| Literature DB >> 34124020 |
Concetta Di Natale1,2, Elena Lagreca1, Valeria Panzetta1,2,3, Marianna Gallo3,4,5, Francesca Passannanti5, Michele Vitale3, Sabato Fusco2,6, Raffaele Vecchione1, Roberto Nigro3, Paolo Netti1,2,3.
Abstract
The intestinal microbiota is a real ecosystem composed of several bacterial species and a very huge amount of strains that through their metabolic activities play a crucial role in the development and performance of the immune system and other functions. Microbiota modulation by probiotics establishes a new era into the pharmaceutical and healthcare market. Probiotics play, in fact, an important role in helping and sustaining human health, but in order to produce benefits, their viability must be preserved throughout the production process up to consumption, and in addition, their bioactivity required to be safeguarded while passing through the gastrointestinal tract. In this frame, encouraging results come from encapsulation strategies that have proven to be very promising in protecting bacteria and their viability. However, specific effort has to be dedicated to the design optimization of the encapsulation process and, in particular, to the processing parameters that affect capsules microstructure. Herein, focusing on calcium alginate microspheres, after a preliminary selection of their processing conditions based on size distribution, we implemented a micro-rheological analysis, by using the multiple-particle tracking technique, to correlate the inner microstructure to the selected process conditions and to the viability of the Lactobacillus paracasei CBA L74. It was assessed that the explored levels of cross-linking, although changing the microorganism constriction, did not affect its viability. The obtained results confirm how this technology is a promising and a valid strategy to protect the microorganism viability and ensure its stability during the production process.Entities:
Keywords: calcium alginate microsphere; drug delivery; microencapsulation; multiple-particle tracking; probiotics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34124020 PMCID: PMC8193927 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.660691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Formulation tested in this study.
| Formulation | (CaCl2) M | Cross-linking time (min) |
| F1 | 0.05 | 5 |
| F2 | 0.05 | 10 |
| F3 | 0.05 | 15 |
| F4 | 0.05 | 30 |
| F5 | 0.05 | 60 |
| F6 | 0.1 | 5 |
| F7 | 0.1 | 10 |
| F8 | 0.1 | 15 |
| F9 | 0.1 | 30 |
| F10 | 0.1 | 60 |
| F11 | 0.2 | 5 |
| F12 | 0.2 | 10 |
| F13 | 0.2 | 15 |
| F14 | 0.2 | 30 |
| F15 | 0.2 | 60 |
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of alginate MS production.
Values of d50 and SPAN for all the studied formulations, n = 3.
| Formulation | (CaCl2) M | Cross-linking time (min) | d50 (μ m) | SPAN |
| F1 | 0.05 | 5 | 297.87 ± 2.72 | 1.6 |
| F2 | 0.05 | 10 | 191. 95 ± 3.48 | 1.8 |
| F3 | 0.05 | 15 | 93.10 ± 0.12 | 0.9 |
| F4 | 0.05 | 30 | 128.08 ± 3.69 | 1.6 |
| F5 | 0.05 | 60 | 156.88 ± 2.20 | 1.5 |
| F6 | 0.1 | 5 | 97.71 ± 1.18 | 1.7 |
| F7 | 0.1 | 10 | 106.25 ± 0.48 | 1.8 |
| F8 | 0.1 | 15 | 95.10 ± 1.37 | 0.8 |
| F9 | 0.1 | 30 | 104.27 ± 2.23 | 0.9 |
| F10 | 0.1 | 60 | 105.73 ± 1.00 | 1.3 |
| F11 | 0.2 | 5 | 86.74 ± 0.25 | 1.4 |
| F12 | 0.2 | 10 | 116.51 ± 0.87 | 3.7 |
| F13 | 0.2 | 15 | 90.72 ± 0.89 | 1.1 |
| F14 | 0.2 | 30 | 88.54 ± 0.15 | 1.1 |
| F15 | 0.2 | 60 | 105.84 ± 2.94 | 4.2 |
FIGURE 2Chemical–physical (F1–F2) and morphological characterization (F1′–F2′) of microspheres.
Evaluation of Lactobacillus paracasei CBA L74 viability before and after encapsulation processes.
| Strain (CFU ml–1) | Post-encaps (CFU ml–1) | ||
| 1.98 × 108 | 5.03 × 108 | 1.57 × 108 | |
| 1.98 × 108 | 1.33 × 108 | 1.54 × 108 |
FIGURE 3Fluorescent NPs encapsulated in alginate microspheres. (A) Fluorescence image: λexc 488 nm, λemiss 520–600 nm. (B) Mastersizer analysis.
FIGURE 4MPT microsphere analysis. (A) The D coefficient was correlated to the normalized distance along the radius of the microspheres for all formulations. (B) Internal and external gelation mechanisms for the concentration of 0.05 M CaCl2 and the non-polymerization area of the bare alginate. (C) Average values of α for the bare alginate and F3, F8, and F13 formulations. (D) α Values are plotted as a function of the normalized distance along the radius from the center of the microspheres.