| Literature DB >> 33918742 |
Hany Ezzat Khalil1,2, Nashi K Alqahtani3, Hossam M Darrag4,5, Hairul-Islam Mohamed Ibrahim6, Promise M Emeka1, Lorina I Badger-Emeka7, Katsuyoshi Matsunami8, Tamer M Shehata1,9, Heba S Elsewedy1.
Abstract
Date palm fruit (Phoenix dactylifera) is reputed to have numerous biological activities, including anticancer properties. To utilize the great fortune of this fruit, the current study aimed to maximize its pharmacological activity. Date palm extract (DPE) of Khalas cultivar was obtained in powder form and then was formulated into nanoemulsion (NE). The optimized DPE-NE was formulated along with its naked counterpart followed by studying their physical and chemical properties. A qualitative assessment of total serum protein associated with the surface of formulations was implemented. Studies for the in vitro release of DPE from developed NE before and after incubation with serum were investigated. Eventually, an MTT assay was conducted. Total phenolic and flavonoid contents were 22.89 ± 0.013 mg GAE/g of dry DPE and 9.90 ± 0.03 mg QE/g of dry DPE, respectively. Homogenous NE formulations were attained with appropriate particle size and viscosity that could be administered intravenously. The optimized PEGylated NE exhibited a proper particle size, PDI, and zeta potential. Total serum protein adsorbed on PEG-NE surface was significantly low. The release of the drug through in vitro study was effectively extended for 24 h. Ultimately; PEGylated NE of DPE attained significant inhibition for cancer cell viability with IC50 values of 18.6 ± 2.4 and 13.5 ± 1.8 µg/mL for MCF-7 and HepG2 cell lines, respectively. PEGylated NE of DPE of Khalas cultivar will open the gate for future adjuvants for cancer therapy.Entities:
Keywords: cytotoxicity; date palm extract; nanoemulsion; optimization; phoenix dactylifera
Year: 2021 PMID: 33918742 PMCID: PMC8069845 DOI: 10.3390/plants10040735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1FTIR spectra of pure arachis oil, pure date palm extract (DPE), the developed PEG-nanoemulsion (NE), and tween 80.
Experimental design for DPE-NE formulations and their corresponding observed values of response.
| Formula | Independent Variables | Response Values | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (g) | B (g) | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
| F1 | 0.2 | 2 | 225 | 45.4 | 3.5 |
| F2 | 0.6 | 2 | 200 | 46.5 | 6 |
| F3 | 0.68 | 1.5 | 150 | 62.8 | 6.2 |
| F4 | 0.2 | 1 | 142 | 67.6 | 3.3 |
| F5 | 0.11 | 1.5 | 175 | 61.9 | 2.4 |
| F6 | 0.4 | 0.79 | 125 | 74.7 | 4.6 |
| F7 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 170 | 58.2 | 4.8 |
| F8 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 166 | 60.8 | 5 |
| F9 | 0.6 | 1 | 130 | 70.8 | 5.8 |
| F10 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 168 | 58.6 | 5.1 |
| F11 | 0.4 | 2.2 | 235 | 40.4 | 4.7 |
| F12 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 166 | 60 | 4.9 |
A: Surfactant concentration; B: oil concentration; Y1 particle size; Y2: In vitro release study; Y3: Hemolysis.
Statistical analysis results of responses.
| Source | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 247.23 | <0.0001 | 88.36 | <0.0001 | 122.65 | <0.0001 |
| A | 64.32 | 0.0002 * | 14.43 | 0.0090 * | 588.76 | <0.0001 * |
| B | 1154.38 | <0.0001 * | 393.75 | <0.0001 * | 1.60 | 0.2523 |
| AB | 1.38 | 0.2853 | 0.3336 | 0.5846 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
| A² | 1.14 | 0.3272 | 3.93 | 0.0946 * | 22.16 | 0.0033 * |
| B² | 12.75 | 0.0118 * | 32.55 | 0.0013 * | 3.16 | 0.1257 |
| Lack of Fit | 5.34 | 0.1011 | 3.51 | 0.1651 | 1.74 | 0.3299 |
| R2 analysis | ||||||
| R² | 0.9952 | 0.9866 | 0.9903 | |||
| Adjusted R² | 0.9911 | 0.9754 | 0.9822 | |||
| Predicted R² | 0.9697 | 0.9206 | 0.9499 | |||
| Adequate Precision | 48.0496 | 28.0624 | 34.3150 | |||
Y1: particle size; Y2: In vitro release study; Y3: hemolysis; *, significant.
Characterization of different DPE-NE formulations.
| Formulation | Viscosity (cp) | Formulation | Viscosity (cp) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.42 ± 0.23 |
| 2.65 ± 0.14 |
|
| 2.83 ± 0.25 |
| 2.67 ± 0.32 |
|
| 2.70 ± 0.28 |
| 2.98 ± 0.25 |
|
| 3.14 ± 0.15 |
| 2.85 ± 0.28 |
|
| 2.97 ± 0.25 |
| 2.38 ± 0.27 |
|
| 2.49 ± 0.15 |
| 2.92 ± 0.23 |
Values are stated as mean ± standard deviation (SD), n = 3.
Figure 2(A) 2D-Contour plot and (B) 3D-response surface plot representing the influence of surfactant concentration (g) and oil concentration (g) on particle size (nm).
Figure 3Representing DPE in vitro Release study from different NE formulations in phosphate buffer pH 7.4 at 37 °C. Results are stated as the mean ± SD of three experiments.
Figure 4(A) 2D-Contour plot and (B) 3D-response surface plot representing the effect of surfactant concentration (g) and oil concentration (g) on in vitro release study (%).
Figure 5(A) 2D-Contour plot and (B) 3D-response surface plot representing the influence of surfactant concentration (g) and oil concentration (g) on hemolysis (%).
Objectives of the optimization process.
| Independent Variable | Symbol | Level of Variation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | ||
| Surfactant concentration (g) | A | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Oil concentration (g) | B | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
| Dependent variables | Symbol | Constraints | ||
| Particle size (nm) | Y1 | In range (140–160 nm) | ||
| In vitro drug release (%) | Y2 | In range (55–65%) | ||
| Hemolysis (%) | Y3 | Minimize | ||
Predicted and observed experimental value of response at optimized conditions.
| Response | Predicted Values | Experimental Values |
|---|---|---|
| Y1 (nm) | 156.067 | 159.33 ± 3.4 |
| Y2 (%) | 65 | 64.3 ± 1.82 |
| Y3 (%) | 3.314 | 3.2 ± 0.15 |
Figure 6Optimization figure screening the influence of surfactant concentration and oil concentration on overall desirability.
Figure 7(A) Particle size of optimized PEG-NE; (B) Zeta potential of optimized PEG-NE (C) Particle size of naked-NE; (D) Zeta potential of naked-NE.
Figure 8Total quantity of serum proteins adsorbed on NNE and PEG-NE surface. Results are stated as the mean with the bar showing S.D. (n = 3). * p < 0.05 if compared to naked counterpart.
Figure 9Study of DPE in vitro release from NE formulations before and after serum incubation. Results are stated as the mean with the bar showing S.D. (n = 3). * p < 0.05 if compared to NNE with serum. # p < 0.05 if compared to PEG-NE with serum.
Figure 10Cell viability evaluation of free DPE, optimized PEGylated DPE, and blank NE against (A) MCF-7 and (B) HepG2 cell lines following 48 h incubation. Results are stated as the mean ± S.D * Statistically significant with blank NE (p < 0.05). # Statistically significant with free drug (DPE) (p < 0.05).