Effect of Propolis Preparations on Transepithelial Electrical Potential, Resistance, and Ion Transport in In Vitro Study

Table 2

The comparison of transepithelial electrical resistance between RH solution, 1 ml ethanol extract of propolis in 100 ml of water, and propolis ointment.

Stimulation	(R Ω/cm^2) median value			U Mann Whitney test (p value)
	RH	Propolis ointment	1 ml EEP in 100 ml water	RH comparison with propolis ointment	RH comparison with 1 ml EEP in 100 ml water	Propolis ointment comparison with 1 ml EEP in 100 ml water
(stimulation RH1)	1119	1269	1018	0.064	0.211	0.004
(stimulation RH2)	1184	1273	966	0.055	0.082	< 0.001
(stimulation B, AB)	1049	1257	883	0.027	0.175	< 0.001
Wilcoxon test (p value)
	RH	Propolis ointment	1 ml EEP in 100 ml water
-	0.345	0.806	< 0.001
-	0.003	0.507	< 0.001
-	0.085	0.148	< 0.001

Abbreviations. (stimulation RH₁): the value of electrical resistance after the first stimulation by Ringer solution; (stimulation RH₂): the value of electrical resistance after the second stimulation by Ringer solution; (stimulation B, AB): the value of electrical resistance after stimulation by bumetanide and amiloride in bumetanide; - : the comparison of the value of the electrical resistance after first stimulation by Ringer solution with the value of electrical resistance second stimulation by Ringer solution; - : the comparison of the value of the electrical resistance after first stimulation by Ringer solution with the value of electrical resistance second stimulation by bumetanide and amiloride in bumetanide; -: the comparison of the value of the electrical resistance after first stimulation by Ringer solution with the value of electrical resistance second stimulation by bumetanide and amiloride in bumetanide.