| Literature DB >> 32019205 |
Mengdan Qiang1,2, Xiao Pang2, Dexue Ma2, Cuicui Ma2, Fuguo Liu1,2.
Abstract
Astaxanthin-loaded liposomes were prepared by a thin-film ultrasonic method, and the effects of the different membrane surface modifiers chitosan hydrochloride (CH) and lactoferrin (LF) on the physicochemical stability of the liposomes and bioaccessibility of astaxanthin were studied. Based on the negative charge characteristics of egg yolk lecithin, LF and CH with positive charge were assembled on the surface of liposomes by an electrostatic deposition method. The optimal concentrations of modifiers were determined by particle size, zeta potential and encapsulation efficiency. The interaction between the liposomes and the coatings was characterized by Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy. The stability of astaxanthin in different systems (suspension and liposomes) was investigated, and its antioxidant capacity and bioaccessibility were determined. The results showed that both membrane surface modifications could interact with liposomes and protect astaxanthin from oxidation or heat degradation and enhance the antioxidant activity of the liposome, therefore membrane surface modification played an important role in stabilizing the lipid bilayer. At the same time, the encapsulated astaxanthin exhibited higher in vitro bioaccessibility than the free astaxanthin. CH and LF modified liposomes can be developed as formulations for encapsulation and delivery of functional ingredients, providing a theoretical basis for the development of new astaxanthin series products.Entities:
Keywords: astaxanthin; chitosan hydrochloride; lactoferrin; liposomes; membrane surface modification; stability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32019205 PMCID: PMC7036813 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25030610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Particle size and PdI of astaxanthin liposomes at different concentrations of CH (a) and LF (b). Different lowercase letters on the column chart indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Zeta-potential of liposomes at different concentrations of CH (a) and LF (b). Different lowercase letters on the column chart indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Encapsulation efficiency of liposomes at different concentrations of CH (a) and LF (b). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Fourier transform infrared spectra of different samples. a: CH, b: LF, c: blank liposome, d: AST-Lip, e: CH-AST-Lip and f: LF-AST-Lip.
Figure 5DPPH free radical scavenging rate of different samples, different lowercase letters on the column chart indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 6(a) Retention rate of astaxanthin in different samples under different storage time (b) Retention rate of astaxanthin in different samples under different storage temperatures.
Figure 7Particle size (a) and zeta potential (b) of samples during storage at 25 °C. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 8Bioaccessibility of different samples. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).