In vivo activity assessment of a “honey-bee pollen mix” formulation

Figures & data

Table 1.  Effect of honey-bee pollen mix and honey against p-benzoquinone-induced writhings in mice.

Test samples	Dose per os (mg/kg)	Number of writhings ± SEM	Inhibitory ratio (%)	Ratio of ulceration
Control		45.7 ± 3.9		0/6
Honey	250	43.3 ± 2.7	5.3	0/6
	500	36.3 ± 2.7	20.6	0/6
Honey-bee pollen mix	250	39.8 ± 2	12.9	0/6
	500	27.5 ± 1.8*	39.8	0/6
ASA	100	22.8 ± 2.1**	50.1	4/6
	200	20.4 ± 1.9**	55.4	5/6

*p <0.01; **p <0.001 significant from the control value.

Table 2.  Effects of honey-bee pollen mix and honey against carrageenan-induced paw edema in mice.

Test samples	Dose per os (mg/kg)	Swelling thickness (x10^−2 mm) ± SEM (inhibition %)
		90 min	180 min	270 min	360 min
Control		46.2 ± 5.5	54.2 ± 5.1	58.5 ± 4.7	63.2 ± 4.5
Honey	250	47.4 ± 3.2	58.6 ± 3.2	61.8 ± 4	67.9 ± 3.9
	500	41.5 ± 4 (10.7)	44.5 ± 3.5 (17.9)	46.5 ± 4.4 (20.5)	49.3 ± 5.5 (21.9)
Honey-bee pollen mix	250	40.2 ± 3.1 (12.9)	45.4 ± 3.7 (16.2)	49.9 ± 4.2 (14.7)	48.2 ± 4.6 (23.7)
	500	37.8 ± 4.8 (18.2)	39 ± 3.9 (28)*	40.3 ± 3.6 (31.1)**	43 ± 3.3 (31.9)**
Indomethacin	10	34.5 ± 2.2 (25.3)	33.8 ± 2.8 (37.6)**	34.5 ± 2.9 (41)***	37.8 ± 2.7 (40.2)***

*p <0.05; **p <0.01; ***p <0.001 significant from the control value.

Table 3.  Effects of acute and subacute administration of the honey-bee pollen mix and honey against gastric lesions induced by EtOH in rats.

Test samples	Dose per os (mg/kg)	Ulcer index (mean ± SEM)	Prevention from ulcer^a	Inhibition (%)
Acute administration
Control		91.5 ± 13.8
Honey	250	69.3 ± 17.7	0/6	24.3
Honey-bee pollen mix	250	113.9 ± 37.6	0/6
Misoprostol	0.4	0 ± 0*	6/6	100.0
Subacute administration
Control		101.1 ± 31.8
Honey	500	60.2 ± 19.3	0/6	40.5
Honey-bee pollen mix	500	32.8 ± 12.7	0/6	67.6
Misoprostol	0.4	0 ± 0**	6/6	100

*p <0.05; **p <0.01 significant from control; SEM, mean standard of error.

^aNumber of stomachs completely prevented from any bleeding or lesion.

Table 4.  Effect of honey-bee pollen mix and honey on TBARS and GSH levels against acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity.

Test samples	Dose per os (mg/kg)	Tissue TBARS (nmol/g wet wt)	% change^c	Tissue GSH (mol/g)	% change^c
Control (vehicle)		312 ± 28.2		64.9 ± 4.9
Acetaminophen^a	600	422.5 ± 37.6*	+35.4	54.9 ± 3.5*	−15.5
Honey^b	500	319.8 ± 25.3*	−24.3	33.2 ± 2*	−39.5
Honey-bee pollen mix ^b	250	354.8 ± 32.2*	−16	43.3 ± 3.7*	−21.1
	500	276.7 ± 16.6*	−34.5	34.7 ± 1.9*	−36.8

Results were expressed as mean ± SEM.

^aCompared to vehicle control (0.5% CMC).

^bCompared to acetaminophen.

^c(+) represents percentage of increase and (-) represents decrease in each value when compared to either vehicle (for acetaminophen) or acetaminophen (for test samples).

*p <0.001 significant from control (for acetaminophen) or acetaminophen (for test samples).

Table 5.  Total phenolic and flavonoid contents of honey-bee pollen mix and honey.

Test samples	Total phenolic content (mg GAE/100 g honey ± SEM)	Total flavonoid content (mg QE/ 100 g honey ± SEM)
Honey	50.3 ± 0.9	17.7 ± 0.3
Honey-bee pollen mix	145 ± 2.3	59.3 ± 2.7

GAE, gallic acid equivalent; QE, quercetin equivalent; SEM, mean standard error; n = 3.