| Literature DB >> 27854256 |
Marta Faggian1, Stefania Sut2, Beatrice Perissutti3, Valeria Baldan4, Iztok Grabnar5, Stefano Dall'Acqua6.
Abstract
There is a need for innovation in plant-derived pharmaceuticals, food supplements and nutraceutical products regarding the use of more eco-sustainable solvents for their extraction. Furthermore, the poor oral bioavailability of several phytochemicals with health promoting effects stimulates the research in the field of pharmaceutical formulations. Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents (NADES) are formed by natural compounds, and can be considered as future solvents being especially useful for the preparation of nutraceuticals and food-grade extracts. In this paper various NADES were prepared using sugars, aminoacids and organic acids. Rutin (quercetin-3-O-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl-(1→6))-β-d-glucopyranose) was used as a model compound to study NADES. Moreover, the effect of various eutectic mixtures on rutin's water solubility was studied. Proline/glutamic acid (2:1) and proline/choline chloride (1:1) mixtures have a solubility comparable to ethanol. The proline/glutamic acid (2:1) eutectic containing rutin was used in a pharmacokinetic study in Balb/c mice while bioavailability was compared to oral dosing of water suspension. Plasmatic levels of rutin were measured by HPLC-MS/MS showing increased levels and longer period of rutin permanence in plasma of NADES treated animals. This paper reports the possible use of non-toxic NADES for pharmaceutical and nutraceutical preparations.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-MS; NADES; pharmacokinetics; rutin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27854256 PMCID: PMC6272970 DOI: 10.3390/molecules21111531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Solubility of rutin (mean ± SD of 3 determinations) in each solvent. The solubility in all solvents were significantly different from solubility in water (p-values < 0.05).
| Solvent Class | Mixture Number | Solvent | Rutin Solubility at 22 °C (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference solvent | Water | 120.0 ± 4.9 | |
| Ethanol | 2369.7 ± 93.2 | ||
| Methanol | 2053.7 ± 89.7 | ||
| Urea based | 1 | Urea–Glucose–Citric Acid 1:1:1 | 378.7 ± 8.5 |
| 2 | Urea–Glucose–Fructose 1:1:1 | 961.3 ± 30.6 | |
| 3 | Urea–Tartaric Acid 1:1 | 679.8 ± 19.0 | |
| 4 | Urea–Choline chloride 1:1 | 1883.3 ± 48.1 | |
| Sugar based | 5 | Glucose–Fructose–Water 1:1:1 | 81.9 ± 2.5 |
| 6 | Glucose–Fructose–Sorbitol 1:1:1 | 90.8 ± 1.9 | |
| Sugar and organic acid based | 7 | Citric Acid–Fructose 1:1 | 205.1 ± 5.1 |
| 8 | Tartaric Acid–Fructose 1:1 | 504 ± 16.4 | |
| 9 | Glucose–Citric Acid–Water 1:1:1 | 175.2 ± 3.7 | |
| Organic acid and amino acids based | 10 | Proline–Glutamic Acid 1:1 | 2255.9 ± 63.4 |
| 11 | Proline–Glutamic Acid 2:1 | 2938.4 ± 117.9 | |
| 12 | Proline–Oxalic Acid 1:1 | 749.3 ± 22.5 | |
| 13 | Proline–Tartaric Acid 1.1 | 546.9 ± 19,9 | |
| 14 | Ornitine–Tartaric Acid 1:1 | 209.7 ± 5.7 | |
| 15 | Arginine–Tartaric Acid 1:1 | 362.7 ± 11.2 | |
| 16 | Citrulline–Tartaric Acid 1.1 | 370.4 ± 13.1 | |
| 17 | Arginine–Oxalic Acid 1:1 | 414.3 ± 13.6 | |
| 18 | Proline–Malic Acid 1:1 | 900.3 ± 31.1 | |
| 19 | Arginin–Malic Acid 1:1 | 457.4 ± 17.8 | |
| 20 | Ornitine–Malic Acid 1:1 | 408.0 ± 14.8 | |
| 21 | Citrulline–Malic Acid 1:1 | 454.5 ± 18.5 | |
| 22 | Proline–Citric Acid 1:1 | 672.5 ± 26.2 | |
| 23 | Arginine–Citric Acid 1:1 | 414.3 ± 13.3 | |
| 24 | Ornitine–Citric Acid1:1 | 424.7 ± 17.2 | |
| 25 | Citrulline–Citric Acid 1:1 | 459.7 ± 14.4 | |
| 26 | Proline–Glucose1:1 | 878.7 ± 31.3 | |
| 27 | Proline–Fructose 1:1 | 1563.9 ± 43.8 | |
| Choline chloride based | 28 | Proline–Choline Chloride 1:2 | 2642.8 ± 101.3 |
| 29 | Proline–Choline Chloride 1:3 | 2799.2 ± 103.3 | |
| 30 | Choline Chloride–Malic Acid 1:1 | 702.0 ± 22.3 |
Figure 1Solubility ratio of rutin (solvent/water) in each prepared NADES. The solubility in all solvents were significantly different from solubility in water (p-values < 0.05).
Figure 2HPLC-MS/MS chromatograms corresponding to transitions 609 > 301 for rutin and 481 > 124 for ISTD (silimarin) of blank plasma (traces red and green for rutin and ISTD respectively) and plasma spiked with rutin and ISTD (traces yellow and blue for rutin and ISTD respectively).
Intra-day and inter-day precision and accuracy at different concentrations.
| Nominal Concentration (ng/mL) | Measured (ng/mL) | RSD (%) * | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intra day ( | 10 | 10.76 ± 0.30 | 3.2 | 107.5 |
| 20 | 19.64 ± 0.79 | 4.9 | 98.2 | |
| 40 | 38.87 ± 1.10 | 2.8 | 97.1 | |
| 80 | 80.46 ± 1.88 | 2.4 | 100.5 | |
| Inter day ( | 10 | 10.22 ± 0.40 | 3.9 | 102.2 |
| 20 | 19.44 ± 0.61 | 3.2 | 97.2 | |
| 40 | 39.11 ± 1.86 | 4.7 | 97.8 | |
| 80 | 78.79 ± 1.80 | 2.9 | 98.4 |
* Relative Standard Deviation.
Figure 3Time course (mean ± SD) of plasma concentration time course of rutin in Balb/c mice following oral administration of 10 mg as proline/glutamic NADES or suspension in water.
Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters of rutin following oral administration in Balb/c mice (dose 10 mg).
| Pharmakokinetic Parameter | Suspension | NADES |
|---|---|---|
| tmax | 15 | 60 |
| Cmax (ng/mL) | 28.6 | 58.3 |
| t1/2 λz (min) | 106 | 86 |
| AUClast (ng min/mL) | 2225 | 4862 |
| AUC (ng min/mL) | 2888 | 5806 |
| AUC (%Extrapolated) | 23 | 16 |
| MRT (min) | 158 | 131 |