## 3 Results
### Antimicrobial Activity  
Figure 2 shows the antimicrobial activity of the six propolisis extracts obtained by ultrasound and maceration against four pathogenic strains. It should be mentioned that the antimicrobial activity was evaluated in the extracts before and at the end of in vitro digestion. However, no treatment at the end of the simulated in vitro digestion showed inhibitory activity. On the other hand, the higher the concentration of extract, the greater the halos of inhibition. The inhibitory activity is a function of the components of the extract, the place of origin of the propolisis and in some cases of the extraction method. The SP U \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Phase**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**AbSTS (mg GAE/100 g)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **T U** & **T M** & **SP U** & **SP M** & **SJ U** & **SJ M** \\ \hline Ext & 8333.2 \(\pm\) 355.72 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 10.793.8 \(\pm\) 333.7 \({}^{\rm\AB}\) & 14,647.7 \(\pm\) 578.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 16,530.2 \(\pm\) 867.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 13,180.3 \(\pm\) 933.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 13,002.4 \(\pm\) 533.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**GP** & 1133.4 \(\pm\) 294.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1152.0 \(\pm\) 462.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1126.0 \(\pm\) 169.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1100.1 \(\pm\) 222.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1100.1 \(\pm\) 111.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1092.7 \(\pm\) 128.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**IP** & 3977.3 \(\pm\) 607.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3797.7 \(\pm\) 876.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3092.4 \(\pm\) 3100.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 2827.4 \(\pm\) 2964.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 2899.3 \(\pm\) 2358.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3856.0 \(\pm\) 876.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**IPB** & 3821.0 \(\pm\) 2156 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3812.0 \(\pm\) 473.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3996.2 \(\pm\) 134.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3663.8 \(\pm\) 77.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 4054.6 \(\pm\) 473.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 4157.9 \(\pm\) 1078.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ \hline  & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{**DPPH antioxidant activity (GAE/100 g)**} \\ \hline Ext & 20,706.4 \(\pm\) 648.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 18,883.8 \(\pm\) 1223.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 19,351.5 \(\pm\) 299.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 13,368.3 \(\pm\) 843.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 17,013.3 \(\pm\) 83.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 16,773.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**GP** & 35,817.7 \(\pm\) 1438.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 39,534.8 \(\pm\) 2651.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 29,342.9 \(\pm\) 1438.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 38,455.6 \(\pm\) 1774.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 36,777.0 \(\pm\) 1361.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 32,580.3 \(\pm\) 1648.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**IP** & 1471.9 \(\pm\) 436.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 3383.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1203.4 \(\pm\) 872.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1494.0 \(\pm\) 251.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 2366.1 \(\pm\) 907.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 2656.7 \(\pm\) 666.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\
**IPB** & 1813.8 \(\pm\) 1572.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 360.4 \(\pm\) 251.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 796.4 \(\pm\) 666.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1232.4 \(\pm\) 251.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 2685.8 \(\pm\) 1744.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 1184.2 \(\pm\) 755.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ \hline  & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{Different lowercase letters in the columns represent a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) with a comparison of means using [PERSON]’s test. Different capital letters in the rows represent a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) with a comparison of means using [PERSON]’s test. Ext = Extract, GP = Gastric Phase, IP = Intestinal Phase, IPB = Intestinal Phase after Boiling, T U = Teottilán de Flores Magón, Ultrasound; TM = Teottilán de Flores Magón, Maceration; SP U = San Pedro Ocopetatillo, Ultrasound; SP M = San Pedro Ocopetatillo, Maceration; SCJ U = San Jerónimo Tecoatl, Ultrasound; SJ U = San Jerónimo Tecoatl, Maceration.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Antioxidant activity of propolisis extracts and their behavior during in vitro digestion.