蜂胶对炭疽杆菌的抑菌活性

中国媒介生物学及控制杂志 ›› 2011, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (3): 245-247.

蜂胶对炭疽杆菌的抑菌活性

许兵红¹, 曾莉萍²

1 新乡医学院寄生虫学教研室，河南新乡 453003;
2 成都医学院

收稿日期:2010-12-20 出版日期:2011-06-20 发布日期:2011-06-20
作者简介:许兵红（1971-），男，硕士，副教授，主要从事 “蝇抗菌肽”及“蜂胶”研究。Email: xubinghong @xxmu.edu.cn
基金资助:
河南省高等学校青年骨干教师资助项目（2010GGJS-115）；河南省教育厅自然科学研究项目（2004922064）

Antibacterial activity of propolis against Bacillus anthracis

XU Bing-hong¹, ZENG Li-ping²

1 Department of Parasitology, Xinxiang Medical College, Xinxiang 453003, Henan Province, China;
2 Chengdu Medical College

Received:2010-12-20 Online:2011-06-20 Published:2011-06-20
Supported by:
Supported by the Fund of Young Backbone Teachers in Universities of Henan Province （No. 2010GGJS-115） and the Fund of Natural Science Research of Education Bureau of Henan Province （No. 2004922064）

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的　了解产自河南省的蜂胶对炭疽杆菌的抑菌作用。方法　采用琼脂平板扩散法，将实验分为pH 5.5～8.5不同组（蜂胶浓度31%），以及在pH 5.5下设置10个不同浓度组，即将31%蜂胶溶液倍比稀释至0.06%（1∶512）及空白组（0），每组3次重复，每张滤纸片（ø 6 mm）滴加蜂胶溶液7 μl，记录蜂胶的抑菌效果。结果　河南省蜂胶在pH 5.5、6.0、6.5、7.0、7.5、8.0、8.5平板上的抑菌环直径依次为（19.16±0.29）、（17.67±0.29）、（14.67±0.58）、（13.67±0.29）、（14.00±0.00）、（13.33±1.15）、（12.00±0.00）mm，蜂胶浓度分别为15.50%、7.75%、3.88%、1.94%、0.97%、0.48%、0.24%、0.12%、0.06%和0（空白组）时，抑菌环直径依次为（19.50±1.80）、（19.67±1.04）、（17.75±0.35）、（15.67±0.58）、（14.00±2.29）、（13.17±1.04）、（11.83±1.53）、（10.83±1.26）、（9.00±0.00）和（0.00±0.00）mm。结论　河南省蜂胶对炭疽杆菌有明显的抑菌活性，对炭疽杆菌的抑菌活性随pH值增加或浓度降低而减小。

关键词: 蜂胶, 炭疽杆菌, 抑菌活性

Abstract:

Objective　To determine the antibacterial activity of propolis from Henan province against Bacillus anthracis. Methods　The agar diffusion method was used to test for antibacterial activity. Antibacterial effects were measured after exposure to seven formulations of 31% propolis at pH ranging from 5.5-8.5 （5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5）. Additionally, ten dilutions of propolis from 31% to 0.06%（1∶512）, including a 0 control, at pH 5.5 and a dose of 7 μl were examined in triplicate. Results　The diameters (mm) of the zones of inhibition in each pH group, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0 and 8.5, were as follows: 19.16±0.29, 17.67±0.29, 14.67±0.58, 13.67±0.29, 14.00±0.00, 13.33±1.15 and 12.00±0.00 mm, respectively. The diameters in each concentration group, 15.50%, 7.75%, 3.88%, 1.94%, 0.97%, 0.48%, 0.24%, 0.12% and 0.06%, and the control group were: 19.50±1.80, 19.67±1.04, 17.75±0.35, 15.67±0.58, 14.00±2.29, 13.17±1.04, 11.83±1.53, 10.83±1.26, 9.00±0.00 and 0.00±0.00 mm, respectively. Conclusion　Propolis from Henan province had antibacterial activity against B. anthracis, which declined with increasing pH or decreasing concentration.

Key words: Propolis, Bacillus anthracis, Antibacterial activity

中图分类号:

R378.7

许兵红, 曾莉萍. 蜂胶对炭疽杆菌的抑菌活性[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2011, 22(3): 245-247.

XU Bing-hong, ZENG Li-ping. Antibacterial activity of propolis against Bacillus anthracis[J]. Chines Journal of Vector Biology and Control, 2011, 22(3): 245-247.

参考文献

[1] KujumgievA,TsvetkovaI, SerkedjievaV, etal.Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin
[J]. J Ethmopharmacol,1999,64(3):235-240.

[2] Hegazi AG, Abdeihady FK,AbdallahFA.Chemicalcomposition and antimicrobial activity of European propolis
[J]. Z Naturforsch, 2000,55(1-2):70-75.

[3] 乔智胜,陈瑞华. 河南蜂胶抗菌活性成分的研究
[J]. 中国中药杂志,1991,16(8):481-482.

[4] Xu BH, Shi MZ, Ai YC, et al.Effectofpropolison Trichomonas vaginalis in vitro
[J]. 中国寄生虫病防治杂志,2005,18(2):116-119.

[5] 许兵红,史明珠. 蜂胶体外抗阴道毛滴虫实验
[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志,2006,24(6):477-478.

[6] 许兵红,曾莉萍,陈萍. 河南蜂胶对白色念珠菌的抑菌作用研究
[J]. 中国病原生物学杂志,2007,2(4):252-253,封底.

[7] 曾莉萍,杨献军,许兵红,等. 河南蜂胶对溶壁微球菌的抑菌作用研究
[J]. 中国血吸虫病防治杂志,2004,16(6):460-462.

[8] 曾莉萍,许兵红,牛杰,等. 蜂胶对金黄色葡萄球菌的抑菌作用
[J]. 现代预防医学,2007,34(13):2432-2434.

[9] 曾莉萍,许兵红,李进芬. 蜂胶对链球菌的抑菌实验
[J]. 现代预防医学,2007,34(16):3042-3043,3045.

[10] 曾莉萍,许兵红,李进芬. 蜂胶对白喉杆菌的抑菌实验
[J]. 中国病原生物学杂志,2008,3(7):490-491.

[11] Daugsch A,Moraes CS,Fort P,etal.Brazilianredpropolis-chemical composition and botanical origin
[J]. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med,2008,5(4):435-441.

[12] Ugur A,Barlas M,Ceyhan N,et al. Antimicrobial effects of propolis extracts on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus strains resistant to various antibiotics and some microorganisms
[J]. J Med Food,2000,3(4):173-180.

[13] Salomão K, Dantas AP, Borba CM, et al.Chemicalcomposition and microbicidal activity of extracts from Brazilian and Bulgarian propolis
[J]. Lett Appl Microbiol,2004,38(2):87-92.

[14] Salomão K,PereiraPR,CamposLC,etal.Brazilianpropolis: correlation between chemical composition and antimicrobial activity
[J]. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med,2008,5(3):317-324.

[15] UzelA, SorkunK, Onca?O, etal.Chemicalcompositionsand antimicrobial activities of four different Anatolian propolis samples
[J]. Microbiol Res, 2005,160(2):189-195.

[16] Silici S, Koc NA, Ayangil D, et al. Antifungal activities of propolis collected by different races of honeybees against yeasts isolated from patients with superficial mycoses
[J]. J Pharmacol Sci,2005, 99(1):39-44.

[17] Agüero MB, Gonzalez M, Lima B, et al. Argentinean propolis from Zuccagnia punctata Cav. (Caesalpinieae) exudates: phytochemical characterization and antifungal activity
[J]. J Agric Food Chem, 2010,58(1):194-201.

[18] Shimizu T, Hino A, Tsutsumi A, et al. Anti-influenza virus activity of propolis in vitro and its efficacy against influenza infection in mice
[J]. Antivir Chem Chemother,2008,19(1):7-13.

[19] PrytzykE,DantasAP,SalomãoK,etal.Flavonoids and trypanocidal activity of Bulgarian propolis
[J]. J Ethnopharmacol, 2003,88(2-3):189-193.

[20] Pontin K, Da Silva Filho AA, Santos FF, et al. In vitro and in vivo antileishmanial activities of a Brazilian green propolis extract
[J]. Parasitol Res,2008,103(3):487-492.

[21] FreitasSF,ShinoharaL,SforcinJM,etal.Invitroeffectsof propolis on Giardia duodenalis trophozoites
[J]. Phytomedicine, 2006,13(3):170-175.

[22] ElBassuonyA, AbouZidS. Anewprenylatedflavanoidwith antibacterial activity from propolis collected in Egypt
[J]. Nat Prod Commun,2010,5(1):43-45.

[23] Erkmen O, Ozcan MM. Antimicrobial effectsofTurkishpropolis, pollen, and laurel on spoilage and pathogenic food-related microorganisms
[J]. J Med Food,2008,11(3):587-592.