Chemical diversity of propolis and the problem of standardization

Abstract

Chemical variability of propolis is discussed with respect to the problem of standardization. Several chemical types of propolis are formulated, based on their plant source. Reliable criteria for chemical standardization of different propolis types are needed but such generally accepted criteria do not yet exist. The chemical profile of “poplar” propolis, typical for the temperate zone, can be characterized by the following parameters: total flavone and flavonol content, total flavanone and dihydroflavonol content, and total phenolics content. These parameters correlate better with the biological activity and are more informative that the quantification of individual components. There is still a lot of work to be done to achieve standardization of other propolis types. Working with standardized material will allow scientists to connect a particular chemical propolis type to a specific type of biological activity and formulate recommendations for mainstream practitioners.

Introduction

Propolis (bee glue) is a sticky dark-colored material that honeybees collect from plants and use it in the hive: they apply it to seal the walls, to strengthen the borders of combs, to embalm dead invaders. Propolis is not only a building material, it is the most important “chemical weapon” of bees against pathogen microorganisms and has been used as a remedy by humans since ancient times. It is still one of the most frequently used remedies in the Balkan states (Wollenweber et al., 1990), applied for treatment of wounds and burns, soar throat, stomach ulcer, etc.

Because of its popularity in folk medicine, propolis has become the subject of intense pharmacological and chemical studies for the last 30 years. Numerous studies have proven its versatile pharmacological activities: antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, antiinflammatory, hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antitumor, etc. (Banskota et al., 2001). A significant number of papers dealing with propolis chemistry were also published and researchers began to understand that its chemical composition was highly variable and depended on the local flora at the site of collection (Marcucci, 1995, Bankova et al., 2000). Although the biological activity of bee glue and especially its activity against microorganisms was always present, in samples from different geographic and climatic zones this activity was the result of completely different chemical composition (Kujumgiev et al., 1999). It turned out that the term “propolis” is not characterizing with respect to the chemical composition, unlike the term “bee venom” for example. The question arouse if there was any sense in biological studies carried out with just “propolis” without any chemical characteristic of the material used. Deliberately, it became clear that comparing propolis samples from different regions of the world (e.g. Bulgaria and Brazil) might be the same as comparing extracts of two plants that belong to different plant families. As a result, recently almost every publication on propolis biological activity includes some kind of chemical characterization of the bee glue used (Bankova, 2005). However, in order to be accepted officially into the main stream of the healthcare system, propolis needs chemical standardization that guarantees its quality, safety, and efficacy. And here comes the question.