplar and aspens buds. Molecules 2018, 23, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Svečnjak, L.; Marijanović, Z.; Okińczyc, P.; Kuś, P.M.; Jerković, I. Mediterranean propolis from the adriatic sea islands as a source of natural antioxidants: Comprehensive chemical biodiversity determined by GC-MS, ftiratr, UHPLC-DAD-QQTOF-MS, DPPH and FRAP assay. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Thaipong, K.; Boonprakob, U.; Crosby, K.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Hawkins Byrne, D. Comparison of ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays for estimating antioxidant activity from guava fruit extracts. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2006, 19, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vardar-Ünlü, G.; Silici, S.; Ünlü, M. Composition and in vitro antimicrobial activity of Populus buds and poplar-type propolis. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 1011–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bankova, V. Recent trends and important developments in propolis research. Evid.-Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2005, 2, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bankova, V. Chemical diversity of propolis and the problem of standardization. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005, 100, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bankova, V.; Bertelli, D.; Borba, R.; Conti, B.J.; da Silva Cunha, I.B.; Danert, C.; Eberlin, M.N.; Falcão, S.I.; Isla, M.I.; Moreno, M.I.N.; et al. Standard methods for Apis mellifera propolis research. J. Apic. Res. 2019, 58, 7366–7376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Bankova, V.; Christov, R.; Kujumgiev, A.; Marcucci, M.C.; Podov, S. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis. Z. Nat. C 1995, 50, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bertrams, J.; Müller, M.B.; Kunz, N.; Kammerer, D.R.; Stintzing, F.C. Phenolic compounds as marker compounds for botanical origin determination of German propolis samples based on TLC and TLC-MS. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2013, 86, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  20. Isidorov, V.A.; Brzozowska, M.; Czyzewska, U.; Glinka, L. Gas chromatographic investigation of phenylpropenoid glycerides from aspen (Populus tremula L.) buds. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1198–1199, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, C.A.; O’Maille, G.; Want, E.J.; Qin, C.; Trauger, S.A.; Brandon, T.R.; Custodio, D.E.; Abagyan, R.; Siuzdak, G. METLIN: A metabolite mass spectral database. Ther. Drug Monit. 2005, 27, 747–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Popova, M.; Giannopoulou, E.; Skalicka-Wózniak, K.; Graikou, K.; Widelski, J.; Bankova, V.; Kalofonos, H.; Sivolapenko, G.; Gaweł-Bȩben, K.; Antosiewicz, B.; et al. Characterization and biological evaluation of propolis from Poland. Molecules 2017, 22, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pellati, F.; Orlandini, G.; Pinetti, D.; Benvenuti, S. HPLC-DAD and HPLC-ESI-MS/MS methods for metabolite profiling of propolis extracts. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2011, 55, 934–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ristivojević, P.; Trifković, J.; Andrić, F.; Milojković-Opsenica, D. Poplar-type propolis: Chemical composition, botanical origin and biological activity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 11, 1869–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Trudić, B.; Anđelković, B.; Orlović, S.; Tešević, V.; Pilipović, A.; Cvetković, M.; Stanković, J. HPLC/MS-TOF analysis of surface resins from three poplar clones grown in Serbia. South-East Eur. For. 2016, 2, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Shi, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Yu, L. Identification and quantification of phytochemical composition and anti-inflammatory and radical scavenging properties of methanolic extracts of Chinese propolis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 12403–12410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wishart, D.S.; Feunang, Y.D.; Marcu, A.; Guo, A.C.; Liang, K.; Vázquez-Fresno, R.; Sajed, T.; Johnson, D.; Li, C.; Karu, N.; et al. The Human Metabolome Database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, 608–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grecka, K.; Kuś, P.M.; Okińczyc, P.; Worobo, R.W.; Walkusz, J.; Szweda, P. The anti-staphylococcal potential of ethanolic Polish propolis extracts. Molecules 2019, 24, 1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Shi, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Sheng, Y.; Huang, H.; Yu, L. Isolation and characterization of five glycerol esters from Wuhan propolis and their potential anti-inflammatory properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 10041–10047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Volpi, N.; Bergonzini, G. Analysis of flavonoids from propolis by on-line HPLC-electrospray mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2006, 42, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greenaway, W.; May, J.; Scaysbrook, T.; Whatley, F.R. Compositions of bud and leaf exudates of some Populus species compared. Z. Nat. C 1992, 47, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Maciejewicz, W. Isolation of flavonoid aglycones from propolis by a column chromatography method and their identification by GC-MC and TLC methods. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 2001, 24, 1171–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Asakawa, Y.; Schillo, D.; Lehmann, U.; Heidrun, W. A novel caffeic acid derivative and other constituents of populus bud excretion and propolis (bee-glue). Z. Nat. C 1987, 42, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar]
  34. Falcão, S.I.; Calhelha, R.C.; Touzani, S.; Lyoussi, B.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Vilas-Boas, M. In vitro interactions of moroccan propolis phytochemical’s on human tumor cell lines and anti-inflammatory properties. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Martos, I.; Cossentini, M.; Ferreres, F.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A. Flavonoid composition of Tunisian honeys and propolis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 2824–2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Trusheva, B.; Ivanova, D.; Popova, M.; Bankova, V. Insights into the essential oil compositions of Brazilian red and Taiwanese green propolis. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2017, 12, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Medana, C.; Carbone, F.; Aigotti, R.; Appendino, G.; Baiocchi, C. Selective analysis of phenolic compounds in propolis by HPLC-MS/MS. Phytochem. Anal. 2008, 19, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, H.; Dong, Y.; Du, H.; Shi, H.; Peng, Y.; Li, X. Antioxidant compounds from propolis collected in Anhui, China. Molecules 2011, 16, 3444–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Popova, M.; Trusheva, B.; Khismatullin, R.; Gavrilova, N.; Legotkina, G.; Lyapunov, J.; Bankova, V. The triple botanical origin of Russian propolis from the Perm Region, its phenolic content and antimicrobial activity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013, 8, 617–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Asakawa, Y.; Takemoto, T.; Wollenweber, E.; Aratani, T. Lasiocarpin A, B and C, three novel phenolic triglycerides from Populus lasiocarpa. Phytochemistry 1977, 16, 1791–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Isidorov, V.; Szczepaniak, L.; Wróblewska, A.; Piroznikow, E.; Vetchinnikova, L. Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric examination of chemicalcompositionoftwo Eurasian birch (Betula L.) bud exudates and its taxonomical implication. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2014, 52, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vedernikov, D.N.; Roshchin, V.I. Extractive compounds of betulaceae family birch buds (Betula pendula Roth.): IV. Composition of sesquiterpene diols, triols, and flavonoids. Russ. J. Bioorganic Chem. 2012, 38, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Przybylski, T.; Białobok, S.; Bugała, W.; Hejnowicz, A.; Jakuszewski, T.; Środoń, A.; Żelawski, A.; Jankiewicz, L.S.; Szuszka, D.; Obmiński, Z.; et al. Nasze Drzewa Leśne: Topole Populus L., 1st ed.; Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa, Poland, 1973; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  44. Seyoum, A.; Asres, K.; El-Fiky, F.K. Structure-radical scavenging activity relationships of flavonoids. Phytochemistry 2006, 67, 2058–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rice-Evans, C.A.; Miller, N.J.; Paganga, G. Structure-antioxidant activity relationships of flavonoids and phenolic acids. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1996, 20, 933–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sulaiman, G.M.; Al-Amiery, A.A.; Bagnati, R. Theoretical, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of caffeic acid phenethyl ester and chrysin. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 65, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Oteiza, P.I.; Erlejman, A.G.; Verstraeten, S.V.; Keen, C.L.; Fraga, C.G. Flavonoid-membrane interactions: A protective role of flavonoids at the membrane surface? Clin. Dev. Immunol. 2005, 12, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Biomolecules 11 00068 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical composition of Eurasian propolis.
Figure 1. Chemical composition of Eurasian propolis.
Biomolecules 11 00068 g001
Biomolecules 11 00068 g002 550
Figure 2. Classification of Eurasian propolis.
Figure 2. Classification of Eurasian propolis.
Biomolecules 11 00068 g002
Table
Table 1. UPLC-DAD-MS analysis of Eurasian propolis.
Table 1. UPLC-DAD-MS analysis of Eurasian propolis.
No.ComponentRTUV λmax (nm)[M − H]−Mass FragmentsRef
1* Caffeoylglycerol b,c1.88324, 298sh, 242253179, 161, 135[20]
2p-Hydroxy benzoic acid a,b,c2.13256137-[21]
3Caffeic acid a,b,c2.17324, 298sh, 242179135[10,22,23,24,25,26,27]
4* p-Coumaroylglycerol b,c2.63310, 300sh, 229237163, 145, 119[11,19,20]
5p-Coumaric acid a,b,c3.25310, 300sh, 229163119[10,22,23,24,25,26,27]
7Vanilline a,b,c3.42310, 280, 231151-[11,22,27]
8Ferulic acid a,b,c3.70324, 298sh, 236193149, 134[11,19,20]
9Isoferulic acid a,b,c4.11323, 295sh, 221193149, 134[11,19,20]
10Benzoic acid a,b,c5.97281sh, 274sh, 236121103, 77[11,22,27]
11* Ferulic acid derivate6.82326, 298sh, 236389193, 175, 148, 134-
12Acetyl-p-coumraoylglycerol b,c7.40311279219, 163, 145, 119[11,19,20]
13* Apigenin-7-O-glucoside b,c8.07315sh, 265431268, 239, 195[24]
143,4-Dimethylcaffeic acid b,c8.52322, 294sh, 236207163, 133[11,23,24]
15Luteolin a,b,c11.30349, 290sh, 270sh, 254, 227sh285213, 151 [11,23,24]
16Quercetin a,b,c11.43368, 293sh, 270sh, 256301271, 151, 121, 107[21,24]
17Pinobanksin-5-methyl ether b,c12.32322sh, 288, 228285267, 252, 239, 224, 208, 195, 180, 165, 152,136[23,24,26]
18Cinnamic acid a,b,c12.94277147103[11,23,24,27]
19Quercetin-3-methyl ether b,c13.68355, 293sh, 268sh, 255315300, 271, 243[11,23]
20* 1-Caffeoyl-3-p-coumaroyl glycerol c15.23315, 298sh, 235399253,235, 219, 179, 163, 135, 119[10,11,24]
21Naringenin a,b,c15.83330sh, 290, 230271269, 227, 177, 165, 151, 119, 107, 93[24,28]
22Pinobanksin a,b,c16.30332sh, 292, 229271253, 225, 209, 185, 151, 107[10,11,23,24]
23Apigenin a,b,c16.40338, 290sh, 268, 226269227, 181, 151, 149, 117, 107[11,23,24]
24* Caffeoyl-feruloylglycerol b,c16.12326, 298sh, 240429267, 253, 249, 235, 193, 179, 149, 135, 134[11,19,20]
25Chrysin-5-methyl ether b,c16.80314sh, 264, 247sh267252, 242, 180[11,25]
26Kaempferol a,b,c17.48366, 266, 248sh285-[10,11,24,27]
27Isorhamnetin a,b,c19.11371, 298sh, 268sh, 255, 233sh315300, 151[10,24,26,27]
28* Quercetin-methyl ether b,c19.57371, 298sh, 268sh, 255, 233sh315300,165, 151, 193, 121, 109[3,5]
29Luteolin-5-methyl ether b,c20.15350, 298sh, 266, 232sh299284, 255, 227, 211[11,23,25]
30* 1,3-Di-p-coumaroylglycerol b,c20.25310, 300sh, 233383237, 219, 163, 145, 119[10,11]
31Quercetine-5,7-dimethyl ether b,c20.71356, 296sh, 269sh, 255329314, 299, 285, 271, 257, 243, 227[3,5,7]
32* p-Coumaroyl-feruloylglycerol b,c21.37316, 298sh, 233413249, 237, 219, 179, 163, 149, 134, 119[11,24,29]
33* di-1,3-Feruloylglycerol b,c21.95323, 298sh443249, 193[10,11,24]
342-Acetyo-1,3-di-caffeoylglycerol b,c22.57328, 298sh, 244457397, 295, 235, 179, 163, 161, 135[11,24,29]
35β-Styrylacrilic acid (cinnamylideneacetic acid) b,c23.82311, 240sh173-[23]
36Galangin-5-methyl ether b,c25.42352, 300sh, 261, 240sh283268, 239, 211[23,26]
37Pinobanksin-3-O-acetyl-5-methyl-ether b,c25.60289327285, 267, 252, 224[23,26]
38* Caffeic acid butenic or isobutenic ester b,c24.73326, 298sh, 248233179, 161, 135[11]
No.ComponentRTUV λmax (nm)[M − H]−Mass FragmentsRef
39Rhamnetin a,b,c25.92354, 298sh, 268sh, 255315300,165, 151, 193, 121, 109[11,24]
40Quercetin-3,3-dimethyl ether b,c27.22356, 292sh, 268sh, 256329314, 299, 271, 243, 227[11,23]
412-Acetyl-1-caffeoyl-3-p-coumaroylglycerol b,c29.23316, 299sh 235441381, 295, 235, 179, 163, 135, 119[10,11,19,24]
42* Quercetin-dimethyl ether b,c29.46356, 292sh, 268sh, 256329300,165, 151, 193, 121, 109[11,23,24,25,26,27]
43* Caffeic acid butyl or isobutyl ester b,c30.20326, 298sh, 242235179, 161, 135[11]
442-Acetyl-3-caffeoyl-1-feruloylglycerol b,c30.28328, 300sh, 244471411, 295, 235, 193, 179, 149, 135[11,19,26]
45Quercetin-3,7-dimethyl ether b,c30.63356, 292sh, 268sh, 256329300,165, 151, 193, 121, 109[21,24]
46* Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl ester 1 b,c31.92326, 298sh, 246247179, 161, 135[23,24,25,26,27]
47Chrysin a,b,c32.11314sh, 268, 246sh253209, 181, 167, 165, 151, 107, 145, 143, 119[10,11,23,24,25,26,27]
48Sakuranetin b,c35.16328sh, 291, 270sh, 247sh285165, 119[24,27]
49Pinocembrin a,b,c33.68330sh, 290, 235255213, 187,151, 145, 136[11,23,26,27]
50Acacetin a,b,c34.08335, 299sh, 268, 228283268, 239, 211, 183, 151, 107[30]
51* Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl ester 2 b,c34.10326, 298sh, 246247179, 161, 135[23,24,25,27]
52Pinocembrin chalcone b,c34.14345255213, 151, 101[10,31]
53* Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl derivate 1 b,c34.21326, 298sh, 246247179, 161, 135[11,23,24,25,26]
54Caffeic acid benzyl ester b,c34.62328, 298sh, 244269178, 161, 134[11,23,24,25,26]
55* Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl derivate 2 b,c34.58326, 298sh, 246247179, 161, 135[11,23,24,25,26]
56* Flavonoid b,c33.62332sh, 291, 232285255, 145, 139, 124-
57Genkwanin a,b,c35.64337, 267, 242sh283268, 239, 211, 183, 171, 151, 117, 107[32]
58Galangin a,b,c36.07360, 314sh, 290sh, 266, 240sh269227, 197, 183, 151[10,11,21,23,24,25]
59Kaempferide (Kaempferol 4’-methyl ether) b,c37.31366, 322sh, 292sh, 266, 250sh299284, 255, 227, 164, 151[21,27]
602-Acetyl-1,3-di-p-coumaroylglycerol b,c37.55360sh, 312, 232425365, 321, 215, 163, 119[10,19,24]
613-O-Acetyl-pinobanksin b,c37.82332sh, 294, 238313271, 253, 209, 181, 165, 143, 151, 107[10,11,23,24]
62* Quercetin-dimethyl ether b,c38.33370, 268sh, 255329314, 299, 284, 271 [11,21,23,26,27]
63* 2-Acetyl-3-p-coumaroyl-1-feruloylglycerol b,c38.96318, 299sh 235455395, 351, 193, 163, 149, 119[10,11,29]
64* Metoxychrysin b,c39.27340sh, 310sh, 266, 245sh283268, 239, 211, 195[11,23,26]
653-Acetyl-1,2-di-p-coumaroylglycerol b,c40.09312, 300sh, 238425365, 163[11,20]
66Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) b,c40.15321, 300sh, 264 232283179, 161, 119[11,23,26]
672-Acetyl-1,3-di-feruloyl glycerol b,c40.37328, 298sh, 243485425, 249, 230, 193, 175, 149, 134[10,11,29]
68Ermanin (Kaempferol 3,4’-dimethyl ether) b,c41.05348, 267, 246sh313298, 283, 269, 255, 227, 211, 183, 155, 117[33]
69* Caffeic acid pentyl or isopentyl ester 1 b,c41.90326, 298sh, 247249179, 161, 134[34]
70Ayanin (3,7,4’-Trimethylquercetin) b,c42.53343, 271, 248sh343328, 313, 298, 285, 270, 255, 242, 214, 186, 163, 145, 129, 113[35]
71* p-Coumaric acid prenyl ester 1 b,c45.42311, 299sh, 245sh233163, 145, 119[11,23,25,26]
72* p-Coumaric acid prenyl ester 2 b,c45.42311, 299sh, 245sh233163, 145, 119[11,23,25,26]
73p-Coumaric acid benzyl ester b,c45.80312, 298sh, 244sh253162, 145, 118[10,11,23,26]
74* Ferulic or isoferulic acid benzyl ester b,c47.13326, 298sh283-[10,11,36]
75Caffeic acid cinnamic ester b,c48.04326, 300sh, 243295178, 163, 134, 92[11,23,24]
763-O-propyl-pinobanksin b,c48.58329sh, 294, 234327271, 253, 225, 209, 181, 165, 143[11,23,24]
77p-Coumaric acid phenethyl ester b,c49.21312, 300sh, 242sh267163, 145, 119[11,25]
No.ComponentRTUV λmax (nm)[M − H]−Mass FragmentsRf
78Pinostrobin chalcone b,c49.67345, 309sh, 267269254, 226, 198, 171, 165, 136, 122[11,24]
79Tectochrysin (Chrysin-7-methyl ether) b,c51.23310sh, 268267 iw-[37]
80Pinostrobin (Pinocembrin-5-methyl ether) a,b,c51.40328sh, 290, 248sh269 iw-[11,12,28]
813-O-butyl or isobutyl pinobanksin b,c51.65320sh, 293, 240sh341271, 253, 209, 181, 165, 151, 107[23,26]
82Galangin-7-methyl ether b,c52.21353, 268283 iw-[38]
833-O-pentyl or isopentyl pinobanksin 1 b,c53.07332sh, 293, 242355253, 209, 181, 165, 143, 107, 101[23,24,26]
843-O-pentyl or isopentyl pinobanksin 2 b,c53.24320sh, 295, 250353271, 253, 209, 181, 165, 151, 107[23,24,26]
853-O-hexyl-pinobanksin b,c54.09282369271, 253, 209, 151, 143[23,24,26]
86* Metoxycinnamic acid cinnamyl ester b,c54.26280293-[23]
a component identified by comparison with standard; b component identified by comparison with literature; c component identified by prediction of mass fragment and UV spectrum; * component tentatively identified; iw component produces low or trace amount of ions, sh—shoulder peak. The bold signifies the main ion.
Table
Table 2. Relatively concentration of components in UPLC-DAD analysis.
Table 2. Relatively concentration of components in UPLC-DAD analysis.
No.ComponentUK1UK2UK3UTRBHRB1RB2RKHRKKRKPRNRPRSRTRVKRKZSLPL
1* Caffeoyl-glyceroltrtrtrtrtrtr-trtr-trtrtrtr-trtrtrtr
2p-Hydroxy benzoic acidtrtrtrtrtr-trtrtrtrtr-trtrtr-trtrtr
3Caffeic acid+++++++++tr+++trtr+++tr
4p-Coumaroylglycerol----trtrtrtr--tr-trtrtr-trtrtr
5p-Coumaric acid+++++++++++++++tr+++++++-++++
7Vanillinetr---trtrtrtr-+tr-tr++-trtr+
8Ferulic acid++++tr+++++++tr+++++-+++
9Isoferulic acid+++++++tr++++trtrtr-trtrtr
10Benzoic acid+trtrtr++++tr+trtr++++-+tr++
11* Ferulic acid derivatetrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr--tr-trtrtr-trtrtr
12Acetyl-p-coumaroylglyceroltr---trtrtrtrtr---tr-tr-trtrtr
133,4-Dimethylcaffeic acid (DMCA)trtrtrtr+++-+-tr+--tr-trtrtr
14* Apigenin-O-glucosidetrtrtrtr----tr-tr-----trtr-
15Luteolintrtrtrtrtrtr-tr--trtrtr-tr-trtr-
16Quercetintr+++trtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr-tr+trtrtr
17Pinobanksin-5-methyl ether++++tr+-trtr-tr-tr---tr+tr
18Cinnamic acidtr---tr-trtrtrTr--tr-tr--trtr
19Quercetin-3-methyl ethertrtrtrtrtr trtrtr-trtrtrtr-+tr+tr
20* 1-Caffeoyl-3-p-coumaroyl glycerol----trtrtrtr--tr-trtrtr-tr-tr
21Naringeninetrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr-trtrtrtrtr-tr-tr
22Pinobanksin++++tr+trtr+tr++trtrtr+++tr
23Apigenin+trtrtr+tr++++trtrtr++++++
24Caffeoyl-feruloylglycerol------trtr----trtrtr-tr--
25Chrysin-5-methyle ethertrtrtrtr----tr-tr-----trtrtr
No.ComponentUK1UK2UK3UTRBHRB1RB2RKHRKKRKPRNRPRSRTRVKRKZSLPL
26Kempferol+++++trtr+tr++trtr++++++
27Isorhamnetintrtrtrtr+trtrtrtr+trtrtr++-+trtr
28Quercetin-methyl ethertr---tr-tr-tr-trtrtrtrtr-trtr
29Luteolin-5-methyl ether+trtrtrtr-tr++tr+trtr+++++tr
30** 1,3-Di-p-coumaroylglyceroltrtrtrtrTr+++trtrtr-++tr-trtrtr
31Quercetine-5,7-dimethyl ethertrtrtrtrtr-trtrtrtrtrtrtr++tr+trtr
32p-Coumaroyl-feruloylglycerol-trtrtrtrtrtrtr-trtrtrtrtrtr-tr--
33Di-feruloyogliceroltr---trtrtrtr-trtr-tr-tr-trtr-
342-Acetyo-1,3-di-caffeoylglyceroltrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr-tr-tr-trtrtr
35β-styrylacrilic acidtrtrtrtr- ----tr------trtr
36Galangin-5-methyl ethertrtrtrtrtrtr--tr-tr---tr-trtr
37Pinobanksin-3-O-acetyl-5-methyl-ethertrtrtrtrtr---tr-tr---tr-trtr-
38* Caffeic acid butenic or isobutenic ester b,c----------------tr--
39Rhamnetintr+++trtrtrtrtr-tr-trtrtr-tr+tr
40Quercetin-dimethyl ether-trtrtrtrtrtrtr-trtrtrtrtrtr-trtrtr
412-Acetyl-1-caffeoyl-3-p-coumaroylglyceroltrtrtrtrtrtrtr+tr-tr-+trtr-trtrtr
42Quercetin-dimethyl ethertrtrtrtrtr-trtrtr-trtrtrtr--tr+tr
43Caffeic acid butyl or isobutyl ester------tr-tr-tr+----tr--
442-Acetyl-3-caffeoyl-1-feruloylglyceroltr---trtrtr+tr-tr-+trtr-trtrtr
45Quercetin-trimethyl ether-trtrtr----tr- ------tr-
46Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl ester 1tr++tr++++tr-tr-+++tr-+trtrtr
47Chrysin+++++++++++++tr+tr+++tr+++++trtr+++++++
48Sakuranetin++++++++++tr-++++++++++++++++
49Pinocembrin+++++++++++++++tr+++++++trtr++++++++++
50Acacetin----++tr+++-++tr-+++++-++Tr+
51Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl derivate 1tr---tr-tr-++--tr+trtr-tr+-
52Pinocembrin chalcone--------+--+---++---
53Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl ester 2tr+++tr-tr-tr-++trtr-++trtr-
54Caffeic acid benzyl ester+++++tr++trtr++++trtr--trtrtr
55Caffeic acid prenyl or isoprenyl derivate 2tr---+++---+++trtr--tr+tr
56Flavonoidtr-----tr++--trtrtr-----
57Genkwanin-trtrtrtr+++tr+trtrtr++-+tr+
58Galangin++++++++++++++++tr+++++++tr-++++++++
59Kaempheridetrtrtrtr++trtrtrtr++trtrtr++-++tr++
602-Acetyl-1,3-di-p-Coumaroylglyceroltrtrtrtr++++++++++++++tr++++++-++++
613-O-acetyl-pinobanksin++++++++++++-++-++++tr+-++++++++
62Quercetin-dimethyl----+-tr+tr+tr-trtrtr-+-+
63* 2-Acetyl-3-p-coumaroyl-1-feruloylglyceroltrtrtrtr++++tr+tr-+++-+-+
64Metoxychrysin++++tr+tr-tr-+trtrtr-+trtr-
No.ComponentUK1UK2UK3UTRBHRB1RB2RKHRKKRKPRNRPRSRTRVKRKZSLPL
65* 3-Acetyl-1,2-di-p-coumaroylglyceroltr-- trtrtrtr-trtr-tr---tr-tr
66Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE)+++++tr+-++-++trtr--++-
672-Acetyl-1,3-di-feruloylglyceroltr---trtrtr+-+tr-+tr+-tr-tr
68Dimethyl luteolintrtrtrtr+++++++++trtr++++-++tr+
69Caffeic acid pentyl or isopentyl ester 1----tr-tr-tr-++trtr-----
70Flavonoid dimethyl ethertr---+-+trtr+---+tr-+--
71p-Coumaric acid prenyl ester 1trtrtrtrtr-------tr----tr
72p-Coumaric acid prenyl ester 2trtrtrtr----tr-tr-tr----tr+
73p-Coumaric acid benzyl ester++++++++++++++-++++++-++++
74Ferulic or isoferulic acid benzyl ester++++++++++++-+++-+++
75Caffeic acid cinnamic ester++trtrtrtrtrtr--+tr-tr-tr-tr+tr
763-O-propyl-pinobanksin+++tr--tr-+-tr-tr--+tr+-
77p-Coumaric acid phenethyl ester------trtrtr-----tr--tr+
78Pinostrobin chalcone-trtrtrtr-+-+-tr++tr---trtr+
79Tectochrysin (Chrysin-7-methyl ether)++++trtrtr---tr+---tr-+-
80Pinostrobin (Pinocembrin-5-methyl ether)trtrtr++++++-+++++tr+-tr+++
813-O-butyl or isobutyl pinobanksin+++tr+tr--+-+-----++tr
82Galangin-7-methyl ether+trtr+++++tr+++-++-trtrtr
833-O-pentyl or isopentyl pinobanksin 1tr++tr+tr--tr-tr----+trtr-
843-O-pentyl or isopentyl pinobanksin 2trtrtrtr----tr-tr--tr--+tr-
853-O-hexyl- pinobanksintrtrtrtr------tr-----trtr-
86Metoxycinnamic acid cinnamyl estertrtrtrtr++tr-tr-trtr+++--trtrtr
- component absent; + component present in relatively low concentration; ++ component present in relatively average concentration; +++ component present in relatively high concentration; UK1—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 1; UK2—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 2; UK3—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 3; UT—Ukraine, Tarnopol; RB1—Russia, Barnaul 1; RB2—Russia, Barnaul 2; RBH—Russia, Bashikiria; RKP—Russia, Kedrovaja Pad; RKH—Russia, Khabarovsk; RKK—Russia, Krasnodar Krai; RN—Russia, Novosybirsk; RN—Russia, Saratov Oblast; RT—Russia, Tomsk; RV—Russia, Vologoda Oblast; KR—Kyrgyzstan; KZ—Kazahstan, Almastka Oblast; PL—Poland, Lubelszczyzna Region; SN—Slovakia, Nova Bana; * component tentatively identified; ** substitution positioning of glycerol was tentatively identified; b component identified by comparison with literature; c component identified by prediction of mass fragment and UV spectrum.
Table
Table 3. Colorimetric evaluation of Eurasian propolis.
Table 3. Colorimetric evaluation of Eurasian propolis.
CountryPlant
Origin 		TPC
[mg GAE/g]		TFC
[mg QE/g]		[TPC-TFC]
[mg/g]		DPPH
[mg GAE/g]		FRAP
[mmol Fe2+/g]		ORAC
[mmol Trx/g]
UK1P128.43 ± 2.1555.24 ± 0.8273.1936.10 ± 1.400.25 ± 0.013.85 ± 0.13
UK2P135.89 ± 1.1755.79 ± 1.7680.1032.83 ± 0.640.29 ± 0.023.99 ± 0.23
UK3P120.30 ± 1.2253.90 ± 2.3666.4030.98 ± 0.830.34 ± 0.014.17 ± 0.16
UTP145.24 ± 2.2482.71 ± 2.4662.5342.69 ± 0.910.40 ± 0.044.23 ± 0.24
RB1A-B-P121.26 ± 0.2925.84 ± 0.5795.4264.47 ± 0.701.03 ± 0.023.46 ± 0.16
RB2A-B-P120.02 ± 2.0026.77±0.7193.2553.55 ± 0.310.91 ± 0.033.56 ± 0.19
RBHA-B-P48.89 ± 0.3731.63±2.8193.2539.39 ± 0.191.28 ± 0.073.68 ± 0.27
RKPA-B50.39 ± 0.4330.48 ± 0.8219,9131.76 ± 2.530.13 ± 0.013.55 ± 0.22
RKHA-B52.81 ± 0.4133.93 ± 1.0617,2634.65 ± 2.740.15 ± 0.013.63 ± 0.17
RKKP129.21 ± 0.9153.13 ± 1.2676.0829.02 ± 1.600.17 ± 0.013.56 ± 0.14
RNP99.98 ± 0.5241.65 ± 1.5858.3425.27 ± 0.730.12 ± 0.013.67 ± 0.11
RPP81.65 ± 2.0927.34 ± 0.9454.3132.22 ± 0.390.11 ± 0.013.96 ± 0.34
RSA-P109.55 ± 0.4910.45 ± 0.4699.1041.19 ± 1.780.08 ± 0.014.12 ± 0.26
RTA-B40.02 ± 0.7932.49 ± 1.157.5312.59 ± 0.520.06 ± 0.013.78 ± 0.49
RVA-B-P47.13 ± 0.5031.97 ± 0.7915.1633.70 ± 0.491.17 ± 0.064.17 ± 0.12
KRP30.28 ± 0.4617.75 ± 0.7212.528.83 ± 0.490.10 ± 0.011.95 ± 0.36
KZA-B-P45.04 ± 0.4544.89 ± 1.450.1424.67 ± 1.000.85 ± 0.032.89 ± 0.46
PLA-B-P46.91 ± 1.1040.94 ± 1.352.0528.34 ± 0.421.15 ± 0.073.27 ± 0.38
SNP42.47 ± 0.8140.42 ± 1.075.9728.28 ± 0.180.92 ± 0.013.73 ± 0.15
DPPH—radical scavenging activity in DPPH test; FRAP—ferric reducing antioxidant power; TPC—total phenolic content; mg GAE/g—concentration or activity as mg of gallic acid equivalents per gram of propolis; TFC—flavonoid content; mg QE/g—concentration or activity as mg of quercetin equivalents per gram of propolis; [TPC-TFC]—relatively flavonoids reduced polyphenols content; mmol Fe2+/g—activity as mmol of Fe2+ equivalents per gram of propolis; UK1—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 1; UK2—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 2; UK3—Ukraine, Khmielnitsky 3; UT—Ukraine, Tarnopol; RB1—Russia, Barnaul 1; RB2—Russia, Barnaul 2; RBH—Russia, Bashikiria; RKP—Russia, Kedrovaja Pad; RKH—Russia, Khabarovsk; RKK—Russia, Krasnodar Krai; RN—Russia, Novosybirsk; RN—Russia, Saratov Oblast; RT—Russia, Tomsk; RV—Russia, Vologoda Oblast; KR—Kyrgyzstan; KZ—Kazahstan, Almastka Oblast; PL—Poland, Lubelszczyzna Region; SN—Slovakia, Nova Bana.; P—poplar propolis (trace of non-poplar markers); A-B—aspen–birch propolis (trace of non-aspen markers); A-P—aspen–poplar propolis.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Okińczyc, P.; Widelski, J.; Szperlik, J.; Żuk, M.; Mroczek, T.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Sakipova, Z.; Widelska, G.; Kuś, P.M. Impact of Plant Origin on Eurasian Propolis on Phenolic Profile and Classical Antioxidant Activity. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11010068

AMA Style

Okińczyc P, Widelski J, Szperlik J, Żuk M, Mroczek T, Skalicka-Woźniak K, Sakipova Z, Widelska G, Kuś PM. Impact of Plant Origin on Eurasian Propolis on Phenolic Profile and Classical Antioxidant Activity. Biomolecules. 2021; 11(1):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11010068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Okińczyc, Piotr, Jarosław Widelski, Jakub Szperlik, Magdalena Żuk, Tomasz Mroczek, Krystyna Skalicka-Woźniak, Zuriyadda Sakipova, Gabriela Widelska, and Piotr Marek Kuś. 2021. "Impact of Plant Origin on Eurasian Propolis on Phenolic Profile and Classical Antioxidant Activity" Biomolecules 11, no. 1: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11010068

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop