Compositional Differences Between Brazilian and Chinese Propolis.

IF 3.2
Sierra R Parkinson, Francelia J Eckembrecher, Lazaro Antonio Toledo Machin, Brandie M Ehrmann, Aída Lugo-Somolinos
{"title":"Compositional Differences Between Brazilian and Chinese Propolis.","authors":"Sierra R Parkinson, Francelia J Eckembrecher, Lazaro Antonio Toledo Machin, Brandie M Ehrmann, Aída Lugo-Somolinos","doi":"10.1089/derm.2025.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><u><b><i></i></b></u> <u><b><i>Background:</i></b></u> There has been an increased prevalence of positive patch test reactions to propolis in recent years. Different reaction rates have been described when using propolis supplied by different manufacturers. <u><b><i>Objective:</i></b></u> Compare compositions of Brazilian propolis prepared by Allergeaze and Chinese propolis prepared by Chemotechnique. <u><b><i>Methods:</i></b></u> Both samples were analyzed using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, and compounds were identified via the mzCloud, ChemSpider, and MassList databases. Data processing with Compound Discoverer software identified the top 6 compounds based on relative abundance. <u><b><i>Results:</i></b></u> A very low compositional overlap between the 2 propolis types: 8% match with ChemSpider, 9% with MassList, and 27% with mzCloud. The six most abundant compounds in Brazilian propolis included lauryldimethylamine oxide, (9Z)-9-octadecenamide, trioctylmethylammonium cation, monocillin VI and istamycin C1, while Chinese propolis contained pinocembrin, 16-([ethylcarbamoyl]amino) hexadecanoic acid, (4E)-6-hydroxy-4-octadecenoic acid/bee glue, linoleamide, and MFCD00083068. Prenylgermacrene B was the only common compound in both samples' top 6. <u><b><i>Conclusion:</i></b></u> These findings highlight significant compositional differences between Brazilian and Chinese propolis. Chinese propolis (catalog number NA71) was discontinued by Allergeaze in October 2019 and replaced by Brazilian propolis (catalog number NH400), likely contributing to the increased prevalence of positive reactions in recent years.</p>","PeriodicalId":93974,"journal":{"name":"Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug","volume":" ","pages":"477-487"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2025.0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been an increased prevalence of positive patch test reactions to propolis in recent years. Different reaction rates have been described when using propolis supplied by different manufacturers. Objective: Compare compositions of Brazilian propolis prepared by Allergeaze and Chinese propolis prepared by Chemotechnique. Methods: Both samples were analyzed using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, and compounds were identified via the mzCloud, ChemSpider, and MassList databases. Data processing with Compound Discoverer software identified the top 6 compounds based on relative abundance. Results: A very low compositional overlap between the 2 propolis types: 8% match with ChemSpider, 9% with MassList, and 27% with mzCloud. The six most abundant compounds in Brazilian propolis included lauryldimethylamine oxide, (9Z)-9-octadecenamide, trioctylmethylammonium cation, monocillin VI and istamycin C1, while Chinese propolis contained pinocembrin, 16-([ethylcarbamoyl]amino) hexadecanoic acid, (4E)-6-hydroxy-4-octadecenoic acid/bee glue, linoleamide, and MFCD00083068. Prenylgermacrene B was the only common compound in both samples' top 6. Conclusion: These findings highlight significant compositional differences between Brazilian and Chinese propolis. Chinese propolis (catalog number NA71) was discontinued by Allergeaze in October 2019 and replaced by Brazilian propolis (catalog number NH400), likely contributing to the increased prevalence of positive reactions in recent years.

巴西蜂胶与中国蜂胶成分的差异。
背景:近年来,蜂胶斑贴试验阳性反应的发生率有所上升。不同厂家生产的蜂胶有不同的反应率。目的:比较巴西蜂胶的成分:比较 Allergeaze 公司生产的巴西蜂胶和 Chemotechnique 公司生产的中国蜂胶的成分。方法:使用电喷雾离子化质谱仪对两种样品进行分析,并通过 mzCloud、ChemSpider 和 MassList 数据库对化合物进行鉴定。使用 Compound Discoverer 软件进行数据处理,根据相对丰度确定前 6 种化合物。结果:两种蜂胶之间的成分重叠率非常低:与 ChemSpider 的匹配率为 8%,与 MassList 的匹配率为 9%,与 mzCloud 的匹配率为 27%。巴西蜂胶中含量最高的六种化合物包括月桂基二甲胺氧化物、(9Z)-9-十八烯酰胺、三辛基甲基铵阳离子、单胞菌素 VI 和异他霉素 C1,而中国蜂胶中则含有松果菊素、16-([乙基氨基甲酰基]氨基)十六烷酸、(4E)-6-羟基-4-十八烯酸/蜂胶、亚油酸酰胺和 MFCD00083068。Prenylgermacrene B 是两个样本前 6 位中唯一常见的化合物。结论这些发现凸显了巴西蜂胶和中国蜂胶在成分上的显著差异。中国蜂胶(目录编号:NA71)已于2019年10月被Allergeaze停产,取而代之的是巴西蜂胶(目录编号:NH400),这可能是近年来阳性反应发生率增加的原因之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信