| Literature DB >> 31775339 |
Jose Gustavo De la Ossa1,2, Francesca Felice1, Bahareh Azimi3,4, Jasmine Esposito Salsano2,5, Maria Digiacomo5,6, Marco Macchia5,6, Serena Danti3, Rossella Di Stefano1,6.
Abstract
Olive leaf extract (OLE) can be obtained as biowaste and is extensively used a food supplement and an over-the-counter drug for its beneficial effects. New studies have investigated OLE concerning the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of vascular disease. This in vitro study aims to evaluate if OLE extracted from the Tuscan Olea europaea protects endothelial cells against oxidative stress generated by reactive oxygen species (ROS).Entities:
Keywords: biowaste; endothelial cells; in vitro model; olive leaf extract (OLE); oxidative stress; poly(vinylidene fluoride tri-fluoroethylene); polyphenol; pruning; scaffold; tissue engineering
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775339 PMCID: PMC6928929 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20235918
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Quantification of TP in olive leaf lyophilized extract in different periods.
| Sampling Period (Month-Year) | TP |
|---|---|
| 02–2018 | 27.83 |
| 05–2018 | 23.06 |
| 10–2018 | 14.99 |
| 03–2019 | 23.29 |
Figure 1Electrospinning process and fiber morphology. Lens on the right shows nanoporosity on the fiber surface.
Figure 2Dose- and time-dependent cell metabolic activity. HUVECs were cultured for 2 h (A) and 24 h (B) in the presence of different concentrations of TPs from OLE. Cell metabolic activity was determined by WST-1 colorimetric assay and expressed as metabolic activity percentage compared to control (untreated cells). Graphical data are represented as mean ± SD of three separate experiments run in triplicate.
Figure 3Antioxidant effect of OLE. HUVEC viability was evaluated after 2 h (A) and 24 h (B) of pre-treatment with different concentrations of OLE (i.e., 0, 5, 10, 50, 100, up to 250 µg/mL of TPs) followed by treatment with 100 µM H2O2 for 1 h. Data are expressed as metabolic activity percentage compared to control (untreated cells) and are representative of 3 separate experiments run in triplicate. ** p < 0.005, *** p < 0.0005 and **** p < 0.00005 vs. H2O2; §§§§ p < 0.00001 vs. control.
Figure 4ROS production by HUVECs was evaluated after 24 h of incubation with different concentrations of OLE (i.e., 0, 10, 25, 50, 100, up to 250 µg/mL of TPs) and 100 µM H2O2 for 1 h. Data are expressed as ROS production% by treated cells and are representative of 3 separate experiments run in triplicate (*** p < 0.05 vs. H2O2; §§§§ p < 0.0001 vs. control).
Figure 5SEM and fluorescence (in inserts) analyses of P(VDF-TrFE)/HUVEC construct: (A) cell/scaffold construct (control); (B) cell/scaffold construct + OLE; (C) cell/scaffold construct + H2O2; and (D) cell/scaffold construct + OLE + H2O2. Black arrows indicate the HUVECs in the construct. The scale bar in inserts is 100 µm.
Figure 6Metabolic activity of HUVECs on P(VDF-TrFE) scaffolds and antioxidant activity of OLE on cell/scaffold constructs. HUVECs after 3 days of culture were viable in the 3D model (white bars) before OLE and H2O2 treatments. Gray bars represent cell/scaffold constructs incubated with OLE (100 µg/mL of TPs) for 24 h and 100 µM H2O2 for 1 h. Data are expressed as % alamarBlue® reduction and are representative of 3 separate experiments in triplicate. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.005 vs. H2O2.
Figure 7Results of ROS analysis performed on the 3D model treated with OLE for 24 h prior to H2O2 incubation for 1 h. (A) Imaging of fibers without (wo) cells under transmission and fluorescence microscopy modes. (B) Panel of fluorescence micrographs of the 3D models under the different treatments showing nuclei in blue and ROS in green. Magnification is 20×; scale bar is 100 µm. (C) ROS induction percentage as from integrated OD (* p < 0.05 vs. control, H2O2, and OLE + H2O2).