Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The antileishmanial activity of Tunisian propolis essential oil (EO) and its combination with amphotericin B was investigated against 2 local clinical strains of Leishmania: Leishmania major and Leishmania infantum. The cytotoxic potential of this EO was evaluated against macrophage Raw264.7. Combination of propolis EO and amphotericin B was investigated using the checkerboard method. The propolis sample was collected from the region of Beni Khalled, a Tunisian city located west of Cape Bon (Nabeul). Its location is particular since it is near to sea with a steppe climate and the predominance of citrus trees. The EO was obtained by Clevenger-type apparatus. Its chemical composition was identified using gas chromatography with flame ionization detector and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Our results demonstrate that Tunisian propolis EO exhibit good antileishmanial activity against L. major and L. infantum promastigotes (IC₅₀= 5.29 ± 0.31 and 3.67 ± 0.52 µg/mL, respectively) and amastigotes (IC₅₀= 7.38 ± 0.45 and 4.96 ± 0.24 µg/mL, respectively). Moreover, it reduced significantly the parasite proliferation on a dose-dependent response (95%) with low cytotoxicity (selectivity index = 16.18 and 23.33, respectively). Its combination with amphotericin B showed a synergistic potential (fractional inhibitory concentration = 0.37). Interestingly, the data suggest that propolis EO was involved in macrophage activation by hyperproduction of NO. A total of 51 compounds were identified in the propolis EO. The major compound identified was α-pinene (36.7% ± 2.36%) followed by α-cedrol (6.7% ± 0.10%), totarol (6.6% ± 0.09%), and dehydroabietane (5.2% ± 0.10%). Our findings suggest that Tunisian propolis might constitute a promising source for antileishmanial molecules.

Leishmaniasis is an infectious disease causing a major concern especially in immunocompromised patients and it was included in the list of neglected diseases by the World Health Organization.^1,2 It is a parasitic disease caused by an obligate intracellular parasite of genus Leishmania and spread to human by the bite of female sand flies.³ There are several different forms of leishmaniasis. The most common ones are cutaneous and visceral. There is cutaneous form characterized by skin sores and visceral form which affects the internal organs. Currently, there are no vaccines for leishmaniasis. The available treatment is chemotherapy which is toxic, expensive, and frequently ineffective.⁴ Many compounds and formulations showed antileishmanial activity in clinical uses, but the only few that have been proven worthy includes pentavalent antimonials such as amphotericin B, miltefosine, pentamidine, and aminosidine.⁵ These drugs present several problems, including high cost, toxicity, and side effects leading to emergence of resistant strains and making the treatment far from suitable.^6,7

As a consequence, finding new bioactive compounds with antileishmanial activity remains crucial for the development of new perspective for leishmaniasis therapy. In fact, various natural substances with antileishmanial activity have been investigated as an alternative and could be the way for the production of new effective synthetic compounds.⁸ Essential oils (EOs) of plants and their compounds are sources of bioactive molecules.^9

-15 Propolis, a natural resinous product, is widely known by its high richness in bioactive compounds and largely used in folk medicine. It is a sticky substance collected by bees from trees and used for the maintenance of their hive and as a multifunctional material for its construction.¹⁰ It contains essentially flavonoids, EOs, resins, minerals, and vitamins. According to its chemical composition, propolis is characterized by a large spectrum of biological activities such as antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antitumor properties.^10

-15

To the best of our knowledge, only few studies on the propolis extracts activity against the Leishmania species have been reported.^11,12 The few studies that have investigated its anti-infectious properties were performed only on its organic extracts and no studies were performed on its EO. The aim of this study was to investigate the chemical composition of the Tunisian propolis EO by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and to evaluate its in vitro antileishmanial against Leishmania major and Leishmania infantum clinical isolates and cytotoxic potential against macrophage cells (Raw264.7).

Materials and Methods

Propolis Samples

Propolis samples from Apis mellifera hives were collected by scraping during the spring of 2017 from the region of Beni Khalled in Tunisia.

The region of Beni Khalled was chosen based on its floristic character, where bees can collect resins from Citrus sinensis (L.), Citrus reticulata (L.), Citrus limon (L.), and Eucalyptus gomphocephala.

Essential Oil Extraction

Propolis samples were cut into small pieces (40 g) and were subjected to hydrodistillation using a Clevenger-type apparatus for 3 hours and the oil was dried on anhydrous sodium sulfate and stored at 4°C until analysis.

Essential Oil Analysis by Gas Chromatography With Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID)

Analytical gas chromatography (GC) was carried out on a Hewlett-Packard 6890 apparatus (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, United States) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and an electronic pressure control injector. An HP Innowax (polyethylene glycol) column (Hewlett-Packard; 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm film thickness) was used at a carrier gas flow (nitrogen) of 1.6 mL/min. The split ratio was 60:1. The analysis was performed in triplicate using the following temperature program: oven temperature kept isothermally for 10 minutes at 35°C, increased to 205°C at the rate of 3°C/min, and kept isothermally at 205°C for 10 minutes. Detector and injector temperature were held at 300°C and 250°C, respectively.

Essential Oil Analysis by GC-MS

The GC/MS analysis of the EO was performed with an Agilent 7890A GC system coupled to an Agilent 5972C mass spectrometer detector with electron ionization (70 eV). A HP-5 MS capillary column (Hewlett-Packard, CA, United States) was used (30 m × 0.25 mm, coated with 5% phenyl methyl silicone, 95% dimethylpolysiloxane, 0.25 mm film thickness). The column temperature was programmed to rise from 40°C to 240°C with a 5°C/min rate; helium N60 was used as a carrier gas with a 0.9 mL/min flow rate; split ratio was 100:1. Scan time and mass range were 1 second and 50 to 550 m/z, respectively.⁹

The identification of propolis volatile compounds was based on a long work with Wiley Registry 9th Edition/NIST 2011 mass spectra search library and by comparison of their retention indices relative to (C₈-C₂₂) n-alkanes with those of the literature or with those of original compounds available. The identification was considered valid if the probability was more than 90%, R. Matching over 900.

Antipromastigote Assay

In 96-well microtiter plates, propolis EO was plated at a final concentration varying from 7.81 µg/mL to 1 mg/mL, at 2-fold serial dilutions. After that, 2 × 10⁵ promastigotes per well of L. major (LCO3) and L. infantum (LV20) were added in RPMI-1640 medium (Gibco) and incubated at 27°C for 72 hours.⁹ Parasite viability was assessed by the addition of 10 µL of 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, United States) (10 mg/mL). After 4 hours of incubation at 37°C, the medium was removed and formazan crystals were dissolved in DMSO. Absorbance was read by ELISA reader (Synergy HT, Bio-TEK) at 570 nm. The positive control used in all tests was amphotericin B (98% purity, from Sigma-Aldrich, United States).

Results were expressed as the concentration that inhibited parasite growth by 50%, median inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀). The IC₅₀ was obtained by calculating from log-probit analyses using linear regression (GraphPad Prism 5). Three replicates were performed and the average was calculated from the IC₅₀ values obtained for each separate experiment.⁹

Antiamastigote Assay

Promastigote form of Leishmania, at their logarithmic growth phase, was allowed to multiply in macrophages cells Raw 264.7 already plated at 10⁶ cells/mL (ratio parasite-macrophage 10:1 ratio) for 2 hours at 37°C. Free promastigotes were washed with PBS (pH 7, 0.01 M). In order to allow complete differentiation of promastigotes to amastigotes, infected macrophages were left in incubation for additional 24 hours. Essential oil solutions at concentrations ranging from 0.78 to 100 µg/mL were added and the samples incubated for 48 hours for all plates.¹⁵ Cultures were marked with 10% Giemsa and studied under light microscopy (×100).

The number of amastigotes was calculated in at least 100 macrophages for each sample in triplicate cultures.^9,16 Results were expressed as infection rate (IR) that was expressed as indicated by the following formula:

%IR = 100 – [(infection rate of the treated culture/infection rate of the untreated culture × 100)]

The extract with an IC₅₀ ≤ 50 µg/mL was considered as effective against intracellular amastigotes of Leishmania.

Specificity (SP) value was described as the ratio between IC₅₀ of promastigotes and IC₅₀ of amastigotes stage. For SP more than 2, the sample was considered as being more active against the amastigote stage. For SP value under 0.4, the tested sample was considered as more active against promastigotes. While for SP values between 0.4 and 2, the sample was considered as being active against both stages.¹⁷

Synergistic Activity With Amphotericin B

Synergistic combination of propolis EO and amphotericin B was assessed as described previously.^5,13
-15 Briefly, 2 samples were mixed at different combinations in a checkerboard assay.¹³ The combinations were incubated with 2 × 10⁵ parasite/mL in 96-well plates and the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index was calculated as follows:

F I C i n d e x = [A] ∕ I C_{50} A + [B] ∕ I C_{50} B

The IC₅₀A and IC₅₀B correspond to the IC₅₀ of each compound tested alone. However, [A] and [B] are the IC₅₀ of the sample tested in combination. For FIC index <0.5, combination was considered as synergistic. However, for FIC index situated between 0.5 and 4, combination was considered as indifferent, and for FIC index >4, combination was considered as antagonist.^15,16

Nitric Oxide (NO) Production

Nitric oxide (NO) release in supernatants of macrophage Raw264.7 cells treated by propolis EO in the absence or presence of L. major and L. infantum was evaluated by the Greiss assay after 72 hours of incubation as previously described.^14,18 A standard curve was prepared with sodium nitrite (concentrations ranging from 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, to 100 µM). Untreated macrophages were used as a negative control. Sodium nitrite in RPMI was used as positive control to construct a standard curve as described previously.¹⁴ The reading was performed in triplicate at a wavelength 630 nm (Biotek, Synergy). The result was expressed as the NO concentration (µM). Each determination was performed in triplicate.

Cytotoxicity and Selectivity Index (SI)

VERO cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% FBS and cultured in the presence of a solution (Gibco) at 37°C in 5% CO₂ atmosphere. Cells were harvested with 0.1% trypan solution and counted under light microscope. In total, 10⁵ of macrophages were initially placed on a 96-well microtiter plate then left to incubate overnight at 37°C. The medium was aspirated off and replaced by 100 µL of various concentrations of tested samples; viability was evaluated using the MTT method after 72 hours of incubation.^19,20 The supernatant was conserved for the nitrite assay at −20°C.

The selectivity index (SI) was calculated as the ratio between (CC₅₀) for macrophage and activity (IC₅₀) for promastigote. An SI more than 10 indicated that samples, with no relative cytotoxicity, showed effective antileishmanial activity.

Statistical Analysis

Triplicate cultures were used in all assays. Statistical analysis was conducted using XLSTAT Software (XLSTAT, 2015, Addinsoft, New York, NY, United States). Differences between mean values obtained were tested for significance by analysis of variance. P values of 0.05 were considered significant.

Results and Discussion

Essential Oil Composition

Propolis EO from Beni Khalled obtained by hydrodistillation yielded about 0.1% (w/v). The results of chromatographic analysis by gas chromatography (GC/FID) and coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) are presented in Table 1. In total, 46 components were identified which represent 97.31% of total oil listed in their elution order (Figure 1). The major component was α-pinene (36.17% ± 2.36%), α-cedrol (6.67% ± 0.10%), totarol (6.57% ± 0.09%), dehydroabietane (5.23% ± 0.10%), tricosane (3.85% ± 0.10%), 4-terpineol (3.58% ± 0.14%), longifolene (2.96% ± 0.12%), and β-elemene (2.90% ± 0.11%). The abundant compounds in Tunisian propolis EO were monoterpene hydrocarbons (54.85% ± 0.12%) followed by sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (12.53% ± 0.11%), diterpenes (9.26% ± 0.09%), and aliphatic hydrocarbons (5.27%).

Figure 1

Chromatogram of essential oil of propolis.

Table 1

Chemical Composition of Propolis Essential Oil by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry.

No.	Compounds	IR^a	IR^b	%	Identification
1	Tricyclene	927	1014	0.21 ± 0.124	GC-MS
2	α-Thujene	939	1032	1.10 ± 0.064	GC-MS
3	α - P inene	931	1035	36.71 ± 2.360	GC-MS, Co-GC
4	α-Fenchene	943	1059	0.30 ± 0.155	GC-MS
5	Camphene	950	1076	0.49 ± 0.137	GC-MS
6	Verbenene	951	1136	0.95 ± 0.273	GC-MS
7	Sabinene	976	1132	0.76 ± 0.194	GC-MS
8	β-Pinene	980	1118	1.37 ± 0.168	GC-MS, Co-GC
9	1,3,8-p-Menthatriene	1112	1108	0.44 ± 0.119	GC-MS
10	δ-3-Carene	1011	1159	1.53 ± 0.167	GC-MS
11	α-Terpinene	1018	1188	1.07 ± 0.175	GC-MS, Co-GC
12	o-Cymene	1026	1280	1.03 ± 0.177	GC-MS, Co-GC
13	Limonene	1026	1203	0.77 ± 0.013	GC-MS, Co-GC
14	γ-Terpinene	1062	1267	1.68 ± 0.126	GC-MS
15	Terpinolene	1088	1290	0.62 ± 0.109	GC-MS
16	Campholene aldehyde	1189	1306	0.38 ± 0.095	GC-MS
17	trans-Pinocarveol	1131	1143	0.58 ± 0.134	GC-MS, Co-GC
18	p-Mentha-1,5-dien-8-ol	1120	1165	0.30 ± 0.133	GC-MS, Co-GC
19	endo-Borneol	1270	1590	0.07 ± 0.114	GC-MS
20	trans-p-Menth-2-en-1,8-diol	1126	1622	0.42 ± 0.102	GC-MS
21	4-Terpineol	1178	1177	3.58 ± 0.144	GC-MS
22	α-Terpineol	1188	1191	0.62 ± 0.113	GC-MS
23	Methylthymol	1199	1235	0.42 ± 0.103	GC-MS
24	endo-Bornyl acetate	1270	1590	0.66 ± 0.100	GC-MS Co-GC
25	Thymol	1260	1289	0.72 ± 0.074	GC-MS
26	β-Elemene	1388	1401	2.90 ± 0.119	GC-MS
27	α-Copaene	1379	1497	0.39 ± 0.069	GC-MS
28	Longifolene	1398	1433	2.96 ± 0.122	GC-MS
29	β-Cedrene	1413	1599	0.89 ± 0.085	GC-MS
30	β-Caryophyllene	1419	1421	0.91 ± 0.064	GC-MS
31	β-Copaene	1433	1550	0.16 ± 0.094	GC-MS
32	α-Muurolene	1474	1692	0.30 ± 0.072	GC-MS
33	λ-Cadinene	1526	1776	1.02 ± 0.075	GC-MS
34	α-Copaene-11-ol	1633	1999	0.20 ± 0.095	GC-MS
35	Caryophyllene oxide	1578	2008	0.39 ± 0.097	GC-MS
36	α-Cedrol	1543	1615	6.67 ± 0.105	GC-MS
37	α-Eudesmol	1648	1668	1.82 ± 0.079	GC-MS
38	β-Eudesmol	1651	1664	0.39 ± 0.096	GC-MS
39	γ-Eudesmol	1631	2176	1.59 ± 0.046	GC-MS
40	Ni₁	-	-	0.39 ± 0.122	GC-MS
41	18-Norabietane	1936	1941	0.18 ± 0.067	GC-MS
42	Ni₂	-	-	0.64 ± 0.082	GC-MS
43	Manoyl oxide	2016	2352	1.47 ± 0.094	GC-MS
44	Ni₃	-	-	0.18 ± 0.074	GC-MS
45	13-epi-Manoyl oxide	2010	2039	1.22 ± 0.092	GC-MS
46	Dehydroabietane	2082	2078	5.23 ± 0.103	GC-MS
47	Ni₄	-	-	0.67 ± 0.043	GC-MS
48	Ni₅	-	-	0.81 ± 0.051	GC-MS
49	Tricosane	2300	2300	3.85 ± 0.100	GC-MS
50	Totarol	2301	2301	6.57 ± 0.096	GC-MS
51	Tetracosane	2400	2400	1.42 ± 0.072	GC-MS

GC-MS, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; IR, infection rate.

^aApolar HP-5 column.

^bPolar HP Innowax column.

As demonstrated by several studies, the propolis EO chemical composition has been well explored.^18,21
-23 In most regions, terpenoid compounds are the major constituents identified. However, its composition is quite variable depending on the environmental factors, the geographic region of production, the season of harvest, and the concentration of metabolites in plants visited by bees.²²

In line with the other study, our findings showed the richness of Tunisian propolis EO by monoterpene hydrocarbons (54.85%) and specially the α-pinene (36.17%). These results were consistent with those found in the Iranian propolis EO which was rich in α-pinene (43.9%), 1,8-cineole (11.1%), and camphene (8.6%).²² Kerman’s propolis EO also contained a similar composition revealing high amounts of α-pinene (46.1%), 1,8-cineole (11.1%), camphene (9.6%), and camphor (5.3%) but also other important compounds such as sabinene (4.6%), borneol (3.4%), bornyl acetate (2.8%), verbenone (2.3%), and linalool (2.1%).^22,23 Similar results have been found in the previous work on Greek propolis²¹ in which α-pinene was the major compound and its content varied between 7.9% and 45.8%, trans-β-terpineol (2.2%-6.6%), junipene (1.5%-11.7%), and δ-cadinene (0.3%-8.4%), as well as Brazilian propolis that contained α-pinene (18.3%), β-pinene (6.5%), and δ-cadinene (7.0%).²² In addition, in other regions of Brazil, the most abundant components in EO were β-caryophyllene (12.7%), acetophenone (12.3%), farnesene (9.2%), and linalool (6.47%).^21
-23

Antileishmanial Activity of Propolis EO

Propolis EO exhibited strong antileishmanial activity against promastigotes of L. major and L. infantum with IC₅₀ values of 5.29 ± 0.31 and 3.67 ± 0.52 µg/mL, respectively (Table 2). Moreover, a high activity was found against amastigote forms of L. major and L. infantum (IC₅₀ = 7.38 ± 0.45 and 4.96 ± 0.24 µg/mL, respectively) with significant (P < 0.05) reduction of the parasite proliferation (more than 95%).

Table 2

Antileishmanial and Cytotoxic Activities of Propolis Essential Oil.

Essential oil	PromastigoteIC₅₀ ± SD (µg/mL)		CC₅₀ ± SD(µg/mL)	Selectivity index (SI)
Essential oil	Leishmania major	Leishmania infantum	Raw264.7	Leishmania major	Leishmania infantum
Propolis essential oil	5.29 ± 0.31	3.67 ± 0.52	85.63 ± 0.28	16.18	23.33
Amphotericin B	0.22 ± 0.09	0.80 ± 0.18	9.23 ± 0.13	41.95	11.53

IC₅₀, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (µg/mL); CC₅₀, the median lethal concentration (µg/mL); SD, standard deviation.

Selectivity index is calculated based on the CC₅₀/IC₅₀ ratios.

Moreover, this EO showed low toxicity against macrophage cells Raw264.7 (CC₅₀ = 85.63 ± 0.28 µg/mL) with a selective activity against L. major and L. infantum (SI = 16.18 and 23.33, respectively). Interestingly, the propolis EO was considered as active against both stages of Leishmania (SP = 1.39 and 1.35 for L. major and L. infantum, respectively) and this result reinforces its antileishmanial potential (Table 3). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the antileishmanial activities of Tunisian propolis EO on promastigotes and amastigotes form of L. major and L. infantum.

Table 3

Antiamastigote Activity of Propolis Essential Oil, Selectivity, and Specificity.

Leishmanial species	Propolis EO
Leishmanial species	Antiamastigote IC₅₀ ± SD(µg/mL)	Selectivity index (SI)	Specificity (SP)
Leishmania major	7.38 ± 0.45	11.60	1.39
Leishmania infantum	4.96 ± 0.24	17.26	1.35

EO, essential oil; IC₅₀, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (µg/mL); SD, standard deviation.

Specificity is the ratio between promastigote IC₅₀ and amastigote IC₅₀.

Previously, good antileishmanial activity was reported in propolis extracts.¹² In fact, Bulgarian propolis extracts have been associated with high antileishmanial activity against numerous leishmaniasis species.^24,25 In fact, it was reported that ethanolic and ketonic extracts showed similar activities on promastigote form of L. major (IC₅₀ = 7.2 and 2.8 µg/mL, respectively), Leishmania amazonensis (IC₅₀ = 29.3 ± 7.6 and 26.9 ± 6.4 µg/mL, respectively), and Leishmania chagasi (IC₅₀ = 53.9 ± 7.3 and 41.3 ± 0.9 µg/mL, respectively).

Chemical composition of Tunisian propolis showed that α-pinene was the major compound identified (36.71%). The individual antileishmanial activity of this compound has been demonstrated.^9,26
-28 In fact, α-pinene exhibits good antileishmanial activity against promastigote of L. major and L. infantum (IC₅₀ = 19.8 ± 0.23 and 17.6 ± 88 µg/mL, respectively) with low toxicity (SI = 11.63 and 13.08, respectively).⁹ Similar findings were reported previously.²⁶ According to Rodrigues et al, α-pinene showed effective inhibition against promastigotes (IC₅₀ = 19.7 µg/mL) and amastigotes (IC₅₀ = 15.6 µg/mL) of L. amazonensis. Our result suggested that propolis EO activity may be attributed to major compounds but also to the synergistic activity of minor compounds. In fact, it was reported previously that α-cedrol and totarol may exhibit significant antileishmanial activity (IC₅₀ = 1.5 and 12.2 µM, respectively).^27,28 The antileishmanial properties of EOs were mainly attributed to monoterpenes which may diffuse into parasite membrane structure and cause its damage.²⁸ These compounds could also cross cell membrane and interact with intracellular organisms.²⁹

Synergistic Combination of Propolis EO With Amphotericin B

To date, combination therapy has shown a great potential for infectious disease treatments such as malaria, candidiasis, AIDS, and tuberculosis. It was ever more and more applied particularly in highly endemic regions. It aimed to find a new alternative to develop more potent drugs and to minimize side effect, toxicity, duration, and cost of conventional drugs and to prevent the development of drug resistance as well as to enlarge their antimicrobial spectra.³⁰ Our data showed that Tunisian propolis EO exhibited a synergistic combination with conventional drug “amphotericin B” with a FIC value of 0.37 and more than 98% of Leishmania growth inhibition. Moreover, the synergistic MIC of amphotericin B and propolis EO were reduced by 8- and 4-fold, respectively. Therefore, Tunisian propolis EO could be used as a potential promising agent to increase treatment efficiency of conventional antileishmanial drugs.

Several studies have reported the synergistic potential of propolis extract with conventional treatment.^5,30
-32 Oksuz et al showed a synergistic potential of ciprofloxacin and propolis for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus.³¹ Moreover, the high effect of propolis in increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics (ampicillin, cefalexin, and amoxicillin) showing a synergistic potential with antibiotics such as tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and neomycin was reported.³² However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the synergistic potential of propolis EO with amphotericin B.

NO Production

The evaluation of NO production was conducted in the same time of the antiamastigote assay. We collected the supernatant of macrophages infected by Leishmania and treated or not by several concentration of propolis EO (Figure 2). Results revealed that the infected macrophage produces 36.8% more NO than the noninfected macrophage. Although, no significant difference was observed between L. major and L. infantum in NO production. Moreover, the noninfected macrophage treated by 14.76, 7.38, and 3.69 µg/mL of propolis EO produced, respectively, 50.4%, 38.1%, and 25% more NO than control cells (uninfected macrophage and not treated by propolis EO). However, the infected macrophage Raw264.7 treated with propolis EO produced significantly (P < 0.05) higher NO levels (230%, 190%, and 175% higher, respectively) than infected macrophages untreated by propolis EO. Although amphotericin B did not induce NO production,³⁰ its synergistic combination with propolis EO showed an overproduction of NO (180%) and was therefore involved in the activation of macrophage cells by the hyperproduction of nitric oxide.

Figure 2

Effect of propolis essential oil on nitric oxide production by macrophage cells Raw264.7.

Macrophage cells are the major immunologic pathway implicated in the immune system for the elimination of microorganisms. The activation of macrophages induces the release of several cytotoxic metabolites mainly H₂O₂ and NO.³³ Thus, we investigated if the antileishmanial properties of propolis EO could be associated with the activation of macrophages cells by the NO production. The result obtained showed that significant high NO production (P < 0.05) was obtained on macrophage cells treated by high concentration of propolis EO (14.76 µg/mL) compared to untreated cells. This is in complete agreement with data reported previously.³⁴ In fact, nitric oxide production is a potent cytotoxin largely implicated in the inhibition of a variety of intracellular pathogens including Leishmania. This is another mechanism involved in Leishmania death.^32,35 So, we suggested that propolis EO may activate macrophagic cells and makes them more sensitive to stimuli such as interferon-γ implicated in the immune response.³³

Conclusion

It is very important to characterize EOs of natural products which are used in folk medicine in the prevention of diseases. This study showed that Tunisian propolis EO exhibits high antileishmanial potential with a potential synergism with conventional treatment “amphotericin B” with an activation of macrophage cells. Moreover, it was characterized by the presence of monoterpene hydrocarbons (54.85%) and the predominance of α-pinene as the major compound (36.71%). However, further investigations are therefore needed to evaluate its in vivo properties and clinical responses.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID ID

Essid Rym

References

World Health Organization . Control of the leishmaniasis. World Health Organization Technical Report Series. 2010; 949:186.

Desjeux

. Leishmaniasis: current situation and new perspectives. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;27(5):305-318.doi:10.1016/j.cimid.2004.03.004

Calderon-Anyosa

Galvez-Petzoldt

Garcia

PJ.

Carcamo

. Housing characteristics and leishmaniasis: a systematic review. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(6):1547-1554.doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0037

Croft

SL.

Coombs

. Leishmaniasis–current chemotherapy and recent advances in the search for novel drugs. Trends Parasitol. 2003;19(11):502-508.doi:10.1016/j.pt.2003.09.008

Davis

AJ.

Murray

HW.

Handman

. Drugs against leishmaniasis: a synergy of technology and partnerships. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20(2):73-76.doi:10.1016/j.pt.2003.11.006

Sundar

Chakravarty

. Leishmaniasis: an update of current pharmacotherapy. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(1):53-63.doi:10.1517/14656566.2013.755515

Berman

. Current treatment approaches to leishmaniasis. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2003;16(5):397-401.doi:10.1097/00001432-200310000-00005

Rocha

LG.

Almeida

JRGS.

Macêdo

RO.

Barbosa-Filho

. A review of natural products with antileishmanial activity. Phytomedicine. 2005;12(6-7):514-535.doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2003.10.006

Essid

Rahali

FZ.

Msaadaa

et al. In-Vitro evaluation of anti-leishmanial and cytotoxic activities of essential oils in Tunisia. Ind Crops Prod. 2015;77:795-802.

10.

Banskota

AH.

Tezuka

Kadota

. Recent progress in pharmacological research of propolis. Phytother Res. 2001;15(7):561-571.doi:10.1002/ptr.1029

11.

Ayres

DC.

Marcucci

MC.

Giorgio

. Effects of Brazilian propolis on Leishmania amazonensis . Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2007;102(2):215-220.doi:10.1590/S0074-02762007005000020

12.

Machado

GMdeC.

Leon

LL.

De Castro

. Activity of Brazilian and Bulgarian propolis against different species of Leishmania . Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2007;102(1):73-77.doi:10.1590/s0074-02762007000100012

13.

Essid

Hammami

Gharbi

et al. Antifungal mechanism of the combination of Cinnamomum verum and Pelargonium graveolens essential oils with fluconazole against pathogenic Candida strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101(18):6993-7006.doi:10.1007/s00253-017-8442-y

14.

Hammi

KM.

Essid

Tabbene

Elkahoui

Majdoub

Ksouri

. Antileishmanial activity of Moringa oleifera leaf extracts and potential synergy with amphotericin B. S Afr J Bot. 2019.doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2019.01.008

15.

Odds

. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrobial Chem. 2003;52(1):1.doi:10.1093/jac/dkg301

16.

Fratini

Mancini

Turchi

et al. A novel interpretation of the fractional inhibitory concentration index: the case Origanum vulgare L. and Leptospermum scoparium J. R. et G. Forst essential oils against Staphylococcus aureus strains. Microbiol Res. 2017;195:11-17.doi:10.1016/j.micres.2016.11.005

17.

de Paula

DT.

de Carvalho

GS.

Almeida

AC.

Lourenço

da Silva

AD.

Coimbra

. Synthesis, cytotoxicity and antileishmanial activity of aza-stilbene derivatives. Medi J Chem. 2013;2(3):493-502.doi:10.13171/mjc.2.3.2013.07.02.16

18.

Kiderlen

AF.

Kayser

Ferreira

Kolodziej

. Tannins and related compounds: killing of amastigotes of Leishmania donovani and release of nitric oxide and tumour necrosis factor α in macrophages in vitro. Z Naturforsch. 2001;56(5-6):444-454.doi:10.1515/znc-2001-5-620

19.

Ramdane

Essid

Mkadmini

et al. Phytochemical composition and biological activities of Asteriscus graveolens (Forssk) extracts. Process Biochem. 2017;56:186-192.doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2017.03.004

20.

Green

SJ.

Meltzer

MS.

Hibbs

JB.

Nacy

. Activated macrophages destroy intracellular Leishmania major amastigotes by an L-arginine-dependent killing mechanism. J Immunol. 1990;144(1):278-283.

21.

Mayworm

MAS.

dos Santos

AB.

Melo-de-Pinna

GFA.

Salatino

MLF.

Demarco

. Monoterpenes from the essential oil from Brazilian propolis affect seedling cellular elongation. Braz J Bot. 2017;40(3):609-615.doi:10.1007/s40415-017-0366-3

22.

Haile

Kebede

Dekebo

. A comparative study of volatile components of propolis (bee glue) collected from Haramaya university and Assela Beekeeping centers, Ethiopia. Bull Chem Soc Ethiop. 2012;26(3):353-360.doi:10.4314/bcse.v26i3.4

23.

Oliveira

AP.

França

HS.

Kuster

RM.

Teixeira

LA.

Rocha

. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis essential oil. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2010;16(1):121-130.doi:10.1590/S1678-91992010005000007

24.

Borčić

Radonić

Grzunov

. Comparison of the volatile constituents of propolis gathered in different regions of Croatia. Flavour Fragr J. 1996;11(5):311-313.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1026(199609)11:5<311::AID-FFJ581>3.0.CO;2-X

25.

Ioshida

MDM.

Young

MCM.

Lago

JHG

. Chemical composition and antifungal activity of essential oil from Brazilian propolis. J Essent Oil Bear Pl. 2010;13(5):633-637.doi:10.1080/0972060X.2010.10643873

26.

Rodrigues

KAdaF.

Amorim

LV.

Dias

et al. Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels essential oil and its major constituent α-pinene exhibit anti-Leishmania activity through immunomodulation in vitro. J Ethnopharmacol. 2015;160:32-40.doi:10.1016/j.jep.2014.11.024

27.

Ogungbe

IV.

Singh

Setzer

. Antileishmanial natural products from plants. Stud Nat Prod Chem. 2012;36:331-382.

28.

Bakkali

Averbeck

Idaomar

. Biological effects of essential oils – a review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(2):446-475.doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.09.106

29.

Cristani

D’Arrigo

Mandalari

et al. Interaction of four monoterpenes contained in essential oils with model membranes: implications for their antibacterial activity. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55(15):6300-6308.doi:10.1021/jf070094x

30.

Corral

MJ.

González-Sánchez

Cuquerella

Alunda

. In vitro synergistic effect of amphotericin B and allicin on Leishmania donovani and L. infantum . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(3):1596-1602.doi:10.1128/AAC.00710-13

31.

Oksuz

Duran

Tamer

Cetin

Silici

. Effect of propolis in the treatment of experimental Staphylococcus aureus keratitis in rabbits. Ophthalmic Res. 2005;37(6):328-334.doi:10.1159/000087943

32.

Lemesre

J-L.

Sereno

Daulouède

Veyret

Brajon

Vincendeau

. Leishmania spp.: nitric oxide-mediated metabolic inhibition of promastigote and axenically grown amastigote forms. Exp Parasitol. 1997;86(1):58-68.doi:10.1006/expr.1997.4151

33.

Larabi

Legrand

Appel

et al. Reduction of NO synthase expression and tumor necrosis factor alpha production in macrophages by amphotericin B lipid carriers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(2):553-562.doi:10.1128/AAC.45.2.553-562.2001

34.

Orsi

RO.

Funari

SRC.

Soares

AMVC

et al. Immunomodulatory action of propolis on macrophage activation. J Venom Anim Toxins. 2000;6(2):205-219.doi:10.1590/S0104-79302000000200006

35.

Coutinho-Silva

Ojcius

. Role of extracellular nucleotides in the immune response against intracellular bacteria and protozoan parasites. Microbes Infect. 2012;14(14):1271-1277.doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2012.05.009

Antileishmanial Potential of Propolis Essential Oil and Its Synergistic Combination With Amphotericin B

Abstract

Materials and Methods

Propolis Samples

Essential Oil Extraction

Essential Oil Analysis by Gas Chromatography With Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID)

Essential Oil Analysis by GC-MS

Antipromastigote Assay

Antiamastigote Assay

Synergistic Activity With Amphotericin B

Nitric Oxide (NO) Production

Cytotoxicity and Selectivity Index (SI)

Statistical Analysis

Results and Discussion

Essential Oil Composition

Antileishmanial Activity of Propolis EO

Synergistic Combination of Propolis EO With Amphotericin B

NO Production

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID ID

References