| Literature DB >> 31248192 |
Dina Guzmán-Oyarzo1, Tanya Plaza2, Gonzalo Recio-Sánchez3,4, Dulcineia S P Abdalla5, Luis A Salazar6, Jacobo Hernández-Montelongo7,8.
Abstract
Propolis is widely recognized for its various therapeutic properties. These are attributed to its rich composition inEntities:
Keywords: HUVECs; caffeic acid; controlled release; nanoporous silicon; pinocembrin; polyphenols; βCD polymer
Year: 2019 PMID: 31248192 PMCID: PMC6630447 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11060289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Experimental scheme for the synthesis of: (A) nPSi microparticles, and (B) nPSi-βCD composite microparticles. nPSi: nanoporous silicon, βCD: β-ciclodextrin polymer.
Figure 2Monitoring of the synthesis process of nPSi-βCD composite microparticles via: (A) Zeta potential and (B) Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis (ATR-FTIR) (C) Zoom in of ATR-FTIR spectra.
Figure 3(A) Scanning electron microscope images (SEM) of samples at the different stages of synthesis: (A1,A2) for nPSi, (A3,A4) for nPSi-Chi, (A5,A6) for nPSi-βCD. (B) Histograms of particle size distribution: (B1) for nPSi, (B2) for nPSi-Chi, (B3) for nPSi-βCD. (C) Atomic % and C/Si ratio of samples obtained from energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), (C1,C2), respectively.
Figure 4Monitoring of the polyphenols loading on PSi-βCD composite microparticles via: (A) Zeta potential and (B) Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis (ATR-FTIR). (C) Zoom in of ATR-FTIR spectra.
Figure 5(A) Scanning electron microscope images (SEM) of nPSi-βCD loading with polyphenols: (A1,A2) for nPSi-βCD, (A3,A4) for nPSi-βCD/CA, (A5,A6) for nPSi-βCD/Pin. (B) Histograms of particle size distribution: (B1) for nPSi-βCD, (B2) for nPSi-βCD/CA, B3 for nPSi-βCD/Pin. (C) Atomic % and C/Si ratio of samples obtained from energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), (C1,C2), respectively.
Figure 6(A) Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of microparticles at different stages of synthesis, and (B) Polyphenols capacity loading of nPSi-βCD composite microparticles.
Figure 7Polyphenols release profiles in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 37 °C: (A1,A2) CA and (B1,B2) Pin.
In vitro release kinetics of caffeic acid and pinocembrin in PBS at 37 °C.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Caffeic acid | nPSi | 8.1047 | 0.9355 | 52.7074 | −0.0040 | 79.7830 | 0.197 | 0.7832 |
| nPSi-βCD | 0.5694 | 0.7982 | 41.6744 | 0.9074 | 50.4833 | 0.3419 | 0.9649 | |
| Pinocembrin | nPSi | 76.3252 | 0.9271 | 54.5954 | −2.1444 | 91.4797 | 0.0317 | 0.9774 |
| nPSi-βCD | 0.3892 | 0.9433 | 38.5733 | 0.9451 | 31.3890 | 0.6584 | 0.9654 | |
Figure 8Viability of HUVECs treated with polyphenols. Cells were exposed to different concentrations of polyphenols for 24 h and cellular viability was measured by tetrazolium salt (MTS) assay. (A) Cells treated with 2–2000 mM of caffeic acid, and (B) Cells treated with 2–2000 mM of pinocembrin. Unexposed cells to nPSi-βCD microparticles were used as a control. The dashed line indicates the cell viability of 80%. All results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The experimental data from all relevant studies were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis test, which indicate the statistical significance when the percentage of cells viability exposed to the different microparticle concentrations are different from the control. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, (n = 3).
Figure 9Microscopical images of the effect of nPSi-βCD microparticles exposition to HUVECs during a 6 and 24 h culture. Images were taken at 8X magnification. Scale bars: 1 mm.
Figure 10Cytotoxicity of HUVECs exposed to nPSi-βCD microparticles. The cells were exposed for 6 h and then cellular viability was evaluated with CellTiter-FluorTM assay and fluorescence intensity measuring was with confocal laser microscope (A) HUVECs exposed to nPSi-βCD microparticles. Scale bars: 20 μm. (B) Viability percentage of cells exposed to composite microparticles. Unexposed cells to nPSi-βCD microparticles were used as a control. Dashed line indicates cell viability of 80%. All results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The experimental data from all the studies were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis test, which indicate the statistical significance when the percentage of cells viability exposed to the different microparticles concentrations are different from the control. ** p < 0.01, **** p < 0.0001. (n = 3).