Subscriber access provided by FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Article
Identification and quantification of phytochemical composition, and anti-inflammatory and radical scavenging properties of methanolic extracts of Chinese propolis Haiming Shi, Haisha Yang, Xiaowei Zhang, and Liangli Lucy Yu J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/jf3042775 • Publication Date (Web): 23 Nov 2012 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on November 26, 2012
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Identification and quantification of phytochemical composition, and anti-inflammatory and radical scavenging properties of methanolic extracts of Chinese propolis Haiming Shi,†,‡ Haisha Yang,† Xiaowei Zhang,† and Liangli (Lucy) Yu*,†,§ †
Institute of Food and Nutraceutical Science, Key Lab of Urban Agriculture (South),
Bor S. Luh Food Safety Research Center, School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China; ‡College of Chemistry & Material Engineering, Wenzhou University, Zhejiang, Wenzhou 325027, China; §
Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742, United States
*Corresponding author (Tel: 86-21-34207961; Fax: 86-21-34205758; E-mail:
[email protected])
1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
ABSTRACT
2
Fifteen propolis samples collected from different regions of China were investigated
3
and compared for their phytochemical composition, and anti-inflammatory and
4
radical scavenging properties. Eleven compounds including caffeic, p-coumaric,
5
ferulic, isoferulic, 3, 4-dimethylcaffeic acids, pinobanksin, chrysin, pinocembrin,
6
galangin, pinobanksin 3-acetate and caffeic acid phenylethyl ester were quantified
7
for the fifteen propolis samples using UHPLC method, while thirty-eight compounds
8
were identified by UPLC/Q-TOF-MS. The fifteen propolis samples significantly
9
differed in their total phenolic and total flavonoid contents, as well as their
10
phytochemical profiles. The methanol extracts of propolis also showed significant
11
anti-inflammatory effects in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 mouse macrophage cells at
12
10 µg propolis extract/mL concentration. Additionally, the propolis samples differed
13
in their DPPH, ABTS cation, hydroxyl and peroxide radical scavenging capacities
14
and ferric reducing abilities. The results from this study may be used to improve the
15
commercial production and consumption of Chinese propolis products.
16
KEYWORDS: propolis, phenolic, flavonoid, anti-inflammation, radical scavenging,
17
methanolic extract, chemical constituent
Page 2 of 38
18
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
19 20
INTRODUCTION Propolis, a resinous and adhesive natural substance produced by honeybees, has
21
been used in functional foods and folk medicines for several centuries. Previous
22
studies have shown that propolis may possess several health benefits, including their
23
antioxidant, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal and
24
immunomodulatory properties.1-4 The health benefits were mainly attributed to the
25
flavonoids and phenolic acids, the two major classes of phytochemicals in propolis. In
26
the past ten years, propolis has attracted more and more attentions and has been
27
extensively used in functional foods and nutritional supplemental products.5, 6
28
It is well accepted that the chemical constituents and health properties of propolis
29
greatly depend on several ecological factors, including geographical region, plant
30
source, season and method of harvesting.7-10 For instance, Hamasaka et al.11 reported
31
that the fourteen propolis samples collected in different locations of Japan differed in
32
their chemical compositions and antioxidant activities in 2004. Additionally, Chinese
33
propolis samples were shown to be rich in phenolics, including phenolic acids and
34
flavonoids, and had strong antioxidant activities measured as reducing power,
35
β-carotene bleaching inhibition, and scavenging ability against DPPH and ABTS
36
cation radicals.12, 13 Recently, our group isolated five new glycerol esters and
37
tentatively identified twelve minor constituents using UPLC-Q-TOF-MS from Wuhan
38
propolis.14 All the five isolated compounds showed significant anti-inflammatory
39
activities on interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 mRNA
40
expressions. To date, there is little report on hydroxyl (HO•) or peroxide anion (O2•-) 3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 4 of 38
41
radical scavenging capacity of propolis. Also noted was that few UHPLC analysis has
42
been performed to quantitatively characterize the detailed chemical composition of
43
propolis, though the previous studies generally employed HPLC to quantify
44
flavonoids and phenolic compounds by comparing the retention time and UV spectra
45
with the standard compounds.
46
In the present study, fifteen Chinese propolis were evaluated for their total phenolic
47
contents (TPC), total flavonoid contents (TFC), potential anti-inflammatory effects,
48
scavenging capability against DPPH•, ABTS•+, HO• and O2•-, and ferric reducing
49
ability. The anti-inflammatory effects were measured as their ability in suppressing
50
IL-1β, IL-6 and COX-2 mRNA expressions in the LPS stimulated RAW 264.7 mouse
51
macrophages. In addition, a rapid and effective UHPLC analysis method was
52
developed and applied to quantify the major compounds in the Chinese propolis
53
samples. Finally, the chemical profiles of Chinese propolis from different origins were
54
compared basing on the UPLC/Q-TOF-MS analysis. The results advanced our
55
understanding of the different chemical composition among propolis, and to promote
56
its better use in health food and dietary supplement.
57
MATERIALS AND METHODS
58
Materials. Fifteen propolis samples were collected from various locations in
59
China (Figure S1 in the supporting information) and stored at -20 °C before use. Iron
60
(III) chloride, fluorescein (FL), 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic
61
acid (trolox), and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryhydrazyl radical (DPPH•), gallic acid,
62
1,3,5-tri(2-pyridyl)-2,4,6-triazine (TPTZ), DMSO and 2-peproponal were purchased 4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
63
from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Reference compounds: caffeic acid,
64
p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, isoferulic acid, 3, 4-dimethylcaffeic acid, caffeic acid 1,
65
1-dimethylallyl ester and caffeic acid phenylethyl ester were purchased from
66
Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA); pinocembrin was obtained from Shanghai
67
ANPEL Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China); quercetin, apigenin,
68
isorhamnetin, chrysin and galangin were obtained from Shanghai R&D Centre for
69
Standardization of Chinese Medicines; pinobanksin, caffeic acid isopent-3-enyl ester,
70
caffeic acid 2-methyl-2-butenyl ester, pinobanksin 3-acetate, p-coumaric acid benzyl
71
ester, caffeic acid cinnamyl ester and chrysin-7-methyl-ether were isolated from
72
propolis in our laboratory. The purities of isolated compounds were all above 98%
73
by HPLC analysis. The chemical structures of all these compounds as standards were
74
also confirmed by 1H NMR and HR-MS. Folin-Ciocalteu (FC) reagent was
75
purchased from Ambrosia Pharmaceuticals (Shanghai, China). 2, 2'-Azobis
76
(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride (AAPH) was purchased from J&K Scientific
77
(Beijing, China). Thirty percent H2O2 regent, analytical grade acetone, methanol,
78
ethyl ether, ethyl acetate, petroleum ether, sodium hydroxide, sodium nitrite, sodium
79
dihydrogen phosphate and disodium hydrogen phosphate were purchased from
80
Sinopharm (Beijing, China). Aluminum nitrate was obtained from Aladdin
81
(Shanghai, China). HPLC-grade formic acid, methanol and acetonitrile were
82
purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Hesse-Darmstadt Germany). RAW 264.7 mouse
83
macrophage was purchased from Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China).
84
DMEM, fetal bovine serum and 1×PBS were purchased from Gibco (Life 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
85
Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). TRIzol reagent was obtained from Invitrogen
86
(Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from E. Coli
87
0111: B4 was obtained from Millipore (Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA). IScriptTM
88
Advanced cDNA Synthesis kit was purchased from Bio-Rad (Bio-Rad Laboratories,
89
Hercules, CA, USA), while AB Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix was purchase
90
from ABI (Applied Biosystems, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Ultrapure water was prepared
91
by a Millipore ultra-Genetic polishing system with < 5 ppb TOC and resistivity of
92
18.2 mΩ (Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA) and was used for all experiments.
93
Sample Preparation. The frozen propolis samples were powdered using a mill.
94
Approximately one gram of propolis was extracted by 10 mL pure methanol at room
95
temperature. After the mixtures were sonicated (320 W, 40 KHz) for 2 h, the extracts
96
were collected. The extracts were kept at 4 °C in the refrigerator until further
97
analysis. The average methanolic extract of propolis yield of 15 samples was 75.5 ±
98
6.2%. For the quantitative and qualitative analyses, an accurately weighed mass of
99
the propolis powder (1.0 g) was transferred into a 50 mL volumetric flask adjusted
100
with methanol and sonicated for 30 min. The supernatant of sample solution was
101
filtered through a 0.22 µm GHP membrane for UPLC/Q-TOF-MS analysis and
102
UHPLC quantification.
103
Page 6 of 38
Total Phenolic Contents (TPC). The TPC of each methanol extract was
104
measured according to a laboratory procedure described previously.15 Briefly, the
105
reaction mixture consisted of 50 µL of sample extracts, 250 µL Folin-Ciocalteu
6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
106
regent, 750 µL of 20% sodium carbonate and 3 mL ultrapure water. Gallic acid was
107
used as the standard. Absorbance was read at 765 nm after 2 h of reaction at ambient
108
temperature. The results were reported as mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per gram
109
of propolis.
110
Total Flavonoid Contents (TFC). Total flavonoid was determined using an
111
aluminum colorimetric method described previously.16 In brief, 150 µL propolis
112
extracts was mixed with 1.5 mL 5% sodium nitrite, and 1 mL 10% aluminum nitrate
113
was added after 6 min. Then 4 mL of 4% sodium hydroxide was added into the
114
mixture. The absorbance was read at 502 nm using after 15 min of reaction at
115
ambient temperature. The results were reported as mg quercetin equivalent (QE) per
116
gram propolis.
117
Identification of Chemical Constituents by UPLC-Q-TOF-MS Analysis.
118
Propolis samples were analyzed for their chemical profiles by Waters Xevo G2
119
Q-TOF mass spectrometer (Milford, MA, USA). UPLC was performed at 40 °C
120
using an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm i.d.; 1.7 µm; Waters,
121
Milford, MA, USA), equipped with an Acquity UPLC VanGuard precolumn (5 mm
122
× 2.1 mm i.d.; 1.7 µm; Waters). The elution gradient (eluent A, 0.1% formic acid;
123
eluent B, acetonitrile) was: 20% B for 1.3 min, 20-30% B in 0.9 min, 30-40% B in
124
6.6 min, 40-60% B in 3.3 min, 60-90% B in 3.4 min, and 90% B for 3.2 min. The
125
flow rate was 0.5 mL min-1 and the injection volume was 1.5 µL. MS conditions
126
were: capillary voltages for negative and positive ion modes were 2.8 kV and 3.0 kV;
7
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
127
sampling cone voltages for negative and positive ion modes were 55.0 V and 43.0 V;
128
source temperature 100 °C; desolvation temperature 300 °C; desolvation gas flow
129
500.0 L/h; cone gas flow 50.0 L/h; scan range m/z 80-1000; scan time 0.3 s; and
130
inter-scan time 0.02 s. Data were collected and analyzed with Waters MassLynx v4.1
131
software.
Page 8 of 38
132
Quantification of Eleven Compounds in Propolis by UHPLC Analysis. The
133
analytical UHPLC system was a Shimadzu LC-30AD series Ultra-High-Performance
134
liquid chromatography equipped with a Shimadzu series diode-array detector
135
(Shimadzu Technologies, Kyoto, Japan). The UHPLC pumps, auto sampler, column
136
oven and diode-array system were monitored and controlled using the Shimadzu
137
LC-solution computer program (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The individual compound
138
in propolis was quantified according to the absorbance at 280 nm. The quantitative
139
analysis was carried out on an Acquity BEH ODS-C18 column (Waters, Milford, MA,
140
USA) (150 mm × 2.1 mm i.d., 1.7 µm). Temperature of the column oven was set to
141
45 °C. The mobile phases consisted of 0.1% aqueous formic acid (solvent A) and
142
acetonitrile (solvent B). A gradient elution was: start at 20% B; held for 1.2 min;
143
1.2-2.0 min, increase via linear gradient to 30% B; 2.0-8.0 min, increase via linear
144
gradient to 40% B; 8.0-11.0 min, increase via linear gradient to 60% B; 11.0-15.0
145
min, increase via linear gradient to 90% B; and held for 2 min. Flow rate of the
146
mobile phase was 0.5 mL/min, and the injection volume was 1.0 µL. All eleven
147
compounds were quantified against external standards. Quantification was based on
148
peak area. Calibration curves of the standards were made by diluting stock standards 8
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
149
150
in methanol.
Inhibition of IL-1β, IL-6 and COX-2 mRNA Expression in RAW 264.7 Mouse
151
Macrophage Cells. Solvent was removed from known volume of the methanol
152
extract for each propolis sample. The residue was re-dissolved in known amount of
153
DMSO (100 mg/mL) and diluted in the medium for cell treatment. RAW 264.7
154
mouse macrophages were cultured in 6-well plates and reached the confluence of
155
80%. The cells were pretreated with media containing propolis extracts for 24 h at an
156
initial concentration of 0.1 mg of propolis equiv/mL. After pretreatment, LPS was
157
added at an initial concentration of 10 ng/mL, cells were incubated at 37 °C under 5%
158
CO2 for another 4 h. After induction, culture media was discarded and cells were
159
collected to perform total isolation and real-time PCR.17
160
RNA isolation and real-time PCR were performed according to the previously
161
published protocol.18 After LPS induction, cells were washed with 1×PBS, and
162
TRIzol reagent was added for total RNA isolation. IScriptTM Advanced cDNA
163
Synthesis kit was used to reverse transcribe complementary DNA. Real-time PCR
164
was performed on an ABI 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System (Applied
165
Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) using AB Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix.
166
Primers used in this study were as follows: IL-1β (Forward:
167
5'-GTTGACGGACCCCAAAAGAT-3', Reverse:
168
5'-CCTCATCCTGGAAGGTCCAC-3'); IL-6 (Forward:
169
5'-CACGGCCTTCCCTACTTCAC-3', Reverse:
9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 10 of 38
170
5'-TGCAAGTGCATCATCGTTGT-3'); COX-2 (Forward:
171
5'-GGGAGTCTGGAACATTGTGAA-3', Reverse:
172
5'-GCACGTTGATTGTAGGTGGACTGT-3'). The mRNA amounts were normalized
173
to an internal control, GAPDH mRNA (Forward:
174
5'-AGGTGGTCTCCTCTGACTTC-3', Reverse:
175
5'-TACCAGGAAATGAGCTTGAC-3').The following amplification parameters
176
were used for PCR: 50 °C for 2 min, 95 °C for 10 min, and 46 cycles of
177
amplification at 95 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 1 min.
178
DPPH Radical Scavenging Activity (DPPH). Hydrogen-donating activity was
179
measured using DPPH radicals following a previously reported protocol.19 For each
180
sample, different concentrations ranging from 0.6 to 500 µg/mL were prepared with
181
methanol or 10% DMSO-methanol (v/v). The reaction mixtures in the 96-well plates
182
consisted of sample (100 µL) and DPPH radical (100 µL, 0.2 mM) dissolved in
183
methanol. The absorbance was measured at 517 nm against a blank. The percentage
184
of scavenging activity was calculated as: [1−(A1−A2)/A0]×100%, where A0 is the
185
absorbance of the control and A1 is the absorbance of the sample, A2 is the
186
absorbance of blank that contained sample without DPPH radical. The scavenging
187
activity of the samples was expressed as IC50 value, the concentration required to
188
scavenge 50% of DPPH radicals.
189
ABTS Cation Radical Scavenging Activity (ABTS). The ABTS cation radical
190
scavenging activity assay was carried out via the ABTS cation radical
191
decolorization.19 The samples were prepared in the same procedure as the DPPH 10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
192
assay. The ABTS cation radical was prepared by reacting 7 mM aqueous solution of
193
ABTS (15 mL) with 140 mM potassium persulphate (264 µL) to obtain a ABTS
194
working reagent with an absorbance of 0.70 ± 0.02 at 734 nm. The reaction mixtures
195
consisted of sample (50 µL) and the ABTS methanol working solution (100 µL). The
196
mixture was kept for 10 min in the dark, and the absorbance was taken at 734 nm
197
against a blank. The scavenging capacity was calculated as: [1−(A1−A2)/A0] × 100%,
198
Where A0 is the absorbance of the control (without sample) and A1 is the absorbance
199
in the presence of the sample, A2 is the absorbance of sample without ABTS working
200
solution. The IC50 value was calculated from the scavenging activities (%) versus
201
concentrations of respective sample curve.
202
Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma Assay (FRAP). The ability to reduce ferric
203
ions was measured using a modified method described previously.20 Propolis extracts
204
(0.2 mL) was added to 3.8 mL of FRAP regent (10 parts of 300 mM sodium acetate
205
buffer at pH 3.6, 1 part of 10.0 mM TPTZ solution, and 1 part of 20.0 mM FeCl3
206
solution). Absorbance was read at 595 nm after 30 min reaction at 37 °C. The results
207
were reported as millimoles Trolox equivalents (TE) per gram of propolis.
208
Hydroxyl Radical Scavenging Capacity (HOSC). The HOSC values were
209
measured using a previously published laboratory protocol.21 Reaction mixture
210
contained 170 µL of 9.28 × 10-8 M fluorescein, 30 µL of sample, blank or standard,
211
40 µL of 0.1990 M H2O2 and 60 µL of 3.43 M FeCl3. The fluorescence of the
212
reaction mixture was measured every minute for 6 h at ambient temperature, with the
11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
213
excitation wavelength at 485 nm and emission wavelength at 528 nm. HOSC values
214
were expressed as millimoles of Trolox equivalents (TE) per gram of propolis.
215
Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capability (ORAC). The ORAC values were
216
determined using a Synergy 2 Multi-Mode Microplate Reader (BioTek, Winooski,
217
VT, USA) according to a laboratory protocol described previously.22 Thirty µL of
218
sample, blank or standard solution was added to 225 µL of freshly prepared 81.63
219
nM fluorescence. The mixture was pipetted into a 96-well plate and preheated at
220
37 °C for 20 min. Then 25 µL of 0.36 M AAPH was added to the mixture. The
221
reaction mixture was measured every minute for 2 h, with an excitation wavelength
222
at 485 nm and an emission wavelength at 528 nm. ORAC values were reported as
223
millimoles of TE per gram of propolis.
224
Statistical Analysis. Data were reported as mean ± SD for triplicate
225
determinations. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were employed to identify
226
differences in means. Statistics were analyzed using SPSS for Windows (version rel.
227
10.0.5, 1999, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was declared at P