Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25530958›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2014

A comparison between characterization and biological properties of Brazilian fresh and aged propolis.

Eduardo Morgado Schmidt, Daniele Stock, Fabio José Garcia Chada, Daiane Finger, Alexandra Christine Helena Frankland Sawaya, Marcos Nogueira Eberlin, Maria Lurdes Felsner, Sueli Pércio Quináia, Marta Chagas Monteiro, Yohandra Reyes Torres

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Antibacterial Properties of Propolis.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eduardo Morgado SchmidtUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil ; Laboratório Thomson de Espectrometria de Massas, Departamento de Química Analítica, Instituto de Química, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Daniele StockUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil.
Fabio José Garcia ChadaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Farmacêuticas, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA), Avenida Augusto Correa No. 1, 66075-110 Belém, PA, Brazil.
Daiane FingerUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil.
Alexandra Christine Helena Frankland SawayaDepartamento de Fisiologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Marcos Nogueira EberlinLaboratório Thomson de Espectrometria de Massas, Departamento de Química Analítica, Instituto de Química, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Maria Lurdes FelsnerUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil.
Sueli Pércio QuináiaUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil.
Marta Chagas MonteiroPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Farmacêuticas, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA), Avenida Augusto Correa No. 1, 66075-110 Belém, PA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3328-5650
Yohandra Reyes TorresUniversidade Estadual do Centro Oeste (UNICENTRO), CEDETEG, Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sá, 03 Vila Carli, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Federal do Pará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs propolis is a highly valued bee product, we aimed to verify the quality of aged propolis, investigating their phenolic and flavonoid composition, levels of toxic metals, radical scavenging and antimicrobial activities. MATERIAL AND

methodsSamples of fresh and aged propolis of six different beekeepers, from the same geographical location, were investigated in terms of their phenolic and flavonoid composition and levels of Pb, Cd, and Cr, as well as radical scavenging and antimicrobial activities.

resultsThe two groups of propolis had similar qualitative composition by HPLC-PDA and ESI(-)-MS. Fresh propolis and aged propolis show no differences when average values of extraction yield, flavonoids, EC50, or MIC were compared and both types of propolis showed good antimicrobial activity at low concentrations. Only levels of phenolic compounds were higher in fresh propolis.

conclusionThe propolis samples considered in this study, aged or fresh, had similar qualitative composition, although they were collected in different periods. Samples only differed in their levels of total phenolic content. Moreover, aged propolis conserves significant radical scavenging and antimicrobial properties. We suggest that aged propolis should not be discarded but explored for alternative applications.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaBeesBrazilFlavonoidsFree Radical ScavengersPhenolsPropolisAnti-Infective AgentsFlavonoidsFree Radical ScavengersPhenolsPropolis

Identifiers

PMID25530958
PMCPMC4235190
OpenAlexW2090196662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.