| Literature DB >> 34200927 |
Anna Nowak1, Paula Ossowicz-Rupniewska2, Rafał Rakoczy3, Maciej Konopacki3, Magdalena Perużyńska4, Marek Droździk4, Edyta Makuch2, Wiktoria Duchnik1, Łukasz Kucharski1, Karolina Wenelska5, Adam Klimowicz1.
Abstract
Bacterial cellulose membranes (BCs) are becoming useful as a drug delivery system to the skin. However, there are very few reports on their application of plant substances to the skin. Komagataeibacter xylinus was used for the production of bacterial cellulose (BC). The BC containing 5% and 10% ethanolic extract of Epilobium angustifolium (FEE) (BC-5%FEE and BC-10%FEE, respectively) were prepared. Their mechanical, structural, and antioxidant properties, as well as phenolic acid content, were evaluated. The bioavailability of BC-FESs using mouse L929 fibroblasts as model cells was tested. Moreover, In Vitro penetration through the pigskin of the selected phenolic acids contained in FEE and their accumulation in the skin after topical application of BC-FEEs was examined. The BC-FEEs were characterized by antioxidant activity. The BC-5% FEE showed relatively low toxicity to healthy mouse fibroblasts. Gallic acid (GA), chlorogenic acid (ChA), 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (3,4-DHB), 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HB), 3-hydroxybenzoic acid (3-HB), and caffeic acid (CA) found in FEE were also identified in the membranes. After topical application of the membranes to the pigskin penetration of some phenolic acid and other antioxidants through the skin as well as their accumulation in the skin was observed. The bacterial cellulose membrane loaded by plant extract may be an interesting solution for topical antioxidant delivery to the skin.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; bacterial cellulose; bioavailability; penetration skin; phenolic acids; plant extracts
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34200927 PMCID: PMC8230535 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22126269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1GC-MS chromatogram of FEE.
Figure 2The example chromatogram of phenolic acids identified in the FEE; gallic acid (1), 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (2), 4- hydroxybenzoic acid (3), 3- hydroxybenzoic acid (4), chlorogenic acid (5), and caffeic acid (6).
Phenolic acid concentration, the total polyphenol content, and antioxidant activity of FEE. Mean value ± standard deviation, n = 3.
| Evaluated Compound/Parameter | (mg/100 mL) |
|---|---|
| Chlorogenic acid (ChA) | 26.78 ± 0.55 |
| Gallic acid (GA) | 78.02 ± 1.00 |
| 4- hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HA) | 34.97 ± 0.07 |
| 3- hydroxybenzoic acid (3-HB) | 12.64 ± 1.20 |
| 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (3,4-DHA) | 15.55 ± 0.38 |
| Caffeic acid (CA) | 7.13 ± 0.33 |
| Total polyphenol content | 41.04 ± 0.10 |
| DPPH | 19.36 ± 0.24 |
| ABTS | 21.51 ± 0.86 |
Figure 3The BC-10%FEE and BC-5%FEE dry membranes (a), the all membranes before mounting in the Franz diffusion cell (b).
Figure 4FTIR-ATR spectra of bacterial cellulose—BC (violet), BC-10%FEE (red) and BC-5%FEE (green).
Figure 5TG and DTG curves of BC membranes—BC (green), BC-10%FEE (blue), and BC-5%FEE (red).
Figure 6The SEM micrographs of BC, BC-5%FEE, and BC-10%FEE on a scale of 5 and 20 µm.
Results of mechanical tests for BC-FEE and BC. Mean values ± standard deviation, n = 5.
| Sample | Young Modulus [MPa] | Elongation at Break [%] | Tensile Strength [MPa] |
|---|---|---|---|
| BC | 13,807.88 ± 596.43 | 0.85 ± 0.34 | 115.53 ± 15.28 |
| BC-5%FEE | 20,974.64 ± 115.12 | 1.08 ± 0.16 | 137.38 ± 40.86 |
| BC-10%FEE | 11,327.83 ± 144.20 | 0.76 ± 0.14 | 76.48 ± 19.06 |
Phenolic acid concentration, the total polyphenol content, and antioxidant activity of BC-5%FEE, BC-10%FEE, and BC. Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.
| BC-5%FEE | BC-10%FEE | BC (Control) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic acid | ChA | 83.69 ± 2.57 | 140.52 ± 6.44 | nd |
| GA | 275.44 ± 56.44 | 453.66 ± 6.95 | nd | |
| 4-HB | 150. 31 ± 11.31 | 285.15 ± 21.28 | nd | |
| 3-HB | 43.74 ± 4.83 | 72.50 ± 6.48 | nd | |
| 3,4-DHA | 75.93 ± 1.13 | 116.17 ± 8.65 | nd | |
| CA | 31.83 ± 1.23 | 57.80 ± 4.12 | nd | |
| Total polyphenol content | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.02 | na | |
| DPPH | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | na | |
| ABTS | 1.59 ± 0.01 | 2.09 ± 0.01 | na | |
ChA—chlorogenic acid, GA—gallic acid, CA—caffeic acid, 4-HA—4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3-HB—3-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3,4-DHA—3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid; DPPH - 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS -2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid), nd—no detected, na—no activity.
The total phenolic content released from BC-5%FEE, BC-10%FEE, and BC to the culture medium and its effect on cell viability.
| BC + FEE5% | BC + FEE 10% | BC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total polyphenol content | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.59 ± 0.09 | nd |
| Cell viability (% of the control medium) | 73.99 ± 7.14 | 14.16 ± 5.91 | 102.21 ± 3.73 |
nd—no detected.
Figure 7Optical microscopy images of L929 cells after 24 h incubation with medium containing extracts from BC-5%FEE (A), BC-10%FEE (B), BC (C), and control (D).
Phenolic acid concentration, the total polyphenol content, and antioxidant activity in acceptor fluid after 24 h penetration. Mean ± standard deviation, n = 6.
| BC + FEE5% | BC + FEE 10% | BC (Control) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic acid | ChA | 1.28 ± 0.25 | 2.16 ± 0.430 | nd |
| GA | 9.22 ± 0.84 | 12.26 ± 1.96 | nd | |
| 4-HB | 5.07 ± 0.78 | 6.56 ± 0.09 | nd | |
| 3-HB | < 0.50 | < 0.50 | nd | |
| 3,4-DHA | 2.01 ± 0.23 | 3.56 ± 0.46 | nd | |
| CA | < 0.50 | 1.40 ± 0.31 | nd | |
| Total polyphenol content | 0.016 ± 0.01 | 0.051 ± 0.01 | na | |
| DPPH | na | na | na | |
| ABTS | 0.084 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | na | |
ChA—chlorogenic acid, GA—gallic acid, CA—caffeic acid, 4-HA—4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3-HB—3-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3,4-DHA—3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid; DPPH—2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS -2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid), nd—no detected, na—no activity.
Figure 8The cumulative mass of phenolic acids in the acceptor fluid during the 24 h penetration. Vertical lines present standard deviation. n = 6.
The parameters characterizing phenolic acids transport through the pigskin after application of BC-FEEs in penetration study.
| Phenolic Acid | BC-5%FEE | BC-10%FEE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JSS, | KP 10−5, | LT, | JSS, | KP 10−5, | LT, | |
| ChA | -iv | -iv | ~5 | 0.267 ± 0.021 | 379.315 ± 36.493 | 2.379 |
| GA | 0.389 ± 0.096 | 309.168 ± 76.150 | 2.009 | 0.549 ± 0.079 | 242.032 ± 34.83 | 1.479 |
| 4-HB | 0.389 ± 0.043 | 517.582 ± 57.202 | 2.444 | 0.345 ± 0.008 | 241.976 ± 5.516 | 1.359 |
| 3-HB | -iv | -iv | ~24 | -iv | -iv | ~5 |
| 3,4-DHB | 0.195 ± 0.031 | 512.116 ± 81.140 | 1.820 | 0.345 ± 0.019 | 593.944 ± 33.447 | 1.359 |
| CA | -iv | -iv | 2.204 | 0.138 ± 0.022 | 477.516 ± 77.129 | 1.377 |
iv—immeasurable value.
Amount of the phenolic acids, the total polyphenol content, and antioxidant activity of fluid after skin extraction collected after 24 h penetration, n = 6.
| BC + FEE5% | BC + FEE 10% | BC (Control) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic acid | ChA | 30.77 ± 0.95 | 41.05 ± 1.99 | nd |
| GA | 151.34 ± 13.85 | 222.94 ± 16.60 | nd | |
| 4-HB | 45.36 ± 1.33 | 127.67 ± 1.59 | nd | |
| 3-HB | 17.93 ± 0.93 | 30.62 ± 4.06 | nd | |
| 3,4-DHA | 31.91 ± 0.62 | 52.03 ± 5.11 | nd | |
| CA | 21.58 ±1.42 | 41.18 ± 3.16 | nd | |
| Total polyphenol content | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.01 | na | |
| DPPH | 0.27 ± 0.005 | 0.39 ± 0.01 | na | |
| ABTS | 1.02 ± 0.01 | 1.52 ± 0.06 | na | |
ChA—chlorogenic acid, GA—gallic acid, CA—caffeic acid, 4-HA—4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3-HB—3-hydroxybenzoic acid, 3,4-DHA—3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid; DPPH—2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS -2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid), nd—no detected, na—no activity.
The FEE content in each BC-membranes applied in the study.
| Sample | mg FEE/g Membrane * |
|---|---|
| BC | - |
| BC-5%FEE | 465.0 |
| BC-10%FEE | 857.8 |
* The pure FEE content in the membrane, calculated after drying the membranes at 40 °C in a ventilated oven for 12 h.