| Literature DB >> 28687053 |
Manmohan S Jangdey1, Anshita Gupta1, Swarnlata Saraf1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop a potential novel formulation of carbopol-based nanoemulsion gel containing apigenin using tamarind gum emulsifier which was having the smallest droplet size, the highest drug content, and a good physical stability for Skin delivery. Apigenin loaded nanoemulsion was prepared by high speed homogenization method and they were characterized with respect to morphology, zeta potential, differential scanning calorimeter study, and penetration studies. In-vitro release studies and skin permeation of apigenin loaded nanoemulsion by goat abdominal skin was determined using Franz diffusion cell and confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). The cytotoxicity of the reported formulation was evaluated in HaCaT Cells (A) and A431 cells (B) by MTT assay. The nanoemulsion formulation showed droplet size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential of 183.31 nm, 0.532, and 31.9 mV, respectively. The nanoemulsions were characterized by TEM demonstrated spherical droplets and FTIR to ensure the compatibility among its ingredients. CLSM showed uniform fluorescence intensity across the entire depth of skin in nanocarriers treatment, indicating high penetrability of nanoemulsion gel through goatskin. The nanoemulsion gel showed toxicity on melanoma (A341) in a concentration range of 0.4-2.0 mg/ml, but less toxicity toward HaCaT cells. The carbopol-based nanoemulsion gel formulation of apigenin possesses better penetrability across goatskin as compared to marketed formulation. Hence, the study postulates that the novel nanoemulsion gel of apigenin can be proved fruitful for the treatment of skin cancer in near future.Entities:
Keywords: CLSM; Carbopol; apigenin; nanoemulsion; skin cancer; stability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28687053 PMCID: PMC8241183 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2017.1344333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.419
(A) Solubility of apigenin in different solvents; (B) phytochemical examination of tamarind gum; (C) zeta potential of formulations; (D) viscosity of formulations at different rpm.
| Component | Solubility (mg/ml) | |||||
| Olive oil | 4.45 ± 1.12 | |||||
| Soya oil | 10.63 ± 0.23 | |||||
| Castor oil | 32.24 ± 0.86 | |||||
| Rice bran oil | 6.52 ± 0.28 | |||||
| Ground nut oil | 5.23 ± 0.04 | |||||
| PBS | 16.23 ± 0.97 | |||||
| Methanol | 24.45 ± 1.12 | |||||
| Ethanol | 30.13 ± 0.65 | |||||
| Water | 1.97 ± 0.21 | |||||
| S. No. | Tests | Observation | ||||
| 1 | Test for Carbohydrates (Molisch’s test) | +ve | ||||
| 2 | Test for Tannins(Ferric chloride test) | −ve | ||||
| 3 | Test for proteins (Ninhydrin test) | −ve | ||||
| 4 | Test for alkaloids (Wagner’s test) | −ve | ||||
| 5 | Test for glycosides | −ve | ||||
| 6 | Test for mucilage (Ruthenium red test | +ve | ||||
| 7 | Test for flavonoids (Shinoda test) | −ve | ||||
| 8 | Test for reducing sugar (Fehling’s test) | +ve | ||||
| 10 | Mounting in the iodine (test for starch) | −ve | ||||
| 14 | Test for chlorides (silver nitrate test) | −ve | ||||
| 15 | Test for sulfates (barium chloride test) | −ve | ||||
| Formulations | Zeta potential (mV) | |||||
| Pure drug suspension | −26.2 mV | |||||
| Nanoemulsion gel | −31.9 mV | |||||
| Marketed product | −33.2 mV | |||||
| Nanoemulsion | −30.7 mV | |||||
| Viscosity (cps) | ||||||
| S. No. | RPM | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |
| 1 | 10 | 180.23 | 180.00 | 180.12 | 180.10 | |
| 2 | 20 | 90.17 | 89.02 | 89.52 | 90.23 | |
| 3 | 30 | 62.04 | 61.00 | 60.23 | 62.42 | |
| 4 | 50 | 31.23 | 30.33 | 30.21 | 30.42 | |
| 5 | 100 | 22.61 | 19.22 | 19.15 | 19.21 | |
Here, F1: Pure drug suspension, F2: Nanoemulsion, F3: Marketed product, F4: Nanoemulsion gel.
Figure 1.(A) Transmission electron microscope images of apigenin based nanoemulsion; (B) FTIR spectra of (a) apigenin, (b) tamarind gum, and (c) compatibility studies of drug with tamarind gum; (C) X-ray diffractogram of (a) apigenin, (b) tamarind gum, (c) physical mixture, and (d) nanoemulsion gel; (D) (a) mean particle size and polydispersity index of selected batch formulation; (b) zeta potential of the formulation of the selected batch.
Figure 2.(A) DSC Thermogram of (a) apigenin, (b) drug loaded formulation, and (c) marketed product; (B) In-vitro drug release profile of apigenin-loaded nanoemulsion gel and marketed and pure drug suspension in skin pH 5.5; (C) percentage drug retention of different formulation in goatskin after 24 (h).
(A) In-vitro drug release profile of apigenin-loaded nanoemulsion gel and marketed and pure drug suspension in skin Ph 5.5. (B) Release behavior of Apigenin from Nanoemulsion Gel formulations; (C) Permeation and % drug retention data for apigenin loaded nanoemulsion gel, marketed and pure drug suspension across abdominal goatskin.
| % Cumulative drug release from different formulations | |||||||||
| S. No. | Time interval | Pure drug suspension | Nanoemulsion gel | Marketed product | | | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 2 | 2 | 12.90 ± 0.56 | 8.42 ± 2.35 | 9.35 ± 1.08 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 24.67 ± 1.98 | 18.03 ± 0.65 | 19.02 ± 0.54 | |||||
| 4 | 6 | 42.43 ± 2.04 | 30.75 ± 2.87 | 32.12 ± 0.24 | |||||
| 5 | 12 | 56.78 ± 1.34 | 40.25 ± 1.43 | 49.58 ± 2.12 | |||||
| 6 | 24 | 83.24 ± 0.65 | 52.90 ± 0.95 | 65.24 ± 1.54 | |||||
| Formulation | First order | Higuchi | Ritger–Peppas | ||||||
| Nanoemulsion gel | |||||||||
| 0.072 | .939 | 0.304 | .986 | 0.642 | .955 | ||||
| Marketed product | 0.58 | .98 | 0.68 | 1.02 | 0.84 | 1.05 | |||
| Pure drug suspension | 0.67 | .99 | 0.74 | 1.28 | 0.96 | 1.24 | |||
| Formulation | Jss (μg/ch−2/h) | LT (h) | Dd (Ch2/h) | % drug retention after 24 h | | ||||
| Pure drug suspension | 5.43 ± 1.02 | 0.249 ± 1.42 | 2.4 | 6.5 | 0.55 ± 0.23 | ||||
| Nanoemulsion gel | 6.68 ± 0.46 | 0.235 ± 1.56 | 1.8 | 8.6 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | ||||
| Marketed product | 5.60 ± 0.63 | 0.224 ± 1.59 | 2.0 | 7.0 | 0.51 ± 0.30 | ||||
Where, K: Release rate constant; R2: coefficient of determination and n: release exponent.
Where, Jss: transdermal flux, P: permeability coefficient, LT: lag time, Dd: diffusion coefficient
Figure 3.(A) The confocal image showing the depth of skin penetration of Rhodamine red (florescence marker) from nanoemulsion into the goatskin after 24 h. (B) CLSM Photomicrograph of goatskin after 24 h application florescence probe Rhodamine red shows the deposition florescence probe into the skin when applied in the form of marketed product. (C,D) The results of MTT assay on HaCaT Cells (C) and A431 cells (D).
(A,B) Effect of apigenin, unloaded and apigenin-loaded nanoemulsion gel on cellular viability (as % of control) of MTT assay on HaCaT Cells (A) and A431 cells (B).; (C) Stability studies of the formulations at different days and temp conditions.
| Cellular viability (% of control) | |||||
| Apigenin concentration (μg/ml) | Apigenin | Marketed product | Drug loaded nanoemulsion gel | | |
| 50 | 102.34 ± 5.62 | 106.74 ± 5.18 | 96.43 ± 7.64 | ||
| 100 | 82.24 ± 8.55 | 118.43 ± 8.40 | 112.16 ± 8.27 | ||
| 200 | 74.56 ± 12.62 | 92.21 ± 15.45 | 116.37 ± 8.35 | ||
| 400 | 65.52 ± 4.32 | 62.55 ± 23.48 | 33.32 ± 10.73 | ||
| Cellular viability (% of control) | |||||
| Apigenin concentration (μg/ml) | Apigenin | Marketed product | Drug loaded nanoemulsion gel | | |
| 50 | 105.54 ± 6.03 | 109.66 ± 5.16 | 101.21 ± 6.65 | ||
| 100 | 85.11 ± 9.42 | 123.73 ± 8.4 | 117.49 ± 5.24 | ||
| 200 | 78.52 ± 14.87 | 96.87 ± 12.46 | 125.62 ± 6.33 | ||
| 400 | 70.32 ± 7.54 | 66.35 ± 20.32 | 36.97 ± 09.56 | ||
| Storage condition | % Creaming | Droplet size(nm) | Drug content (%) | Viscosity (cps) | ZP (−mV) |
| Day 0 | 100 | 138.31 ± 0.32 | 98.23% | 62.42 | −31.9 |
| Days 30 at 4 °C | 100 | 138.20 ± 0.11 | 98.14% | 62.40 | −31.8 |
| Days 30 at 25 °C | 99.21 | 138.17 ± 0.15 | 98.16% | 62. 36 | −31.02 |
| Days 90 at 4 °C | 99.30 | 138.42 ± 0.62 | 97.61% | 62.54 | −32.24 |
| Days 90 at, 25 °C ambient temperature | 99.98 | 138.95 ± 0.73 | 98.05% | 62.08 | −30.56 |
Results are represented by means ± SD (n = 6).
Results are represented by means ± SD (n = 6).