| Literature DB >> 27721354 |
Taira Yasufuku1, Makoto Anraku1, Yuko Kondo1, Toshiyuki Hata1, Junzo Hirose1, Nobuyuki Kobayashi2, Hisao Tomida3.
Abstract
The antioxidant properties of different low molecular weight (LMW) chitosans (CS1; 22 kDa, CS2; 38 kDa, CS3; 52 kDa, CS4; 81 kDa) were examined for possible use in extended-release tablets. The criteria used were the ability of the chitosans to reduce Cu2+, and hydroxyl and superoxide radicals and N-centered radicals derived from 1,1'-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl, via the use of ESR spectrometry. CS2 showed the highest scavenging activity. CS1 and CS3, however, were much less effective and CS4 was not a viable antioxidant. The results suggest that CS2 could be useful in combating the development of oxidative stress. A series of chitosan tablets were prepared using a spray drying method and evaluated as an extended-release matrix tablet using theophylline (TPH) as a model drug. The release of TPH from the different MW chitosan tablets increased with increasing MW of the chitosan used. CS2, CS3 and CS4 showed a reasonable release activity, but CS1 showed the shortest release activity. Moreover, the CS2-TPH tablet showed the highest scavenging activity of the three chitosan tablets (CS2-CS4) using 2,2'-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radicals. These results suggest that a CS2-TPH tablet could be potentially useful in an extended-release matrix tablet with a high antioxidant activity.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; chitosan; extend-release; matrix tablet; molecular weight; radicals
Year: 2010 PMID: 27721354 PMCID: PMC3986719 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics2020245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1The chemical structures of DPPH and DMPO.
Figure 2Relative effectiveness of different concentrations of the antioxidants in reducing DPPH radicals. The activities are shown relative to fully reduced DPPH (100%). The DPPH radical concentration was measured at 517 nm. CS1 (♦), CS2 (■), CS3 (▲), CS4 (●) and VC (×).
Scavenging of DPPH radicals by different LMW chitosans.
| Antioxidant | DPPH |
|---|---|
| IC50 (mg/mL) a | |
| CS1 | 6 |
| CS2 | 4.02 |
| CS3 | 7.54 |
| CS4 | >10 |
a Relative radical trapping ability was calculated using 0.5mM DPPH.
Figure 3Reducing power of different LMW chitosans in the TPAC test. CS1 (♦), CS2 (■), CS3 (▲), and CS4 (●).
Effect of LMW chitosans on the scavenging of different radical species, as assessed by ESR spectroscopy.
| Conc. | Scavenging percentage (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroxyl radical | Superoxide radical | ||||||||
| CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | ||
| 100 | 53.7 ± 3.5 | 65.1 ± 4.5* | 50.5 ± 3.8 | 49.5 ± 4.7 | 39.7 ± 4.8 | 48.2 ± 5.8* | 33.5 ± 5.4 | 30.8 ± 5.2 | |
| 200 | 80.7 ± 4.5 | 92.1 ± 4.6* | 78.1 ± 4.6 | 75.1 ± 3.1 | 65.1 ± 4.6 | 80.1 ± 5.6* | 56.1 ± 5.8 | 50.1 ± 5.6 | |
*P < 0.05, compared with other LMW chitosans.
Figure 4Comparison of ESR spectra of hydroxyl and superoxide radicals following treatment with different LMW chitosans at a concentration of 200 μg/mL.
Figure 5Release profiles of TPH from tablets containing various LMW chitosans in distilled water and antioxidant activity of chitosans TPH tablet. CS1 (♦), CS2 (■), CS3 (▲), and CS4 (●). * P < 0.05 compared to CS1 (♦).