Investigation into Propolis Components Responsible for Inducing Skin Allergy: Air Oxidation of Caffeic Acid and Its Esters Contribute to Hapten Formation.

Propolis is a resin-like material produced by bees from the buds of poplar and cone-bearing trees and is used in beehive construction. Propolis is a common additive in various biocosmetics and health-related products, despite the fact that it is a well-known cause of contact allergy. Caffeic acid and its esters have been the primary suspects behind the sensitization potency of propolis-induced contact allergy. However, the chemical structures of the protein adducts formed between these haptens and skin proteins during the process of skin sensitization remain unknown. In this study, the reactivity of three main contact allergens found in propolis, namely, caffeic acid (CA), caffeic acid 1,1-dimethylallyl ester (CAAE), and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), was investigated. These compounds were initially subjected to the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay to categorize the sensitization potency of CA, CAAE, and CAPE, but the data obtained was deemed too unreliable to confidently classify their skin sensitization potential based on this assay alone. To further investigate the chemistry involved in generating possible skin allergy-inducing protein adducts, model peptide reactions with CA, CAAE, and CAPE were conducted and analyzed via liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry. Reactions between CA, CAAE, and CAPE and a cysteine-containing peptide in the presence of oxygen, both in closed and open systems, were monitored at specific time points. These studies revealed the formation of two different adducts, one corresponding to thiol addition to the α,ß-unsaturated carbonyl region of the caffeic structure and the second corresponding to thiol addition to the catechol, after air oxidation to o-quinone. Observation of these peptide adducts classifies these compounds as prehaptens. Interestingly, no adduct formation was observed when the same reactions were performed under oxygen-free conditions, highlighting the importance of air oxidation processes in CA, CAAE, and CAPE adduct formation. Additionally, through NMR analysis, we found that thiol addition occurs at the C-2 position in the aromatic ring of the CA derivatives. Our results emphasize the importance of air oxidation in the sensitization potency of propolis and shed light on the chemical structures of the resultant haptens which could trigger allergic reactions in vivo.

Patch Testing with Propolis of Different Geographical Origins in a Baseline Series.

The chemical composition of propolis varies with geographical origin; however, it is not known whether this affects the frequency of contact allergy to propolis. In order to study the frequency of contact allergy to propolis of different geographical origins and concomitant reactions, 1,470 consecutive patients with dermatitis from Denmark, Lithuania and Spain were patch tested with propolis from China, Lithuania, North America and Sweden, and with a baseline series. Patch test reactions to any type of propolis ranged from 1.3% to 5.8%. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of positive reactions between the 4 types of propolis in the respective countries. Testing with a single commercially available type of propolis detects only approximately half of propolis-allergic patients. In patients allergic to propolis, concomitant reactions to Myroxylon pereirae resin, colophonium and Fragrance mix I were common, ranging from 12.5% to 50.0%.

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Beeswax, both white and yellow, has many uses, such as in lip balm. This material can cause contact allergy, although not many cases have been described. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with contact cheilitis, facial eczema or a suspicion of contact allergy to beeswax were patch tested with yellow and white beeswax and with propolis, in addition to the Swedish baseline series. Patients who reacted positively to beeswax were additionally tested with caffeic acid, and two derivatives thereof that are believed to be important haptens in propolis. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had positive reactions to beeswax. Fourteen of these patients had been tested with both yellow and white beeswax. Among those 14, eight had positive reactions to both types of wax, five only to yellow wax, and one only to white wax. Of the 10 wax-positive patients tested with caffeic acid derivatives, three reacted positively. Fourteen beeswax-positive patients also had positive reactions to propolis. CONCLUSION: Patch testing cheilitis patients is important, as contact allergy is common. Our suggestion is to patch test, apart from the baseline series and the patient's own products, also with beeswax and propolis. Many beeswax-allergic cheilitis patients would not have been diagnosed with a relevant contact allergy if only the Swedish baseline series had been used.