| Literature DB >> 30127807 |
Mahboobeh Raeiszadeh1,2, Abbas Pardakhty3, Fariba Sharififar1, Mehrnaz Mehrabani4, Hojjat Nejat-Mehrab-Kermani5, Mitra Mehrabani1.
Abstract
Traditionally, Myrtus communis (myrtle) has been used for treatment of several kinds of disorders. However, there are some factors, namely, low solubility and permeability, which restrict use of myrtle extract (ME) in medical applications. Regarding these limitations, the aim of the present study was to develop a new niosomal formulation to enhance ME stability and permeability. Briefly, several niosomal formulations were prepared by non-ionic surfactants and cholesterol with different molar ratios. Afterward, size, entrapment efficiency (EE%), release and stability of niosomal myrtle extract (nME) were investigated. The effect of ME and nME on viability of 3T3 cells was evaluated using MTT assay. Antibacterial activity of ME and nME was also assessed against Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, Micrococcus luteus, and Bacillus subtilis. Sizes of niosomes were 5.3 ± 0.3 to 15.9 ± 2.2 µm with 4.1 ± 0.3 to 26.9 ± 1.7 mV zeta potential. The EE% of niosomes was varied from 45.4% to 93.4%. An in-vitro release study on F5 formulation (Span60: Tween60: cholesterol (3:3:4 molar ratio)) revealed that about 36.9%, 38.5% and 26.7% of phytoconstituents were released within 12 h from acetate cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm, regenerated cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm, and cellophane dialysis sack, 12000 Da, respectively. F5 formulation significantly showed lower toxicity on cells. It had higher antibacterial activity that has been shown by lower MICs and higher zone of inhibition compared to ME. Overall, F5 formulation in the presence of 4% ME produced stable multi lamellar vesicles with optimal in-vitro release and EE%. This formulation also exhibited better antibacterial activity than ME.Entities:
Keywords: Encapsulation efficiency; Myrtle; Myrtus communis; Phytoniosome; Release; Stability
Year: 2018 PMID: 30127807 PMCID: PMC6094422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Organoleptic and physicochemical evaluation of myrtle leaves.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Color | Green |
| Odor | Aromatic |
| Taste | Bitter and intensive |
| Shape | Lanceolate |
| Total ash | 4.53±0.18 % |
| Water soluble ash | 4.32±0.21 % |
| Acid insoluble ash | 0.18±0.01 % |
| Loss on drying | 5.54±0.23 % |
| Extractive value | 31.78±1.05 %w/w |
| Essential oil value | 0.94±0.01 %v/w |
Phytochemical analysis of myrtle ethanolic extract.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Alkaloids | Dragendroffs and mayer reagent | - |
| Tannin | Ferric chloride test solution | + |
| Flavonoid | Lead acetate and dilute ammonia test | + |
| Saponin | Froth test | - |
| Anthraquinone | Borntragers test | - |
| Cardiac glycoside | Keller killianis test | - |
| Steroid | Liebermannburchard test | - |
| Terpenoid | Salkowskis test | + |
Effect of surfactants and cholesterol on size, zeta potential and EE% of phytoniosomes.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| F1 | 3.5 | 3.5 | ˗ | ˗ | 3 | 6.19±0.43 | 26.39±1.08 | 45.4±3.8 |
| F2 | 3 | 3 | ˗ | ˗ | 4 | 5.59±0.37 | 26.95±1.76 | 67.4±4.3 |
| F3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | ˗ | ˗ | 5 | 15.87±2.27 | 4.15±0.33 | 60.1±4.1 |
| F4 | ˗ | ˗ | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3 | 5.28±0.31 | 25.33±1.40 | 90.8±4.6 |
| F5 | ˗ | ˗ | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7.29±0.47 | 25.66±2.19 | 91.5±5.3 |
| F6 | ˗ | ˗ | 2.5 | 2.5 | 5 | 8.60±0.60 | 24.52±1.98 | 93.4±3.3 |
EE% entrapment efficiency percent.
Figure 1Photomicrographs of F5 formulation (S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)) (A) optical microscope, (B) scanning electron microscope (SEM). Vesicles are spherical in shape and exist in disperse and aggregate collections. Seen under (A) 400× and (B) 20000× magnification
Effect of storage on change in constituent separation, size and EE% of phytoniosomes at different time intervals after preparation.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| F1 | I | N | N | N | 6.04±0.43 | 6.36±0.58 | 7.60±0.81 | 46.9±2.4 | 57.0±2.1 | 58.4±3.3 |
| II | P | P | P | 5.79±0.25 | 6.58±0.79 | 24.52±5.14 | 54.2±2.7 | 59.7±3.2 | 62.0±3.7 | |
| III | P | P | P | 6.40±0.30 | 12.11±1.35 | 13.68±3.21 | 49.0±3.5 | 60.9±2.2 | 62.3±3.1 | |
| F2 | I | N | N | N | 6.67±0.55 | 6.94±0.46 | 8.09±1.17 | 65.7±2.6 | 76.5±4.2 | 74.7±3.7 |
| II | N | P | P | 6.20±0.30 | 6.57±0.74 | 8.02±1.08 | 67.4±2.1 | 71.9±3.9 | 76.1±1.0 | |
| III | P | P | P | 6.67±0.56 | 8.43±0.98 | 69.92±9.94 | 67.3±3.1 | 79.7±4.1 | 82.6±4.3 | |
| F4 | I | N | N | N | 7.19±0.86 | 7.97±1.72 | 8.00±0.79 | 74.8±2.2 | 80.4±2.0 | 86.1±3.4 |
| II | N | P | P | 6.98±0.52 | 7.94±0.57 | 8.64±1.12 | 87.7±3.1 | 88.5±2.9 | 83.8±4.4 | |
| III | P | P | P | 8.48±1.48 | 9.79±2.04 | 34.39±12.96 | 65.5±2.9 | 66.8±2.3 | 76.1±4.9 | |
| F5 | I | N | N | N | 7.23±0.24 | 7.59±0.56 | 7.77±0.46 | 92.2±3.4 | 95.0±2.3 | 95.8±4.4 |
| II | N | P | P | 7.20±0.46 | 7.68±0.36 | 8.89±0.71 | 88.7±3.7 | 91.2±2.9 | 92.3±2.7 | |
| III | N | P | P | 7.62±0.25 | 8.72±0.64 | 9.85±0.98 | 87.7±2.5 | 87.9±3.5 | 91.1±3.4 | |
| F6 | I | N | N | N | 8.96±2.46 | 8.50±0.62 | 9.77±1.69 | 95.1±3.2 | 97.6±3.1 | 97.8±4.2 |
| II | N | P | P | 7.98±0.96 | 8.90±1.24 | 9.66±1.09 | 94.4±4.2 | 92.6±5.3 | 93.4±4.7 | |
| III | P | P | P | 7.50±0.62 | 9.80±1.48 | 13.67±2.88 | 93.5±3.1 | 93.9±3.8 | 97.1±4.2 | |
EE% entrapment efficiency percent.
F1; S40: T40: Chol (3.5:3.5:3 molar ratio)
F2; S40: T40: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)
F4; S60: T60: Chol (3.5:3.5:3 molar ratio)
F5; S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)
F6; S60: T60: Chol (2.5:2.5:5 molar ratio)
I; 4 °C, II; 25 °C , 30% RH, III; 40 °C, 70% RH
N; normal, P; precipitate
Figure 2The size distribution changes of F5 formulation (S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)) during storage at 4 °C as an indicator of physical stability
Figure 3Release profile of ME and F5 formulation (S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)) from acetate cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm (A), regenerated cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm (B) and cellophane membrane 12000 D (C) in ethanol 50% at 37 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).
Release properties of ME and F5 formulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME | Acetate cellulose 0.45 µm | 70.4 | Peppas equation | 1 |
| Regenerated cellulose 0.45 µm | 31.0 | Peppas equation | 0.828 | |
| Cellophane 12000 D | 74.6 | Zero order equation | 0.997 | |
| F5 | Acetate cellulose 0.45 µm | 36.9 | Peppas equation | 0.909 |
| Regenerated cellulose 0.45 µm | 38.5 | Peppas equation | 0.942 | |
| Cellophane 12000 D | 26.7 | Higuchi equation | 0.97 |
ME; myrtle extract
F5; S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)
Figure 4Physical stability of F5 formulation (S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)) during release process from acetate cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm (A), regenerated cellulose membrane, 0.45 µm (B) and cellophane membrane 12000 D (C) in ethanol 50% at 37 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).
Figure 5Cytotoxic effects of ME (myrtle extract) and F5 formulation (S60: T60: Chol 3:3:4) on 3T3 cells following 24 h incubation (n = 3; mean ± SD).
Diameter of zone of inhibition and MIC against bacteria by ME and F5 formulation
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.125 | 1 | 4 | 0.125 | 4 | |
|
| 0.125 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.125 | 4 | |
|
|
| |||||
|
| 8 | 29.1±1.2 | 18.7±0.8 | 13.3±0.9 | 24.5±1.0 | 13.1±0.8 |
| 4 | 23.6±0.9 | 14.8±0.9 | 12.3±0.7 | 20.1±0.9 | 10.9±0.4 | |
| 2 | 19.2±0.5 | 11.3±1.1 | NA | 17.5±0.5 | NA | |
| 1 | 18.2±0.7 | 10.5±0.9 | NA | 13.3±0.9 | NA | |
| 0.5 | 14.9±1.2 | 9.7±0.6 | NA | 12.9±0.5 | NA | |
|
| 8 | 35.1±1.5 | 25.4±1.4 | 17.8±0.8 | 30.5±1.3 | 12.4±0.9 |
| 4 | 28.2±1.1 | 18.6±0.4 | 16.1±1.0 | 22.4±0.9 | 10.1±0.6 | |
| 2 | 22.6±0.9 | 16.0±0.6 | 13.5±0.7 | 17.2±1.1 | NA | |
| 1 | 16.3±0.5 | 13.5±0.5 | NA | 13.4±0.7 | NA | |
| 0.5 | 14.5±0.8 | 11.7±0.6 | NA | 12.6±0.5 | NA | |
|
| - | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
| 0.01 | 30.5 ± 0.4 | 25.1 ± 0.3 | 30.1 ± 0.4 | 34.4 ± 0.8 | 38.3 ± 0.6 |
|
| 0.005 | 22.2 ± 0.5 | 36.1 ± 0.2 | 26.4 ± 0.7 | 25.3 ± 0.6 | 20.2 ± 0.3 |
ME; myrtle extract
F5; S60: T60: Chol (3:3:4 molar ratio)
NA; no activity
; P < 0.001 compared to ME
; P < 0.01 compared to ME
; P < 0.05 compared to ME