Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
. 2016 Dec 23;24(5):1094–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.12.012

Chemical compositions and characteristics of organic compounds in propolis from Yemen

Ahmad A Al-Ghamdi a, Nowfal IM Bayaqoob a, Ahmed I Rushdi b,c,⁎, Yehya Alattal a, Bernd RT Simoneit d, Aarif H El-Mubarak e,f, Khalid F Al-Mutlaq e
PMCID: PMC5478286  PMID: 28663710

Abstract

Propolis is a gummy material made by honeybees for protecting their hives from bacteria and fungi. The main objective of this study is to determine the chemical compositions and concentrations of organic compounds in the extractable organic matter (EOM) of propolis samples collected from four different regions in Yemen. The propolis samples were extracted with a mixture of dichloromethane and methanol and analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). The results showed that the total extract yields ranged from 34% to 67% (mean = 55.5 ± 12.4%). The major compounds were triterpenoids (254 ± 188 mg g−1, mainly α-, β-amyryl and dammaradienyl acetates), n-alkenes (145 ± 89 mg g−1), n-alkanes (65 ± 29 mg g−1), n-alkanoic acids (40 ± 26 mg g−1), long chain wax esters (38 ± 25 mg g−1), n-alkanols (8 ± 3 mg g−1) and methyl n-alkanoates (6 ± 4 mg g−1). The variation in the propolis chemical compositions is apparently related to the different plant sources. The compounds of these propolis samples indicate that they are potential sources of natural bio-active compounds for biological and pharmacological applications.

Keywords: Propolis, Yemen, Triterpenoids, GC–MS

1. Introduction

Honeybees collect resin/gummy materials from different parts of plants to make a sticky substance known as propolis (Ghisalberti, 1979, Parolia et al., 2010, Simone-Finstrom and Spivak, 2010) and utilize it for sealing cracks in hives and protecting their hives from infection by bacteria and fungi (Banskota et al., 2001, Simone-Finstrom and Spivak, 2010). Egyptians, Greeks and Romans used propolis to treat some diseases (Marcucci, 1995, Sforcin and Bankova, 2011). Currently, researchers are interested in the chemical components and biological activities of propolis because of its remedial properties (Sforcin and Bankova, 2011, Bankova, 2005, Castaldo and Capasso, 2002, Sforcin, 2007, Bankova et al., 2014). The geographical locales, plant species, collecting season and bees selective behavior are the dominant attributes to the assortment of the chemical compositions of propolis (Sforcin and Bankova, 2011, Isidorov et al., 2014). The major chemical constituents of propolis include flavonoids, aromatic acids, diterpenoid acids and triterpenoids, and phenolic compounds are often the major components (Bankova et al., 2000, Chen et al., 2008, Cursta-Rubio et al., 2007, Daugsch et al., 2008, Kumazawa et al., 2008, Markham et al., 1996, Márquez Hernández et al., 2010, Popova et al., 2010). Some of these compounds are responsible for its biological activities (Bankova et al., 2000, Barros et al., 2007, Bassani-Silva et al., 2007, Bufalo et al., 2009, Cvek et al., 2007, Orsatti et al., 2010a, Orsatti et al., 2010b, Orsi et al., 2005, Silva et al., 2009, Zamami et al., 2007). The three possible sources of the organic compounds in propolis include plants, secreted substances from honeybee metabolism, and materials that are introduced during propolis formation (Marcucci, 1995). The typical bulk composition of propolis is vegetation resin and balsam (gum) (50%), wax (30%), essential and aromatic oils (10%), pollen (5%) and other substances (5%) (Cirasino et al., 1987, Monti et al., 1983). The majority of the chemical compositions and bio-activity effects of propolis were described for samples from Europe and Latin America (e.g. Bankova et al., 1992, Bankova et al., 2000, Daugsch et al., 2008, Barros et al., 2007, Monti et al., 1983, Márquez Hernández et al., 2010), whereas few studies have been reported on propolis from the Arabian Peninsula (Abd El-Mawla and Osman, 2011, Almutairi et al., 2014, Fahmi et al., 2001, Jerz et al., 2014, Popova et al., 2013, Alqarni et al., 2015), with none from Yemen. Yemen is located in south of the Arabian Peninsula with different climatic and physiographic conditions that endow the country with about 3700 species belonging to 140 families of plants (Alhammadi, 2010). Most beekeepers in the country focus only on honey production and there is a potential for producing huge amounts of propolis that contains various biologically active substances. Apparently, no work has reported the chemical compositions of propolis from Yemen.

Thus, the objective of this study is to determine the chemical compositions, characteristics and concentrations of organic compounds in the solvent extractable organic matter of propolis samples collected from different regions in Yemen.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sampling

Nine propolis samples were collected from the southeastern and central parts of Yemen representing different geographical regions. The specific areas were: Tarim (samples T1 and T2; 16°03′00.39″N and 19°00′00.53″E; Altitude = 614 m), Wadi Adem (sample WA; 15°18′17.67″N and 48°38′45.50″E; Altitude = 630 m), Seiyun (samples S1 and S2; 15°56′27.88″N and 48°46′48.49″E; Altitude = 640 m), Seiyun Shahoh (sample SH), Amran (sample AM; 16°16′13.32″N and 43°56′17.53″E; Altitude = 1918 m), and Thebi-Tarim (samples TT1 and TT2; 16°01′19.01″N and 48°59′33.55″E; Altitude = 615 m) (Fig. 1). All the samples were collected in November 2011, except for the sample TT1, which was collected in August 2011. The major vegetation of the southeast region of Yemen is comprised of different Acacia species such as Acacia tortilis, Acacia hamulosa around Adem Village, Prosopis juliflora, Azadirachta indica around Tarim and Seiyun. The Amran region is characterized by the Acacia species Ziziphus spina-christi. The propolis samples were collected using a stainless steal spatula (∼30 g of each) in a Teflon-caped glass container, labeled and kept in a freezer until analysis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Map showing the locations of the propolis sample collection.

2.2. Extraction and derivatization

Each sample (210 ± 40 mg) was broken up and extracted three times using ultrasonic agitation for successive 15 min periods with a of dichloromethane (DCM) and methanol (MeOH, 40 mL, 3:1 v:v) mixture. The solvent mixture was used to extract both polar and nonpolar compounds from propolis. The extraction was carried out in a precleaned beaker. The undissolved particles in the extract were then removed using a filtration unit containing an annealed glass fiber filter, dried and weighed. The filtrate was first concentrated on a rotary evaporator and then reduced using a stream of dry nitrogen gas to a volume of approximately 2 mL. The total extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS). Because underivatized polar compounds have low detection by GC–MS, an aliquot (100 μL) of each total extract was dried under a flow of nitrogen and reacted with silylating reagent [N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide, BSTFA, Pierce Chemical Co.] for 3 h at 70 °C. Then, the BSTFA was evaporated under a flow of nitrogen and the sample was dissolved in n–hexane before analysis by GC–MS. This derivatizing agent replaces the H on hydroxyl groups with a trimethylsilyl [(CH3)3Si, i.e. TMS] group for better GC resolution of polar compounds.

2.3. Chemical analysis

Instrumental analysis by GC–MS was carried out with an Agilent 6890 gas chromatograph coupled to a 5973 Mass Selective Detector, using a DB-5MS (Agilent) fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness) and helium as carrier gas. The GC was temperature programmed from 65 °C (2 min initial time) to 310 °C at 6 °C min−1 (isothermal for 55 min final time) and the MS was operated in the electron impact mode at 70 eV ion source energy. Mass spectrometric data were acquired and processed using the GC–MS ChemStation data system.

2.4. Identification and quantification

The compounds were identified by comparison with the chromatographic retention characteristics and mass spectra of authentic standards, literature mass spectra and the mass spectral library of the GC–MS data system. The mass spectra of unknown compounds were interpreted based on their fragmentation patterns. The identification of triterpenoids, n-alkenes, n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids, long chain wax esters, n-alkanols, and methyl n-alkanoates are based primarily on their mass spectra (i.e. key ions at m/z 191/189/218, 97, 85, 117 (TMS), 257, 103 (TMS), and 87, respectively). Compounds were quantified using total ion current (TIC) peak area, and converted to compound mass using calibration curves of external standards (tetracosane for n-alkanes; hexadecanoic acid for n-alkanoic acids, alkyl alkanoates and n-alkanols; sitosterol for triterpenoids; glucose for monosaccharides; and sucrose for disaccharides), assuming similar responses for both standards and sample compounds. It was also assumed that the individual compounds used to prepare the calibration curves and the compounds in the propolis mixture have similar responses. Four different standards were prepared from stock solutions (500 ppm tetracosane, 100 ppm hexadecanoic acid, 500 ppm sitosterol, and 1000 ppm sucrose). The least square method was used to test the linearity of the calibration curves and to fit the concentrations of the different standards versus their relative responses. The correlations between the relative responses and the concentrations were high with coefficients (R2) ranging from 0.91 to 0.98. The calibration curve standards and a procedural blank were run in sequence with propolis samples. No significant background interferences were found.

3. Results

The major extractable organic compound concentrations are listed in Table 1 and the features of the GC–MS results for the propolis samples are shown in Fig. 1. The main compounds were sugars (not listed in Table 1), triterpenoids, n-alkenes, n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids, long chain wax esters, n-alkanols and methyl n-alkanoates (Table 1). Triterpenoid concentrations ranged from 5.3 mg g−1 to 443.8 mg g−1. The major triterpenoids were α- and β-amyryl acetate (1.1–386.9 mg g−1), and α- and β-amyrin (0.02–23.0 mg g−1) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The total concentrations of n-alkenes ranged from 13.5 mg g−1 to 236.5 mg g−1 and tritriacontene (8.9–263.2 mg g−1) was the major compound (Table 1 and Fig. 2). For n-alkanes, the total concentrations ranged from 16.9 to 111.1 mg g−1, where the major compounds were pentacosane (0.8–8.9 mg g−1), heptacosane (6.5–70.6 mg g−1), nonacosane (3.7–18.2 mg g−1), and hentriacontane (4.7–17.3 mg g−1) (Table 1, Fig. 2). The concentrations of n-alkanoic acids ranged from 1.1 to 85.8 mg g−1 and the major compound was hexadecanoic acid (1.0–46.8 mg g−1, Fig. 3). The total concentration of wax esters ranged from 8.6 to 59.9 mg g−1 and the major compound was tetracosyl hexadecanoate (7.1–65.12 mg g−1; Table 1). For n-alkanols, the total concentrations ranged from 4.9 to 12.4 mg g−1 with tetracosanol (2.0–4.7 mg g−1) as the major compound (Fig. 3). The methyl n-alkanoate concentrations ranged from 1.4 to 12.8 mg g−1 and methyl hexadecanoate (0.1–5.6 mg g−1) was the major compound (Table 1).

Table 1.

The yields (%) and concentrations (mg g−1) of the various lipid compound groups of propolis samples from different regions of Yemen1.

Sample
T1 T2 WA S1 S2 SH AM TT1 TT2 Mean SD
TotalEOM (%) 64.88 66.58 59.88 33.64 43.97 41.31 63.65 65.23 60.64 55.53 12.40
Compound Composition M.W.
Triterpenoids
β-Amyrone C30H48O 424 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00
β -Amyrin C30H50O 426 3.33 1.25 0.96 1.65 0.18 1.69 10.80 2.52 25.58
α-Amyrone C30H48O 424 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.00
β -Amyryl acetate C32H52O2 468 49.70 28.03 107.99 4.50 1.13 10.16 55.76 165.32 18.50
α-Amyrin C30H50O 426 2.29 0.36 0.00 1.07 0.27 1.02 22.07 0.00 34.92
α-Amyryl acetate C32H52O2 468 34.12 18.69 386.94 2.78 3.12 6.05 335.35 104.82 29.11
β -Amyryl pentanoate C35H58O2 510 12.34 6.47 0.00 0.61 0.14 3.46 0.00 3.58 11.80
α-Amyryl pentanoate C35H58O2 510 9.92 4.65 0.00 0.44 0.00 2.56 0.00 2.96 9.19
Amyryl hexanoate C36H60O2 524 0.98 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.12 1.24
β -Amyryl hex-5-enoate C36H58O2 522 10.43 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 2.20 9.82
α-Amyryl hex-5-enoate C36H58O2 522 4.22 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 4.35
Moretenol C30H50O 426 1.40 0.86 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.26 10.96
Dammaradienol C30H50O 426 6.30 2.81 0.00 0.81 0.00 2.64 0.00 1.38 19.46
3β -Lupenyl acetate C32H52O2 468 13.81 10.52 8.69 3.18 0.44 4.80 0.04 1.18 6.77
3α-Lupenyl acetate C32H52O2 468 145.38 95.47 0.98 2.15 0.25 29.78 0.00 144.75 21.20
Dammaradienyl pentanoate C35H58O2 510 35.80 20.51 0.00 1.24 0.13 10.51 0.00 3.06 16.43
Dammaradienyl hex-5-enoate C36H58O2 522 13.80 3.57 0.00 0.06 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.89 1.14
Total 343.81 196.61 505.56 19.33 5.67 78.80 426.01 433.07 220.47 247.71 188.58
(%) 52.99 29.53 84.42 5.75 1.29 19.08 66.93 66.39 36.36 40.30 29.15



n-Alkenes
Pentacosene C25H50 350 1.30 2.41 0.15 1.91 1.85 1.86 0.78 0.86 1.30
Hexacosene C26H52 364 0.24 0.14 0.03 0.19 0.08 0.67 0.32 0.12 0.39
Heptacosene C27H54 378 10.64 20.68 1.20 16.94 10.42 8.88 5.33 7.33 10.15
Octacosene C28H56 392 1.58 0.87 0.19 0.45 0.14 0.46 0.70 0.10 0.21
Nonacosene C29H58 406 4.82 4.79 0.77 6.33 2.92 3.05 4.31 4.57 4.75
Triacontene C30H60 420 7.22 0.69 0.56 1.62 0.46 0.28 7.32 1.01 0.40
Hentriacontene C31H62 434 3.64 6.01 0.31 3.60 26.03 3.73 2.51 3.18 4.54
Dotriacontene C32H64 448 3.38 1.66 0.45 1.76 1.66 2.44 5.39 1.15 1.30
Tritriacontene C33H66 462 80.86 187.93 8.89 92.41 281.67 98.82 31.22 67.92 124.40
Tetratriacontene C34H68 476 3.12 0.86 0.51 1.75 0.33 2.33 4.96 0.63 0.67
Pentatriacontene C35H70 490 1.85 3.33 0.47 1.85 7.89 6.97 2.73 2.22 6.09
Total 118.67 229.37 13.53 128.79 333.46 129.49 65.57 89.08 154.23 140.24 93.83
(%) 18.29 34.45 2.26 38.29 75.85 31.35 10.30 13.66 25.43 27.76 21.59



n-Alkanes
Eicosane C20H42 282 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heneicosane C21H44 296 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Docosane C22H46 310 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tricosane C23H48 324 1.20 2.05 0.15 0.91 1.05 1.00 0.35 0.52 0.86
Tetracosane C24H50 338 0.62 0.26 0.06 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.35 0.11 0.42
Pentacosane C25H52 352 4.41 8.59 0.83 6.18 5.04 4.79 2.63 2.76 4.57
Hexacosane C26H54 366 0.76 0.77 0.17 0.65 0.42 0.40 1.42 0.40 1.41
Heptacosane C27H56 380 36.03 68.46 6.54 52.74 25.84 24.58 16.25 23.18 34.88
Octacosane C28H58 394 0.72 0.47 0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.22 1.91
Nonacosane C29H60 408 13.60 12.99 3.68 16.54 5.08 4.83 10.86 11.94 13.19
Triacontane C30H62 422 0.00 0.49 0.32 0.63 0.09 0.08 5.21 0.20 1.69
Hentriacontane C31H64 436 12.59 13.70 4.72 15.71 12.23 11.63 8.40 16.92 11.69
Total 69.92 107.78 16.94 94.21 49.86 47.42 45.72 56.24 70.64 62.08 27.29
(%) 10.78 16.19 2.83 28.01 11.34 11.48 7.18 8.62 11.65 12.01 7.03



n-Alkanoic Acids
Hexadecanoic acid C16H32O2 256 23.93 12.14 5.89 18.68 0.97 24.37 46.75 10.72 10.84
Octadecenoic acid C18H34O2 282 7.16 7.48 2.10 0.96 0.02 9.43 3.37 11.94 12.07
Octadecanoic acid C18H36O2 284 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Eicosanoic acid C20H40O2 312 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tetracosanoic acid C24H48O2 368 1.96 37.98 1.12 0.88 0.00 51.93 0.00 26.17 26.46
Total 33.05 57.60 9.42 20.64 1.10 85.84 50.12 48.83 49.38 39.55 26.34
(%) 5.09 8.65 1.57 6.13 0.25 20.78 7.87 7.49 8.14 7.33 5.84



Wax Esters
Octadecyl hexadecanoate C34H68O2 508 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.11
Eicosyl hexadecanoate C36H72O2 536 0.29 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.01 0.05 0.76
Dodecasanyl hexadecanoate C38H76O2 564 0.57 0.80 0.36 0.64 0.38 0.66 0.79 0.06 1.24
Tetracosanyl hexadecanoate C40H80O2 592 24.49 37.59 7.07 43.92 18.01 35.66 14.54 6.57 61.21
Hexacosanyl hexadecanoate C42H84O2 620 5.19 5.47 2.31 9.50 3.57 8.06 6.16 1.80 14.83
Octacosanyl hexadecanoate C44H88O2 648 1.01 0.42 0.03 0.13 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.05 0.45
Total 31.63 44.89 9.79 54.51 22.59 45.05 21.86 8.55 78.60 35.28 22.78
(%) 4.88 6.74 1.64 16.21 5.14 10.91 3.43 1.31 12.96 7.02 5.21



n-Alkanols
Octadecanol C18H38O 270 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.13
Eicosanol C20H42O 298 0.29 0.29 1.53 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.89 0.90 0.79
Docosanol C22H46O 326 0.46 0.46 1.79 0.24 0.13 0.27 0.19 1.36 1.19
Tetracosanol C24H50O 354 2.20 2.19 4.66 3.49 3.81 2.07 1.97 3.54 3.09
Hexacosanol C26H54O 382 0.73 0.73 1.08 1.19 0.82 0.80 1.19 2.21 1.93
Octacosanol C28H58O 410 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.66 0.30 0.51 0.97 1.32 1.15
Triacontanol C30H62O 438 0.56 0.56 0.71 0.95 0.51 0.84 0.33 1.72 1.50
Dotriacontanol C32H66O 466 0.21 0.21 0.49 0.26 0.21 0.28 0.65 1.23 1.08
Total 4.92 4.90 10.77 7.01 5.91 4.97 6.25 12.43 10.86 7.56 2.97
(%) 0.76 0.74 1.80 2.08 1.34 1.20 0.98 1.91 1.79 1.40 0.51



Methyl n-Alkanoates
Methyl dodecanoate C13H26O2 214 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methyl tetradecanoate C15H30O2 242 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.03
Methyl hexadecanoate C17H34O2 270 5.57 4.33 0.88 2.02 0.54 1.78 0.06 0.50 1.37
Methyl octadecenoate C19H36O2 296 0.30 0.39 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.33 2.68 0.14 0.20
Methyl octadecanoate C19H38O2 298 0.37 0.34 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.19
Methyl eicosanoate C21H42O2 326 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.44 0.01 0.00
Methyl docosanoate C23H46O2 354 0.23 0.21 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.06
Methyl tetracosanoate C25H50O2 382 3.78 3.01 0.69 1.57 0.52 1.45 0.16 0.34 0.71
Methyl hexacosanoate C27H54O2 410 1.08 0.78 0.20 0.46 0.17 0.53 1.70 0.12 0.23
Methyl Octacosanoate C29H58O2 438 0.64 0.43 0.12 0.26 0.11 0.42 0.63 0.09 0.08
Methyl Triacontanoate C31H62O2 466 0.39 0.26 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.34 0.44 0.08 0.08
Methyl Dotriacontanoate C33H66O2 494 0.19 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 12.79 10.10 2.31 5.14 1.64 5.50 6.75 1.38 2.95 5.40 3.95
(%) 1.97 1.52 0.39 1.53 0.37 1.33 1.06 0.21 0.49 0.99 0.64
Open in a new tab
1

The quantification of the propolis components assumes a similar response for the external standards, compounds of the calibration curves, and the sample compounds.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Total ion current (TIC) traces of total extracts showing the major organic tracers in propolis samples collected from the: (a) Tarim, (b) Thebi-Tarim, (c) Seiyun, and (d) Amran localities in Yemen (numbers above the symbols indicate the carbon number).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

TIC traces showing the major compounds in the derivatized total extracts of propolis samples of the: (a) Tarim, (b) Thebi-Tarim, (c) Seiyun, and (d) Amran localities in Yemen (numbers above the symbols indicate the carbon number).

4. Discussion

Obviously, the chemical compositions of propolis samples vary between different samples (Popova et al., 2010, Popova et al., 2011, Sforcin and Bankova, 2011, Bankova et al., 2014, Trusheva et al., 2003, Rushdi et al., 2014). The major compounds determined in the samples from Yemen include triterpenoids, n-alkenes, n-alkanes, n-alkanoic acids, wax esters, n-alkanols and methyl n-alkanoates. Flavonoids, which were detected in European, Brazilian, Chinese and Russian propolis (Bankova et al., 1983, Bankova et al., 2014, Chang et al., 2002, Volpi and Bergonzini, 2006 and references therein), were not detected in these samples. The compound groups vary between different samples and locations. To investigate the similarity between the different samples, hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) by the Ward’s method was used. The output of the cluster analysis is shown in Fig. 4 where two separate sample clusters are recognized. The first cluster includes two (WA and AM) propolis samples, and the second includes the rest of the propolis samples (S1, S2, SH, T1, T2, TT1 and TT2). The second cluster shows that the samples TT1 and S2 are deviate from S1, SH, TT2, T1 and T2. This indicates that sources of poroplis components from Wadi Adem and Amran are different from the samples collected from Seiyun, Seiyun-Shahoh, Tarim and Thebi-Tarim.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Plot showing the statistical outputs of cluster analysis.

To better understand the relationships between the variables of the different propolis samples, the Spearman correlation multivariate statistical approach and principal component analysis (PCA) were used. The output of the Spearman correlations is shown in Table 2. The analysis shows that there are significant correlations ( R > 80) between T1 and TT1; T2, S1, S2, SH, and TT2 (Tarim, Thebi/Tarim, Seiyun and Seiyun-Shahoh); and WA (Wadi Adem) and AM (Amran). The output of the PCA, which was followed by varimax rotation, is shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5. The PCA identifies two significant components (C1 and C2), explaining 83.45% of the variance with an Eigen value of >1. Factor loadings of >0.80 are used for variables to interpret the data. C1 explains 58.64% of the variance, where T2, TT2, SH, S1 and S2 are dominant, indicating potential similar propolis components. It also shows relatively high loadings for T1 (0.78) and TT1 (0.64); thus, they can be considered similar to T2, TT2, SH, S1 and S2. C2 includes 24.81% of the variance and the significant factor loadings are for samples WA and AM, signifying similar propolis constituents. The similarity among the different samples is shown in Fig. 5, which demonstrates two clusters along axes 1 and 2 and the separation confirmed dissimilarity among the different propolis samples indicating different sources of local plants. Generally, the ordination plots of the propolis samples showed a slight separation between the samples from Tarim and Seiyun (T and S samples) and a clear separation for the samples from Wadi Adem (WA) and Amran (AM).

Table 2.

The Spearman correlation coefficients (R) for the different propolis samples.

T1 T2 WA S1 S2 SH AM TT1 TT2
T1 1.000 0.798 0.225 0.480 0.431 0.626 0.241 0.807 0.585
T2 1.000 0.096 0.842 0.842 0.921 0.151 0.577 0.868
WA 1.000 0.023 0.012 0.049 0.980 0.562 0.189
S1 1.000 0.836 0.832 0.114 0.260 0.868
S2 1.000 0.809 0.081 0.252 0.821
SH 1.000 0.123 0.440 0.887
AM 1.000 0.512 0.268
TT1 1.000 0.428
TT2 1.000
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

The principal component factors for the different propolis samples.

Component Matrix
Component
C1 C2
T2 0.97 −0.17
TT2 0.92 −0.13
SH 0.92 −0.24
S1 0.86 −0.31
S2 0.83 −0.33
T1 0.78 0.17
TT1 0.64 0.55
WA 0.28 0.92
AM 0.34 0.87
Total variance (%) 58.64 24.81
Cumulative (%) 58.64 83.45
Open in a new tab

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Plot showing the statistical outputs of the principal component analysis (PCA).

4.1. Triterpenoids

Triterpenoids have been reported to occur in diverse plant species as resin or gum constituents (Cursta-Rubio et al., 2007, de Castro Ishida et al., 2011). They are rarely found in fungi and animals (Lutta et al., 2008). Therefore, the major source of triterpenoids is terrestrial vegetation (Hernández-Vázquez et al., 2010, Manguro et al., 2009, Moreau et al., 2009, Ramadan et al., 2009). They are found in plant leaves, bark and resins (Ramadan et al., 2009, van Maarseveen and Jetter, 2009, Feng et al., 2010, Manguro et al., 2009, Hernández-Vázquez et al., 2010, Vouffo et al., 2010, Rosas-Acevedo et al., 2011, Wang et al., 2011). Their concentrations vary and depend on the plant species. For example, α- and β-amyrin are found in Protium sp. Byrosonima fagifolia and Byrosonima crassifolia (Hernández-Vázquez et al., 2010), only α-amyrin is present in Cassia obtusifolia (Sob et al., 2010) and moretenol is found in Ficus macrophytta and Ficus delloidea leaves (Galbraith et al., 1965, Lip et al., 2009). Periera et al. (1996) detected lupenone, lupeol, lupenyl palmitate and lupenyl cinnamate in Acacia dealbata.

Triterpenoids were major compounds of propolis samples from Yemen. The relative concentrations of these substances ranged from 1.2 to 84.4% with a mean value of 41.6 ± 28.9%. They were mainly α- and β-amyryl acetates and α- and β-lupenyl acetates. It is worth mentioning that moretenol (Fig. 6) was detected as a major compound in sample TT2 (Thebi/Tarim) collected in August and minor amounts in other samples collected in November (Table 1). The highest triterpenoid concentrations were observed in the propolis from the Wadi Adem (84.4%), Amran (69.7%) and Thebi/Tarim (66.4%) areas, where the major vegetation is dominated by Acacia species (Acacia tortitils and Acacia hamulosa in Wadi Adem, and Acacia origena and Acacia gerradii in Amran). α- and β-Amyryl acetates were the major triterpenoids in all samples except those from the Tarim (T1 and T2) area (Table 1), where α- and β-lupenyl acetates were dominant. Dammaradienol and dammaradienyl pentanoate were also present in significant amounts in the samples from the Thebi-Tarim area (Table 1). These triterpenoids were also reported for propolis samples from Brazil, Cuba, Egypt and Ethiopia (El-Hady and Hegazi, 2002, Hegazi and El-Hady, 2002, de Castro Ishida et al., 2011, Márquez Hernández et al., 2010, Rushdi et al., 2014). Ugur et al. (2011) reported that the major components of Onopordum caricium were triterpenoids including lup-20(29)-ene-3β,28-diol and β-amyryl acetate. Diterpenoids were found as the major compounds in propolis samples from Europe (Popova et al., 2009, Popova et al., 2011, Trusheva et al., 2003). Thus, the results show that these propolis extracts include primarily lipid compounds from terrestrial plant sources as reported before (Bankova et al., 2000, Cursta-Rubio et al., 2007, Campo Fernandez et al., 2008, Melliou and Chinou, 2004, Salatino et al., 2005).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Mass spectrum of moretenol.

The presence of triterpenoids (mainly amyryl and lupenyl acetates) can act as antibacterial and antitumor agents (Simone-Finstrom and Spivak, 2010, de Castro Ishida et al., 2011). The main source of triterpenoids in propolis is obviously the surrounding vegetation. Therefore, the determination of the chemical compositions of the regional vegetation should be considered, because it will be useful for investigating the pharmacologically active components of local plants as well as of propolis.

4.2. n-Alkenes and n-alkanes

The concentrations of the n-alkenes ranged from 13.5 to 311.7 mg g−1 with a mean of 145.0 ± 89.3 mg g−1. The highest concentration was found in the propolis sample from Seiyun (S2) area and the minimum in the samples from Wadi Adem (WA). The n-alkenes ranged from C25 to C35 with a Cmax at 33. The distribution of n-alkenes with major concentrations of the odd numbered homologues and Cmax at 33 supports an origin from insect wax (Jackson, 1972, Jackson and Baker, 1970), possibly from alteration of long chain n-alkanols. n-Alkenes were major compounds with relative concentrations ranging from 2.3% to 70.9% and an average of 28.9 ± 20.8% of the total extract. Recent work showed that n-alkenes were present in both bee wax and propolis (Negri et al., 1998, Negri et al., 2000, Custadio et al., 2003). They were mainly C31:1 and C33:1 (Negri et al., 1998), indicating that the sources of the n-alkenes in propolis were bee wax.

The concentrations of n-alkanes in these propolis samples ranged from 46.4 to 111.1 mg g−1 of the total extracts with a mean of 65.2 ± 7.29 mg g−1 (Table 1). The lowest concentration was measured in the propolis from the S2 (Seiyun) sample, while the highest concentration was in the sample from the T2 (Tarim) area. The dominant n-alkanes were in the range of C20 to C31, with a carbon number maximum concentration (Cmax) at 27 (e.g. Fig. 2). Plant wax n-alkanes generally have a Cmax in the range of C25–C31, which varies depending on the plant species as well as the season and locality (e.g. Eglinton and Hamilton, 1967). n-Alkanes are also a major fraction in propolis (Negri et al., 1998, Custadio et al., 2003, Rushdi et al., 2014, Alqarni et al., 2015). Bee wax n-alkanes generally have a Cmax in the range from 21 to 33 depending on the age and color (Tulloch, 1971, Namdar et al., 2007). The relative concentration of n-alkanes ranged from 2.8 to 16.7% with an average of 12.7 ± 7.8% of the total extract. Thus, the odd carbon number preference of the C21-C31 n-alkanes and the Cmax at 27 indicate the major source of these n-alkanes is likely from bee wax (Tulloch, 1971) with some contribution from plant wax.

4.3. n-Alkanoic acids

The total concentrations of n-alkanoic acids (fatty acids) in the propolis samples ranged from 1.1 to 85.8 mg g−1 with a mean value of 39.6 ± 26.3 mg g−1 (Table 1). The lowest concentration was found in the propolis from the S1 (Seiyun) area and the highest concentration was in sample SH (Seiyun-Shahoh). The n-alkanoic acids of flora and fauna have mainly even carbon chain length homologues and usually range from C12 to C32. They are generally unsaturated in flora and saturated in fauna. The C18 mono-, di- and tri-unsaturated compounds are the major fatty acids in plants, whereas polyunsaturated fatty acids are more common in algae (Eglinton and Hamilton, 1967, Kolattukudy, 1976).

The n-alkanoic acids (silylated) in all propolis samples ranged from C16 to C24, with a Cmax at 16 for T1, WA, S1, S2 and AM or at 24 for T2, SH and TT1 (Table 1). The concentrations of hexadecanoic and tetracosanoic acids ranged from 1.0 to 46.8 mg g−1 and from 0.0 to 51.9 mg g−1, respectively. The presence of n-alkanoic acids, with only an even carbon number predominance and unsaturated (octadecenoic) acids, plus Cmax at 16 or 24, indicate sources from mainly vascular plants.

4.4. Long chain wax esters

Significant amounts of long chain wax esters were also detected in these samples with concentrations of 8.6 to 83.6 mg g−1 (mean = 37.8 + 25.5 mg g−1), consisting mainly of docosanyl-, tetracosanyl-, hexacosanyl- and octacosanyl hexadecanoates. The major compound of the wax esters was tetracosanyl hexadecanoate in all samples (Table 1, Fig. 2). The relative concentration ranged from 1.3 to 17.8% with a mean value of 6.9 ± 6.0% of the total extract. Waxes secreted by bees contain more than 15% of wax esters (Katzav-Gozansky et al., 1997). Bee wax esters generally include tetradecyl-dodecanoate, tetradecanoate and hexadecanoate, as well as hexadecyl-tetradecanoate and hexadecanoate (Katzav-Gozansky et al., 1997). Likely, they are derived from waxes secreted by the bees (Tulloch, 1971), from lipid components of terrestrial plants (Baker, 1982, Kolattukudy, 1976, Hamilton, 1995) of the region or both. The components of waxes in some younger plants are generally alcohols (40%) and they are mainly wax esters (42%) in older plants (Avato et al., 1990, Bianchi et al., 1989). The composition of vegetation wax esters depends also on the geographical location (Sforcin and Bankova, 2011).

4.5. n-Alkanols

The total concentrations of n-alkanols (fatty alcohols) ranged from 4.9 to 12.4 mg g−1 with an average of 7.6 ± 3.0 mg g−1. The lowest concentration was measured in the samples T1 and T2 and the highest for TT1 (Table 1). They ranged from C18 to C32, with a Cmax at 24 which varied from 2.0 to 4.7 mg g−1. The n-alkanols, found mainly in plants, have predominantly even number chains because they are biosynthesized from fatty acids by enzymatic reduction (Lehninger, 1970, More, 1993). The n-alkanol distributions in these propolis samples indicate an input from vascular plant wax of semitropical to tropical environments.

4.6. Methyl n-alkanoates

The concentrations of methyl n-alkanoates were relatively low in the range from 1.4 to 12.8 mg g−1 with a mean of 5.7 ± 4.0 mg g−1 (Table 1). They extend from C13 to C23 with a Cmax at 17 and 25 (as acids Cmax = 16 and 24). Methyl n-alkanoates may be natural or form by transesterification of n-alkanoic acids during extraction with methanol as indicated by their low relative concentrations. The highest concentration was found for the propolis sample from Tarim (T1) and the lowest from Thobi-Tarim (TT). The methyl n-alkanoates of these samples have a strong even carbon number predominance (as the alkanoic acids, Table 1), indicating that they are originally from natural biota (Harwood and Russell, 1984). The concentrations of methyl n-alkanoates were low relative to other compounds and ranged from 0.2 to 2.0% with an average of 1.0 ± 0.6% of the total extract.

5. Conclusion

The dichloromethane: methanol solvent-extractable organic matter of propolis samples from four regions in Yemen have been characterized by GC–MS methods. The major compounds were in order: triterpenoids > n-alkenes > n-alkanes > n-alkanoic acids > long chain wax esters > n-alkanols > methyl n-alkanoates. The predominant triterpenoids were α- and β-amyrins, α- and β-amyryl acetates, followed by α- and β-lupenyl acetates. n-Alkenes and n-alkanes ranged from C25 to C35 and C21 to C31, with Cmax at 33 and 27, respectively. Long chain wax esters were also present in significant amounts. Methyl n-alkanoates were relatively minor components in these samples. The sources of the major triterpenoids are from the regional Acacia waxes and gums, whereas the sources of n-alkenes and n-alkanes are likely from bee wax.

Acknowledgement

The project was financially supported by King Saud University, Vice Deanship of Research Chairs.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

References

  1. Abd El-Mawla A.M.A., Osman H.E.H. HPLC analysis and role of the Saudi Arabian propolis in improving the pathological changes of kidney treated with monosodium glutamate. Spatula DD. 2011;3:119–127. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alhammadi A.S.A. Preliminary survey of exotic invasive plants in some western and high mountains in Yemen. Ass. Univ. Bull. Environ. Res. 2010:13. [Google Scholar]
  3. Almutairi S., Edrada-Ebel R., Fearnley J., Igoli J.O., Alotaibi W., Clements C.J., Gray A.I., Watson D.G. Isolation of diterpenes and flavonoids from a new type of propolis from Saudi Arabia. Phytochem. Lett. 2014;10:160–163. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alqarni A.S., Rushdi A.I., Owayss A.A., Raweh H.S., El-Mubarak A.H., Simoneit B.R.T. Organic tracers from asphalt in propolis produced by urban honey bees, Apis mellifera Linn. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0128311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Avato P., Bianchi G., Pogna N. Chemosystematics of surface lipids from maize and some related species. Phytochemistry. 1990;29:1571–1576. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker EA. Chemistry and morphology of plant epicuticular waxes. In: Cutler DF, Alvin KL, Price CE, editors. Academic Press; London: 1982. (The Plant Cuticle). [Google Scholar]
  7. Bankova V. Chemical diversity of propolis and the problem of standardization. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005;100:114–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2005.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bankova V.S., Popov S.S., Marekov N.L. A study on flavonoids of propolis. J. Nat. Prod. 1983;46:471–474. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bankova V., Dyulgerov A., Popov S., Evstatieva L., Kuleva L., Pureb O., Zamjansan Z. Propolis produced in Bulgaria and Mongolia: phenolic composition and plant origin. Apidologie. 1992;23:79–85. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bankova V., De Castro S., Marcucci M. Propolis: Recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie. 2000;31:3–15. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bankova V., Popova M., Trusheva B. Propolis volatile compounds: chemical diversity and biological activity. A review. Chem. Centr. J. 2014;8:28–35. doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-8-28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Banskota A.H., Tezuka Y., Kadota S. Recent progress in pharmacological research of propolis. Phytother. Res. 2001;15:561–571. doi: 10.1002/ptr.1029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Barros M.P., Sousa J.P., Bastos J.K., Andrade S.F. Effect of Brazilian green propolis on experimental gastric ulcers in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007;110:567–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2006.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bassani-Silva S., Sforcin J.M., Amaral A.S., Gaspar L.F.J., Rocha N.S. Propolis effect in vitro on canine transmissible venereal tumor cells. Revista Portuguesa de Ciencias Veterinarias. 2007;102:261–265. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bianchi G., Avato P., Scarpa O., Murelli C., Audisio G., Rossini A. Composition and structure of maize epicuticular wax esters. Phytochemistry. 1989;28:165–171. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bufalo M.C., Figueiredo A.S., Sousa J.P.B., Candeias J.M.G., Bastos J.K., Sforcin J.M. Anti-poliovirus activity of Baccharis dracunculifolia and propolis by cell viability determination and real-time PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009;107:1669–1680. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04354.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Campo Fernandez M., Cuesta-Rubio O., Rosado Perez A., de Oca Montes, Porto R., Marquez Hernandez I., Piccinelli A.L. Rastrelli L: GC–MS determination of isoflavonoids in seven red Cuban propolis samples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008;56:9927–9932. doi: 10.1021/jf801870f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Castaldo S., Capasso F. Propolis, an old remedy used in modern medicine. Fitoterapia. 2002;73:S1–6. doi: 10.1016/s0367-326x(02)00185-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chang C.C., Yang M.H., Wen H.M., Chen J.C. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. J. Food Drug Anal. 2002;10:178–182. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen Y.W., Wu S.W., Ho K.K., Lin S.B., Huang C.Y., Chen C.N. Characterization of Taiwanese propolis collected from different locations and seasons. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008;88:412–419. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cirasino L., Pisati A., Fasani F. Contact dermatitis from propolis. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16:110–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1987.tb01394.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cursta-Rubio O., Piccineli A.L., Campo Fernandez M., Hernández I.M., Rosado A., Rastrelli L. Chemical characterization of Cuban propolis by HPLC-PDA, HPLC-MS, and NMR: the brown, red, and yellow Cuban varieties of propolis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007;55:7502–7509. doi: 10.1021/jf071296w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Custadio A.R., Ferreira M.M., Negri G., Antonio S. Clustering of comb and propolis waxes based on the distribution of aliphatic constituents. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2003;14:354–357. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cvek J., Medić-Šarí M., Jasprica I., Zubči S., Vitali D., Mornar A., Vedrina- Dragojevi I., Tomi S. Optimization of an extraction procedure and chemical characterization of Croatian propolis tinctures. Phytochem. Anal. 2007;18:451–459. doi: 10.1002/pca.1001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Daugsch A., Moraes C.S., Fort P., Park Y.K. Brazilian red propolis – chemical composition and botanical origin. Evid. Based Complem. Alternat Med. 2008;5:435–441. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nem057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. de Castro Ishida V.F., Negri G., Salatino A., Bandeira M.F.C.L. A new type of Brazilian propolis: Prenylated benzophenones in propolis from Amazon and effects against cariogenic bacteria. Food Chem. 2011;125:966–972. [Google Scholar]
  27. Eglinton G., Hamilton R.J. Leaf epicuticular waxes. Science. 1967;156:1322–1335. doi: 10.1126/science.156.3780.1322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. El-Hady FK, Hegazi AG. Egyptian propolis: 2. Chemical composition, antiviral and antimicrobial activities of East Nile Delta propolis. Zeitschrift fűr Naturforschung. 2002;57c:386–394. doi: 10.1515/znc-2002-3-431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fahmi A.I., El-Shehawi A.M., Al-Otaibi S.A., El-Toukhy N.M. Chemical analysis and antimutagenic activity of natural Saudi Arabian honey bee propolis. Arab J. Biotech. 2001;14:25–40. [Google Scholar]
  30. Feng T., Wang R., Cai X., Zheng T., Luo X. Anti-human immunodeficiency virus-1 constituents of the bark of Poncirus trifoliate. Chem. Pharmaceut. Bull. 2010;58:971–975. doi: 10.1248/cpb.58.971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Galbraith M.M., Miller C.J., Rawson J.W.L., Shannon J.S., Taylor W.C. Moretenol and other triterpenes from Ficus macrophytta Desf. Aust. J. Chem. 1965;18:226–239. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghisalberti E.L. Propolis: A review. Bee World. 1979;60:59–84. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hamilton RJ: (Editor), Waxes: Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Functions. The Oily Press, Dundee, WA, 1995.
  34. Harwood J.L., Russell N.J. George Allen and Unwin; London: 1984. Lipids in Plants and Microbes. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hegazi A.G., El-Hady F.K. Egyptian propolis: 3. Antioxidant, antimicrobial activities and chemical composition of propolis from reclaimed lands. Zeitschrift fűr Naturforschung. 2002;57c:395–402. doi: 10.1515/znc-2002-3-432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hernández-Vázquez L., Mangas S., Palazón J., Navarro-Ocana A. Valuable medicinal plants and resins: Commercial phytochemicals with bioactive properties. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010;31:476–480. [Google Scholar]
  37. Isidorov V.A., Szczepaniak L., Bakier S. Rapid GC/MS determination of botanical precursors of Eurasian propolis. Food Chem. 2014;142:101–106. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.07.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackson L.L. Cuticular lipids of insects—IV. Hydrocarbons of the cockroaches Periplaneta japonica and Periplaneta americana compared to other cockroach hydrocarbons. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative. Biochemistry. 1972;41:331–336. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jackson L.L., Baker G.L. Cuticular lipids of insects. Lipids. 1970;5:239–246. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jerz G., Elnakady Y.A., Braun A., Jäckel K., Sasse F., Al Ghamdi A.A., Omar M.O.M., Winterhalter P. Preparative mass-spectrometry profiling of bioactive metabolites in Saudi-Arabian propolis fractionated by high-speed countercurrent chromatography and off-line atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass-spectrometry injection. J. Chromatogr. A. 2014;1347:17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.04.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Katzav-Gozansky T., Soroker V., Hefetz A. Plasticity of caste-specific Dufour’s gland secretion in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) Naturwissenschaften. 1997;84:238–241. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kolattukudy PE. Elsevier; Amsterdam: 1976. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Natural Waxes. (Editor) [Google Scholar]
  43. Kumazawa S., Nakamura J., Murase M., Miyagawa M., Ahn M.R. Fukumoto S: Plant origin of Okinawan propolis: honeybee behavior observation and phytochemical analysis. Naturwissenschaften. 2008;95:781–786. doi: 10.1007/s00114-008-0383-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lehninger A.L. Worth Publishers Inc.; New York: 1970. Biochemistry. The molecular basis of cell structure and functions; p. 833. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lip J.M., Hisham D.N., Zaidi J.A., Musa Y., Ahmad A.W., Normah A., Sharizan A. Isolation and identification of moretenol from Ficus deltoidea leaves. J. Trop. Agric. and Food Sc. 2009;37:195–201. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lutta K.P., Bill C., Akenga A.T., Cornelius W.W. Antimacrobial marine natural products from sponges Axnella infundibuliformis. Rep. Nat. Prod. 2008;25:110–127. [Google Scholar]
  47. Manguro L.O.A., Opiyo S.A., Herdtweck E., Lemmen P. Triterpenes of Commiphora holtziana oleo-gum resin. Can. J. Chem. 2009;87:1173–1179. [Google Scholar]
  48. Marcucci M.C. Propolis: chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie. 1995;26:83–99. [Google Scholar]
  49. Markham K.R., Mitchell K.A., Wilkins A.L., Daldy J.A., Lu Y. HPLC and GC–MS identification of the major organic constituents in New Zealand propolis. Phytochemistry. 1996;42:205–211. [Google Scholar]
  50. Márquez Hernández I., Cuesta-Rubio O., Fernández M.C., Pérez A.R., Porto R.M.O., Piccinelli A.L., Rastrelli L. Studies on the constituents of yellow Cuban propolis: GC-MS determination of triterpenoids and flavonoids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010;58:4725–4730. doi: 10.1021/jf904527n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Melliou E., Chinou I. Chemical analysis and antimicrobial activity of Greek propolis. Planta Med. 2004;70:515–519. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-827150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Monti M., Berti E., Carminati G., Cusini M. Occupational and cosmetic dermatitis from propolis. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:163. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1983.tb04341.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. More, Jr. T.S. (editor). Lipid metabolism in plants. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1993. p. 653.
  54. Moreau R.A., Lampi A.M., Hicks K.B. Fatty acid, phytosterol and polyamine conjugates profiles of edible oils extracted from corn germ, corn fiber, and corn kernels. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2009;86:1209–1214. [Google Scholar]
  55. Namdar D., Neumann R., Sladezki Y., Haddad N., Weiner S. Alkane composition variations between darker and lighter colored comb beeswax. Apidologie. 2007;38:453–461. [Google Scholar]
  56. Negri G., Marcucci M.C., Salatino A., Salatino M.L.F. Hydrocarbons and monoesters of propolis waxes from Brazil. Apidologie. 1998;29:305–314. [Google Scholar]
  57. Negri G., Marcucci M.C., Salatino A., Salatino M.L.F. Comb and propolis waxes from Brazil (States of São Paulo and Paraná) J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2000;11:453–457. [Google Scholar]
  58. Orsatti C.L., Missima F., Pagliarone A.C., Bachiega T.F., Bufalo M.C., Araujo J.P., Jr., Sforcin J.M. Propolis immunomodulatory action in vivo on Toll-like receptors 2 and 4 expression and on pro-inflammatory cytokines production in mice. Phytother. Res. 2010;24:1141–1146. doi: 10.1002/ptr.3086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Orsatti C.L., Missima F., Pagliarone A.C., Sforcin J.M. Th1/Th2 cytokines’ expression and production by propolis-treated mice. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2010;129:314–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.03.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Orsi R.O., Sforcin J.M., Rall V.L.M., Funari S.R.C., Barbosa L., Fernandes A., Jr. Susceptibility profile of Salmonella against the antibacterial activity of propolis produced in two regions of Brazil. J. Venomous Anim. Toxins. 2005;11:109–116. [Google Scholar]
  61. Parolia A., Tomas M., Kundabala M., Mohan M. Propolis and its potential uses in oral health. Int. J. Med. Med. Sci. 2010;2:210–215. [Google Scholar]
  62. Periera F.B., Domingues F.M.J., Silva A.M.S. Triterpenes from Acacia dealbata. Nat. Prod. Lett. 1996;8:97–103. [Google Scholar]
  63. Popova M., Chinou I., Marekov I., Bankova V. Terpenes with antimicrobial activity from Cretan propolis. Phytochemistry. 2009;70:1262–1271. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Popova M., Chen C.N., Chen P.Y., Huang C.Y., Bankova V. A validated spectrophotometric method for quantification of prenylated flavanones in Pacific propolis from Taiwan. Phytochem. Anal. 2010;21:186–191. doi: 10.1002/pca.1176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Popova M., Trusheva B., Antonova D., Cutajar S., Mifsud D., Farrugia C., Tsvetkova I., Najdenski H., Bankova V. The specific chemical profile of Mediterranean propolis from Malta. Food Chem. 2011;126:1431–1435. [Google Scholar]
  66. Popova M., Dimitrova R., Al-Lawati H.T., Tsvetkova T., Najdenski H., Bankova V. Omani propolis: Chemical profiling, antibacterial activity and new propolis plant sources. Chem. Centr. J. 2013;7:158. doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-7-158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Ramadan M., Ahmad A.S., Nafady A.M., Mansour A.I. Chemical composition of the stem bark and leaves of Ficus pandurata Hance. Nat. Prod. Res. 2009;23:1218–1230. doi: 10.1080/14786410902757899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Rosas-Acevedo H., Terrazas T., González-Trujano M.E., Guzmán Y., Soto-Hernández M. Anti-ulcer activity of Cyrtocarpa procera analogous to that of Amphipterygium adstringens, both assayed on the experimental gastric injury in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011;134:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.11.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Rushdi A.I., Adgaba N.M., Bayaqoob N.I.M., Al-Khazim A., Simoneit B.R.T., El-Mubarak A.H., Al-Mutlaq K. Characteristics and chemical compositions of propolis from Ethiopia. SpringerPlus. 2014;3:253–261. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Salatino A., Teixeira E.W., Negri G., Message D. Origin and chemical variation of Brazilian propolis. Evid. Based Complem. Alternat Med. 2005;2:33–38. doi: 10.1093/ecam/neh060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sforcin J.M. Propolis and the immune system: a review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007;113:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2007.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Sforcin J.M., Bankova V. Propolis: Is there a potential for the development of drugs? J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011;133:253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.10.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Silva A.M., Simeoni L.A., Silveira D. Genus Pouteria: Chemistry and biological activity. Brazilian J. Pharmacogn. 2009;19:501–509. [Google Scholar]
  74. Simone-Finstrom M., Spivak M. Propolis and bee health: the natural history and significance of resin use by honey bees. Apidologie. 2010;41:295–311. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sob S.V.T., Wabo H.K., Tchinda A.T., Tane P., Ngadjui B.T., Ye Y. Anthraquinones, sterols, triterpenoids and xanthones from Cassia obtusifolia. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2010;38:342–345. [Google Scholar]
  76. Trusheva B., Popova M., Bankova V., Tsvetkova I., Naydensky C., Sabatini A.G. A new type of European propolis, containing bioactive labdanes. Rivista Italiana E.P.P.O.S. 2003;36:3–7. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tulloch A.P. Beeswax: Structure of the esters and their component acids and diols. Chem. Phys. Lipids. 1971;6:235–265. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ugur A., Sarac N., Duru M.E. Chemical composition of antimicrobial activity of endemic Onopordum caricum. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2011;8:594–598. [Google Scholar]
  79. van Maarseveen C., Jetter R. Composition of the epicuticular and intracuticular wax layers on Kalanchoe daigremontiana (Hamet et Perr. de la Bathie) leaves. Phytochemistry. 2009;70:899–906. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Volpi N., Bergonzini G. Analysis of flavonoids from propolis by on-line HPLC–electrospray mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2006;42:354–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2006.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Vouffo B., Dongo E., Facey P., Thorn A., Sheldrick G., Maier A., Fiebig H., Laatsch H. Antiarol cinnamate and africanoside, a cinnamoyl triterpene and a hydroperoxy-cardenolide from the stem bark of Antiaris africana. Planta Med. 2010;76:1717–1723. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1249958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wang F., Li Z., Cui H., Hua H., Jing Y., Liang M. Two new triterpenoids from the resin of Boswellia carterii. J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res. 2011;13:193–197. doi: 10.1080/10286020.2010.548808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Zamami Y., Takatori S., Koyama T., Goda M., Iwatani Y., Doi S., Kawasaki H. Effect of propolis on insulin resistance in fructose-drinking rats. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2007;127:2065–2073. doi: 10.1248/yakushi.127.2065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES