Antimicrobial effectiveness of chestnut honey, pollen and propolis individually and in combination

B. Čengić*, M. Rondić, A. Jerković-Mujkić, B. Šarić Medić, A. Magoda, A. Ćutuk, P. Bejdić, S. Šerić-Haračić and A. Maksimović

Benjamin ČENGIĆ*, (Corresponding author, e-mail: benjamin.cengic@vfs.unsa.ba), DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Medina RONDIĆ, MSc. Micr., OS Miloslav Stikovic, Prijepolje, Serbia; Anesa JERKOVIĆ-MUJKIĆ, PhD, Full Professor, Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Belmina ŠARIĆ-MEDIĆ MA, Professional Associate, Laboratory for Human Genetics, Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Amina MAGODA, BSc Chem., Professional Associate, Laboratory for Assessment of Residues and Food Control, Veterinary faculty, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Amel ĆUTUK, DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Pamela BEJDIĆ, DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Sabina ŠERIĆ-HARAČIĆ, DVM, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Alan MAKSIMOVIĆ, DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

https://doi.org/10.46419/vs.56.2.3

▲

Abstract

The emergence of bacteria with antibiotic resistance and multiple resistance is characteristic of animal and human pathogens. It is wide known that bee products, which have been used in alternative medicine since ancient times, have antimicrobial potential. Application of bee products for therapeutic purposes is defined as apitherapy. The study aimed to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of commercial chestnut honey, pollen and propolis produced in western Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanski Most) individually and in five combinations (apimixtures). The antimicrobial properties of samples were investigated using the agar well diffusion method against three Gram-positive bacteria (Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii ATCC 6633, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 33591, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212); three Gram-negative bacteria (ESBL producing Escherichia coli ATCC 35218, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis ATCC 13076, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027) and one fungal species (Candida albicans ATCC 10231). Pure bee pollen inhibited the growth of only Gram-negative bacteria, concentrated chestnut honey was active against all Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, while 20% propolis extract and apimixtures A2 (80% honey and 20% propolis) and A3 (60% honey, 20% pollen and 20% propolis extract) inhibited the growth of all tested microorganisms. Chestnut honey and three apimixtures (A1, A2 and A3) showed the highest antibacterial action against all tested Gram-negative bacteria and MRSA compared to other investigated samples. In this study, examined honeybee products from Bosnia and Herzegovina and their mixtures had significant activity against tested bacteria, including strains with proven resistance to conventional antibiotics, MRSA and ESBL producing E. coli.

Key words: bee products; apimixture; antibiotic; inhibition; resistance

▲

Introduction

The discovery of antibiotics and their use in treatment have saved numerous human lives. However, the use of antibiotics also led to the appearance of microorganisms that possess or develop resistance to them and currently, more than 20,000 potential resistant genes are known in sequenced bacterial genomes (Baloch et al., 2020). According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2021), antimicrobial resistance is one of the most serious issues for global human health. The problem of antimicrobial resistance requires a different approach in the treatment of infectious diseases, where natural products can find their application. Bee products have been used in a traditional medicine for treating and preventing illnesses for centuries.

The concept of using bee products for medical purposes is known as apitherapy. Apitherapy involves the use of bee secretions (wax, venom, royal jelly) and bee products created by the modification of plant-derived materials (honey, propolis bee pollen, and bee bread – Perga) (Al Naggar et al., 2021). These natural products have numerous biological activities that are beneficial for human health, such as antioxidant, antimicrobial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antitumour activity (Kolayli and Keskin, 2020). Since the first scientific report of the antimicrobial properties of honey by Van Ketel in 1892 (Molan, 1992), the antibacterial activity of honey has been described in numerous studies (Albaridi, 2019; McLoone et al., 2020; Almasaudi, 2021; Majtan et al., 2021). Honey is essentially a supersaturated sugar solution and its antimicrobial ability is a result of the synergy between different factors including acidity, high osmotic pressure, presence of phenolic acids, lysozymes, flavonoids, polyphenols, and methylglyoxal (Dumitru et al., 2022).

However, yeasts and moulds or some sporogenic bacteria can get into honey during the production process.
Therefore, honey intended for medical use must be sterilised with gamma rays (Yupanqui Mieles et al., 2022), without any negative impact on its antimicrobial abilities. Bee pollen is a mixture of pollen grains collected from different plant species, nectar and bee saliva. Although there are about 250 substances that have been identified from different plant species (Komosinska-Vassev et al., 2015), the antimicrobial properties of bee pollen could be mainly attributed to the flavonoids and phenolic compounds in its composition (Illie et al., 2022). Like honey, pollen also can contain harmful components such as bacterial and fungal toxins, heavy metals, pesticides and allergens. Propolis is a resinous bee product that represents a mixture of plant exudates, bee secretions and wax. A systemic review that included research data on 600 different bacterial strains confirmed the antibacterial potential of propolis, which could primarily be explained by the content of flavonoids and phenolic compounds (Przybyłek and Karpiński, 2019). The antibacterial potential of honey, propolis and pollen are influenced by their geographical and floral origins.

▲

Material and methods

Materials

The antimicrobial properties of chestnut honey, pollen and propolis (produced by BeeJapa, Sanski Most, Bosnia and Herzegovina) were tested against Gram-positive bacteria: Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii ATCC 6633, Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus ATCC 33591 (MRSA strain), Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, Gram-negative bacteria: ESBL producing Escherichia coli ATCC 35218, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis ATCC 13076, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027, and one pathogenic fungus species: Candida albicans ATCC 10231. According to the manufacturer, propolis is a 20% ethanol extract while the pollen is multifloral.

Chemical analysis

Parameters determining the quality of honey (water, acidity, hydroxy methyl furfural-HMF, ash in honey, fructose content, glucose content, sucrose content and electrical conductivity) were tested using a methodology in accordance with the Ordinance on methods for the control of honey and other bee products (Official Gazette of BiH, 2019a).

Values of pesticides such as hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) alpha isomer, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) beta isomer, lindane, heptachlor, endrin, endosulfan, dieldrin, DDT and methoxychlor were determined using a GC/ECD in house method UP-5-04.02/25 (Službeni glasnik BiH, 2019b). The AAS internal method was used to detect the presence of heavy metals, copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) (Službeni glasnik BiH, 2016). Propolis analyses include the determination of the percentage of dry matter and the presence of mechanical impurities.

▲

Sample preparation

To investigate the antimicrobial potential of chestnut honey, pollen and propolis, the individual effect of each product was tested. Further, the antimicrobial potential of specially prepared combinations of these bee products was also analysed (Table 1).

Table 1. — **Table 1**. Composition of the prepared apimixtures used in the study.

Honey and propolis were added with a pipette from the original packaging, while pollen grains were previously crushed in a sterile ceramic container with a pestle.
The required amount of crushed pollen was measured on a technical scale and carefully added to numbered test tubes.
The apimixtures in the test tubes were homogenised by vortexing and kept on a VWR DS 500 orbital shaker for 24 hours.

Antimicrobial assays

The agar well diffusion method (Nigussie et al., 2021) was used to evaluate the potential antibacterial and antifungal activities of the tested bee products and apimixtures. The bacterial strains were cultured on Mueller Hinton (MH) medium, while the fungal strain was cultured in Sabouraund Dextrose Agar (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) overnight at 37°C. Afterward, following the recommendations of EUCAST (2022), each microbial strain was adjusted and prepared as inoculum at a concentration of 1–2 x 108 CFU/mL to obtain a uniform homogeneous turbidity corresponding to 0.5 McFarland.
Inoculation was performed using a sterile cotton swab soaked in a suspension of the test microorganism. After inoculation, plates were drilled using a sterile borer and in every well 50 μL of the analysed sample was added. The plates were left for one hour at room temperature to achieve diffusion.

Petri dishes are lined with parafilm tape to prevent possible evaporation of active substances. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. Antibiotics Colistin (10 μg), Streptomycin (10 μg), Ampicillin (10 μg) and Amoxicillin (25 μg), and the antifungal drug Nystatin (100 IU) (all by Oxoid™, Great Britain), were used as a positive control. Antimicrobial activity of selected bee products and apimixtures were evaluated based on the diameter of inhibition zones. All tests were done in triplicate and the mean value of the inhibition zones was calculated.

Statistical analysis

All experiments were repeated in triplicate and the results were expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation) using Microsoft Office 2019 Excel (Microsoft Corporation, USA). One-way ANOVA (P<0.05 and P<0.01) and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test were calculated using software STATISTICA 10 (StatSoft.Inc).

▲

Results

Chemical analysis

Chemical analyses of chestnut honey included quality testing for the presence of heavy metals and pesticides in honey.
The results of the analysis of chestnut honey quality are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. — **Table 2**. Results of chemical analysis for chestnut honey quality parameters.

Heavy metals copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) in honey were detected at concentrations of 0.25 mg/kg and 1.73 mg/kg, respectively. Regarding pesticide residues in honey, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) beta isomer, lindane, heptachlor, endrin, endosulfan and dieldrin were all detected at concentrations of <0.005 mg/kg, Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) alpha isomer and Metaxichlor <0.01 mg/kg, while DDT was detected at a concentration <0.025 mg/kg. In addition to honey, the quality of pollen was also examined by chemical analyses (Table 3).

Table 3. — **Table 3**. Results of chemical analyses of pollen quality parameters.
NP – Not prescribed by legislation.

Antimicrobial assays

The inhibitory effects of chestnut hon- ey, pollen, propolis extract and specially prepared apimixtures were tested and the results, expressed as zone of inhibition (mm), are presented in Figures 1, 2 and 3, and in Table 4.

Figure 1. — **Figure 1**. Inhibition zones of a) *S. enterica* formed by pure chestnut honey (M), propolis extract (PR) and pollen (•), b) *P. aeruginosa* caused by sample A1, c) ESBL-producing *E. coli* caused by sample A1.

Figure 2 and 3. — **Figure 2 and 3**. Inhibition zones of **E. fecalis** formed by sample A3 and inhibition zones of MRSA caused by sample A4.

Table 4. — **Table 4**. Antimicrobial activity of used bee products and their combinations.
*Note: The data are given as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments. H- honey, BP-bee pollen, P, propolis extract, Amp- ampicillin, STR – streptomycin, Col – colistin, Nys – nystatin, NI = no inhibition. The statistical comparison between values from the different samples and the bacterial strains was done using One-way ANOVA (**P<0.01 and *P<0.05) and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Statistically significant differences between rows (from a to k) are shown by different superscripts.

B. subtilis was most susceptible to the propolis extract and then to sample A5 (mixture of propolis and pollen). Of the positive controls, only the antibiotic ampicillin formed a slightly larger inhibition zone than the propolis extract. Compared to streptomycin, only propolis had a slightly larger zone of inhibition. In the case of E. faecalis, sample A5 showed the strongest antimicrobial activity, followed by the propolis extract, where the measured inhibition zones of these two samples were higher than the antibiotics tested.
Colistin had no inhibitory effect against E. faecalis in contrast to the apimixtures and the inhibitory zone created by the action of streptomycin was smaller than the zone of action of propolis, and of samples A2, A3 and A5. Chestnut honey and apimixtures containing honey showed marked antimicrobial activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus compared to other Gram-positive bacteria. The sizes of the inhibitory zones of honey and samples A1, A2 and A3 were much higher than the other examined samples. MRSA showed resistance to all three tested antibiotics. Pure pollen did not show an inhibitory effect against any of the tested Gram-positive bacteria. The largest inhibition zones among Gram-negative bacteria were determined for S. enterica caused by pure honey (Figure 1a), and apimixtures containing honey (A1, A2 and A3), which were significantly higher compared to the tested antibiotics.

The antibacterial activity of chestnut honey on S. enteric was stronger than on MRSA.

Propolis extract showed the weakest bactericidal effect on this species, though it was stronger than the antibiotics ampicillin and colistin. The ESBL-producing strain of E. coli was the most sensitive to sample A1 (Figure 1c), followed by 100% honey and then samples A2 and A3. Pollen had the next largest inhibitory zone, and was more effective than propolis.
This ESBL-producing strain of E. coli had the highest resistance to sample A4, and the antibiotic ampicillin and the apimixture A5 did not show any effect. Sample A4 formed an inhibitory zone equal to the zone of streptomycin. For all bee products, as well as other apimixtures that acted on ESBL E. coli, the inhibition zones were larger compared to the other two antibiotics. For the bacterium P. aeruginosa, sample A1 (Figure 1b), pure honey showed the greatest antibacterial effects, while samples A2 and A3 produced slightly smaller inhibitory zones. Streptomycin and colistin were more effective against this bacterium than bee pollen and samples A4 and A5, while only colistin was more effective than the propolis extract. Regarding the fungus Candida albicans, propolis extract and samples containing propolis exhibited the best antifungal activity. The inhibition zones caused by propolis and sample A5 were larger than those recorded for the antimycotic nystatin. C. albicans was not susceptible to chestnut honey, pollen, or samples A1 and A4. By comparing the effects of propolis and samples A2 and A3 (Table), it can be seen that apimixtures had a stronger action against MRSA, S. enterica, P. aeruginosa and ESBL E. coli, while propolis extract showed a stronger effect on the other tested microorganisms.

▲

Discussion

The quality of bee products originating from the northwest Bosnia and Herzegovina for the all tested parameters correspond to the Ordinance on honey and other bee products (Official Gazette BiH, 2019a), the Ordinance on the maximum permitted amounts for certain contaminants in food (Official Gazette BiH, 2016) and the Ordinance on maximum levels of pesticide residues in food and animal feed of plant and animal origin (Official Gazette BiH, 2019b). Concentrated chestnut honey, bee pollen and 30% propolis ethanolic extract, as well as their combinations were examined for antimicrobial activity. Undiluted honey showed antibacterial potential that varied among different tested bacterial strains. Honey formed the largest zone of inhibition for the Gram-negative Salmonella enteritidis, followed by Gram-positive methicillin-resistant S. aureus. The literature indicates that chestnut honey shows pronounced activity against S. enterica (Karadal et al., 2018). The other two Gram-negative bacteria (P. aeruginosa and ESBL producing E. coli) had slightly smaller inhibition zones compared to MRSA, and significantly larger inhibition zones compared to other Gram-positive bacteria (B. subtilis and E. faecalis). The least pronounced effect of chestnut honey was on sporogenic bacteria B. subtilis, while the fungus C. albicans showed no susceptibility.

Other studies have also demonstrated the antibacterial capacity of chestnut honey (CH) from different geographical locations and at different concentrations against reference and clinical strains, although there is some debate about the effective concentration of honey. Küçük et al. (2007) investigated 50% methanol extracts of CH produced in Anatolia (Turkey) that showed moderate inhibition, where Helicobacter pylori and S. aureus were the most affected. Concerning Spanish CH (Combarros-Fuertes et al., 2018), S. aureus strains including MRSA (MIC= 0.05 g/mL) were the most sensitive, whereas E. coli strains (MIC=0.20 g/mL) were the most resistant, though significant differences between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were not observed for all samples. Also, CH produced on Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy) confirmed the strong antibacterial properties on S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis (Ronsisvalle et al., 2019).
Croatian CH diluted with sterile saline solution at 50% and 75% concentration showed inhibitory potential against H. pylori (Cviljević et al., 2020). Another tested CH produced in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Cazin (Sakač et al., 2022) diluted with distilled water exhibited stronger antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. epidermidis (MIC=12.5%) compared to Proteus mirabilis, E. faecalis and E. coli strains (MIC=25%).

Honey also has an inhibitory effect on bacterial cell to cell communication.
Truchado et al. (2009) investigated the anti-quorum sensing properties of 29 honey samples from 14 different floral origins against Cromobacterium violaceum and found that chestnut and linden honeys showed the best inhibition of quorum sensing. Portuguese CH demonstrated antibiofilm activity, when the E. coli and P. aeruginosa biofilms were treated with a 50% (w/v) honey (Oliveira et al., 2019).
Chestnut honey produced in Hungary was very potent against S. epidermidis and MRSA (MIC=10%), while P. aeruginosa required the higher concentration of honey (MIC=12.5%) to inhibit growth and the antibiofilm activity was the most remarkable, inhibiting the most sensitive S. epidermidis by 71.1% (Balázs et al., 2023).

In the present study, pure powdered bee pollen inhibited the growth of tested Gram-negative bacteria, but did not show any action against Gram-positive bacteria or C. albicans. In contrast, numerous reports have shown that Gram-negative bacteria are less sensitive to bee pollen (BP) extracts than Gram-positive ones (Abouda et al., 2011; Morais et al., 2011; Karadal et al., 2018; Bridi et al., 2019; Illie et al., 2022). However, a Turkish BP ethanol extract in tested concentrations from 6.25 to 100 mg/mL did not show detectable inhibition of S. aureus, E. coli and P. aeruginosa (Kahraman et al., 2022). Also, Slovenian BP diluted in saline solution was strongly active against E. coli, substantial against C. jejuni, and negligible against L. monocytogenes (Šimunović et al. 2019). The discrepancy between the data may be the result of differently prepared pollen samples. In other studies, antimicrobial activity of BP dissolved in ethanol, methanol or saline solution was examined and that could explain variable results. This is in agreement with the conclusion of Abdelsalam et al. (2018) that antimicrobial activity of BP differed according to the solvent used.

In the recent study, pollen mixed with honey and propolis showed inhibitory effects on Gram-positive bacteria and also on C. albicans, except samples A1 and A4. Antimicrobial effects also depend on the concentration and the type of pollen tested. According to Fatrcová-Šramková et al. (2013), the most sensitive bacteria of a poppy pollen ethanol extract was S. aureus, while the most sensitive bacteria of rapeseed pollen methanol extract and sunflower ethanol extract was S. enterica. Bridi et al. (2019) indicated that the evaluation of the bee pollen antimicrobial activity depends on the method applied and during MIC analysis, bioactive compounds in extracts come into contact more easily with microbial strains than in disc diffusion assays, but are not as reproducible. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, propolis is mainly obtained from the exudates of Populus buds. The examined 20% propolis extract showed a broad range of antimicrobial activity. The largest inhibition zone was recorded for the fungus C. albicans. The greater activity of propolis against Gram-positive compared to Gram-negative bacteria is in accordance with the literature data (Pobiega et al., 2019; Przybylek and Karpinski, 2019).
Of all the tested bacteria, MRSA was the most sensitive to propolis extract. Regarding the propolis extracts, their antibacterial activity depends on extract concentration, type of propolis and type of bacteria tested.

In addition to propolis, samples A2 and A3 had a very broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity. Sample A2 had slightly better effects on MRSA compared to honey, as did sample A5 on E. faecalis compared to propolis extract. Although it did not show any effect against C. albicans, it is important to emphasise the antibacterial effects of sample A1. The most sensitive bacteria to the action of sample A1 was ESBL E. coli. This apimixture was effective against all tested bacteria, and its activity was stronger than honey on ESBL E. coli and P. aeruginosa. The significant antimicrobial potential of this apimixture should be emphasised in the context of the tested resistant bacterial strains, MRSA and ESBL E. coli.

▲

Conclusions

All individually tested bee products from Bosnia and Herzegovina and their specially prepared combinations showed good antimicrobial potential, and this potential was increased in certain combinations and against certain microorganisms.
All tested bacteria were sensitive to the action of pure chestnut honey and apimixtures A1, A2 and A3, and particularly high sensitivity are shown by the multi-resistant bacterial strains MRSA and ESBL producing E. coli. The combined application of both honey and propolis extract (4:1), and the combination of honey, bee pollen and propolis extract (6:2:2) increased the antimicrobial activity compared to honey alone on ESBL E. coli and P. aeruginosa, and on MRSA, respectively.

The obtained results represent another confirmation that bee products help to combat various microorganisms, especially when considering the growing number of human and animal pathogens resistant to antimicrobial drugs.

▲

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the Microbiology Department staff at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Laboratory for Human Genetics, Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Sarajevo, Laboratory for Assessment of Residues and Food Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sarajevo for technical help as well as Ms. Medina Rondić for providing final results from her Master Thesis.

References [… show]

▲

1. ABDELSALAM, E., H. S. FODA, M. S. ABDEL-AZIZ and K. A. EL-HADY (2018): Antioxidant and Antimicrobial activities of Egyptian Bee Pollen. Middle East J. Appl. Sci. 8, 1248-1255.
2. ABOUDA, Z., I. ZERDANI, I. KALALOU, M. FAID and M. T. AHAMI (2011): The Antibacterial Activity of Maroccan Bee Bread and Bee-Pollen (Fresh and Dried) against Pathogenic Bacteria. Res. J. Microbiol. 6, 376-384. 10.3923/jm.2011.376.384
3. ALBARIDI, N. A. (2019): Antibacterial potency of honey. International Journal of Microbiology, 1-10. 10.1155/2019/2464507
4. AL NAGGAR, Y., J. P. GIESY, M. M. ABDEL-DAIM, M. J. ANSARI, S. N. AL-KAHTANI and G. YAHYA (2021): Fighting against the second wave of COVID-19: can honeybee products help protect against the pandemic? Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 28, 1519-1527. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.12.031
5. ALMASAUDI, S. (2021): The antibacterial activities of honey. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 28, 2188-2196. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.10.017
6. BALÁZS, V. L., L. NAGY-RADVÁNYI, E. BENCSIK-KEREKES, R. KOLOH, D. SZABÓ, B. KOCSIS, M. KOCSIS and A. FARKAS (2023): Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Effect of Unifloral Honeys against Bacteria Isolated from Chronic Wound Infections. Microorganisms 11, 509. 10.3390/microorganisms11020509
7. BALOCH, Z., B. ASLAM, N. YASMEEN, A. ALI, Z. LIU, A. RAHAMAN and Z. MA (2020): Antimicrobial Resistance and Global Health Emergence, Drivers, and Perspectives. Handbook of Global Health. Springer, Cham. 1-13. 10.1007/978-3-030-05325-3_103-1
8. BRIDI, R. E. ATALA, P. N. PIZZARO and G. MONTENEGRO (2019): Honeybee Pollen Load: Phenolic Composition and Antimicrobial Activity and Antioxidant Capacity. J. Nat. Prod. 82, 559–565. 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00945
9. COMBARROS-FUERTES, P., L. M. ESTEVINHO, L. G. DIAS, J. M. CASTRO, F. A. TOMÁS-BARBERÁN, M. E. TORNADIJO and J. M. FRESNO-BARO (2019): Bioactive components and antioxidant and antibacterial activities of different varieties of honey: A screening prior to clinical application. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67, 688-698. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05436
10. CVILJEVIĆ, S., B. BILIĆ RAJS, L. PRIMORAC, I. STRELEC, K. GAL, M. CVIJETIĆ STOKANOVIĆ, A. PENAVA and I. FLANJAK (2020): Antibacterial activity OF Chestnut honey (Castanea sativa Mill.) against Helicobacter pylori and correlation to its antioxidant capacity. Hrana u zdravlju i bolesti: znanstveno-stručni časopis za nutricionizam i dijetetiku 9, 52-56.
11. DUMITRU, C. D., I. A. NEACSU, A. M. GRUMEZESCU and E. ANDRONESCU (2022): Bee-derived products: chemical composition and applications in skin tissue engineering. Pharmaceutics 14, 750. 10.3390/pharmaceutics14040750
12. EUCAST (2022): Disk Diffusion Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Version 10.0. https://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/disk_diffusion_methodology
13. FATRCOVÁ-ŠRAMKOVÁ, K., J. NÔŽKOVÁ, M. KAČÁNIOVÁ, M. MÁRIÁSSYOVÁ, K. ROVNÁ and M. STRIČIK (2013): Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of monofloral bee pollen. J. Environ. Sci. Health. Part. B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 48, 133-138. 10.1080/03601234.2013.727664
14. ILIE, C. I., E. OPREA, E. I. GEANA, et al. (2022): Bee pollen extracts: Chemical composition, antioxidant properties, and effect on the growth of selected probiotic and pathogenic bacteria. Antioxidants 11, 959. 10.3390/antiox11050959
15. KAHRAMAN, H. A., H. TUTUN, M. M. KAYA, M. S. USLUER, S. TUTUN, C. YAMAN, S. SEVIN and E. KEYVAN (2022): Ethanolic extract of Turkish bee pollen and propolis: phenolic composition, antiradical, antiproliferative and antibacterial activities. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 36, 45-56. 10.1080/13102818.2022.2045217
16. KARADAL, F., N. E. ONMAZ, S. ABAY, Y. YILDIRIM, A. SERHAT, I. TATYZ and A. AKCAY (2018): A Study of Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activities of Bee Products: Propolis, Pollen and Honey Samples. Ethiop. J. Health Dev. 32, 116-122. 10.4208/eajam.070517.180917a
17. KOLAYLI, S. and M. KESKIN (2020): Natural bee products and their apitherapeutic applications. Stud. Nat. Prod. Chem. 66, 175-196. 10.1016/B978-0-12-817907-9.00007-6
18. KOMOSINSKA-VASSEV, K., P. OLCZYK, J. KAZMIERCZAK, L. MECNER and K. OLCZYK (2015): Bee pollen: Chemical composition and therapeutic application. Evid.-Based Complementary Altern. Med. article ID 297425. 10.1155/2015/297425
19. KÜÇÜK, M., S. KOLAYLI, Ş. KARAOĞLU, E. ULUSOY, C. BALTACI and F. CANDAN (2007): Biological activities and chemical composition of three honeys of different types from Anatolia. Food Chem. 100, 526-534. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.10.010
20. MAJTAN, J., M. BUCEKOVA, I. KAFANTARIS, P. SZWEDA, K. HAMMER and D. MOSSIALOS (2021): Honey antibacterial activity: a neglected aspect of honey quality assurance as functional food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 118, 870-886. 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.012.
21. MCLOONE, P., D. TABYS and L. FYFE (2020): Honey combination therapies for skin and wound infections: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 875-888. 10.2147/CCID. S282143
22. MOLAN, P. C. (1992): The antibacterial activity of honey. Bee World 73, 5-28. 10.1080/0005772X.1992.11099109
23. MORAIS, M., L. MOREIRA, X. FEÁS and L. M. ESTEVINHO (2011): Honeybee-collected pollen from five Portuguese Natural Parks: Palynological origin, phenolic content, antioxidant properties and antimicrobial activity. Food Chem. Toxicol. 49, 1096-1101. 10.1016/j.fct.2011.01.020
24. NIGUSSIE, D., G. DAVEY, B. A. LEGESSE, A. FEKADU and E. MAKONNEN (2021): Antibacterial activity of methanol extracts of the leaves of three medicinal plants against selected bacteria isolated from wounds of lymphoedema patients. BMC Complement Med. 21, 1-10. 10.1186/s12906-020-03183-0
25. OLIVEIRA, A., J. C. SOUSA, A. C. SILVA, L. D. MELO and S. SILLANKORVA (2018): Chestnut honey and bacteriophage application to control Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli biofilms: evaluation in an ex vivo wound model. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1725. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01725
26. POBIEGA, K., K. KRAŠNIEWSKA and M. GNIEWOSZ (2019): Application of propolis in antimicrobial and antioxidative protection of food quality – A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 83, 53-62. 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.11.007
27. PRZYBYŁEK, I. and T. M. KARPIŃSKI (2019): Antibacterial properties of propolis. Molecules 24, 2047. 10.3390/molecules24112047
28. RONSISVALLE, S., E. LISSANDRELLO, V. FUOCHI, et al. (2019): Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of Casteanea sativa Miller chestnut honey produced on Mount Etna (Sicily). Nat. Prod. Res. 33, 843-850. 10.1080/14786419.2017.1413568
29. SAKAČ, M., P. JOVANOV, A. MARIĆ, D. ČETOJEVIĆ-SIMIN, A. NOVAKOVIĆ, D. PLAVŠIĆ, D. ŠKROBOT and R. KOVAČ (2022): Antioxidative, antibacterial and antiproliferative properties of honey types from the Western Balkans. Antioxidants 11, 1120. 10.3390/antiox11061120
30. Službeni glasnik BiH (2016). Pravilnik o maksimalno dozvoljenim količinama za određene kontaminante u hrani. Sarajevo: Službeni glasnik BiH, 79/16.
31. Službeni glasnik BiH (2019a). Pravilnik o metodama za kontrolu meda i drugih pčelinjih proizvoda. Sarajevo: Službeni glasnik 84/19.
32. Službeni glasnik BiH (2019b). Pravilnik o maksimalnim nivoima ostataka pesticida u i na hrani i hrani za životinje biljnog i životinjskog porekla. Sarajevo: Službeni glasnik BiH, 21/19.
33. ŠIMUNOVIĆ, K., H. ABRAMOVIČ, N. LILEK, M. ANGELOVA, L. PODRŽAJ et al. (2019): Microbiological quality, antioxidative and antimicrobial properties of Slovenian bee pollen. Agrofor 4 (1). 10.7251/AGRENG1901082S
34. TRUCHADO, P., F. LÓPEZ-GÁLVEZ, M. I. GIL, F. A. TOMÁS-BARBERÁN and A. ALLENDE (2009): Quorum sensing inhibitory and antimicrobial activities of honeys and the relationship with individual phenolics. Food Chem. 115, 1337-1344. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.01.065
35. World Health Organization (2021): Antimicrobial resistance. available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance
36. YUPANQUI MIELES, J., C. VYAS, E. ASLAN, G. HUMPHREYS, C. DIVER and P. BARTOLO (2022): Honey: An advanced antimicrobial and wound healing biomaterial for tissue engineering applications. Pharmaceutics 14, 1663. 10.3390/pharmaceutics14081663

▲

Antimikrobna učinkovitost meda od kestena, polena i propolisa samostalno i u kombinaciji

Benjamin ČENGIĆ, DVM, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Medina RONDIĆ, MSc. Micr., OS Miloslav Stikovic, Prijepolje, Serbia; Anesa JERKOVIĆ-MUJKIĆ, PhD, Full Professor, Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Belmina ŠARIĆ-MEDIĆ MA, Professional Associate, Laboratory for Human Genetics, Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Amina MAGODA, BSc Chem., Professional Associate, Laboratory for Assessment of Residues and Food Control, Veterinary faculty, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Amel ĆUTUK, DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Pamela BEJDIĆ, DVM., PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Sabina ŠERIĆ-HARAČIĆ, DVM, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Alan MAKSIMOVIĆ, DVM, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Pojava bakterija s rezistencijom na antibiotike ili višestrukom rezistencijom je karakteristika animalnih i humanih patogena. Dobro je poznato da pčelinji proizvodi, koji su u uporabi kao alternativno medicinsko sredstvo još od drevnih vremena, posjeduju antimikrobni potencijal. Aplikacija pčelinjih proizvoda u terapeutske svrhe naziva se apiterapija. Istraživanje je imalo cilj procijeniti antimikrobni potencijal komercijalnog meda od kestena, polena i propolisa proizvedenog u zapadnoj Bosni i Hercegovini (Sanski Most), kao i njihovih pet različitih mješavina. Antimikrobna svojstva uzoraka su istraživana uporabom agar-difuzione metode protiv tri Gram-pozitivne bakterije (Bacillus subtilis subsp. spizizenii ATCC 6633, Methicilin-rezistentni Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 33591 i Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212); zatim tri Gram-negativne bakterije (ESBL producirajuća Escherichia coli ATCC 35218, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis ATCC 13076 i Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027) i jedne gljivice (Candida albicans ATCC 10231). Čisti pčelinji polen inhibirao je rast samo kod Gram-negativnih bakterija, zatim koncentrirani med od kestena je pokazao aktivnost protiv svih Gram-negativnih i Gram-pozitivnih bakterija, dok je 20 % ekstrakt propolisa i apimješavine A2 (80 % med i 20 % propolis) i A3 (60 % med, 20 % polen i 20 % ekstrakt propolisa) inhibirao rast svih testiranih mikroorganizama).
Med od kestena i tri apimješavine (A1, A2 i A3) su pokazale najveće antimikrobno djelovanje protiv svih testiranih Gram-negativnih bakterija i MRSA u usporedbi s drugim ispitivanim uzorcima. U ovom istraživanju, ispitivani pčelinji proizvodi iz Bosne i Hercegovine i njihove mješavine su pokazale značajnu aktivnost protiv testiranih bakterija, uključujući sojeve s dokazanom rezistencijom na konvencionalne antibiotike, MRSA i ESBL producirajuću E. coli.

Ključne riječi: pčelinji proizvodi, apimješavine, antibiotik, inhibicija, otpornost

Share...

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Materials

Chemical analysis

Sample preparation

Antimicrobial assays

Statistical analysis

Results

Chemical analysis

Antimicrobial assays

Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Antimikrobna učinkovitost meda od kestena, polena i propolisa samostalno i u kombinaciji

Cookies