| Literature DB >> 35458621 |
Matteo Perra1, Laura Fancello1, Ines Castangia1, Mohamad Allaw1, Elvira Escribano-Ferrer2, José Esteban Peris3, Iris Usach3, Maria Letizia Manca1, Ivanka K Koycheva4,5, Milen I Georgiev4,5, Maria Manconi1.
Abstract
Culture of plant cells or tissues is a scalable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly approach to obtain extracts and secondary metabolites of uniform quality that can be continuously supplied in controlled conditions, independent of geographical and seasonal variations, environmental factors, and negative biological influences. In addition, tissues and cells can be extracted/obtained from the by-products of other industrial cultivations such as that of Lavandula angustifolia Miller (L. angustifolia), which is largely cultivated for the collection of flowers. Given that, an extract rich in rosmarinic acid was biotechnologically produced starting from cell suspension of L. angustifolia, which was then loaded in hyalurosomes, special phospholipid vesicles enriched with sodium hyaluronate, which in turn are capable of both immobilizing and stabilizing the system. These vesicles have demonstrated to be good candidates for skin delivery as their high viscosity favors their residence at the application site, thus promoting their interaction with the skin components. The main physico-chemical and technological characteristics of vesicles (i.e., mean diameter, polydispersity index, zeta potential and entrapment efficiency of extract in vesicles) were measured along with their biological properties in vitro: biocompatibility against fibroblasts and ability to protect the cells from oxidative stress induced by hydrogen peroxide. Overall, preliminary results disclosed the promising properties of obtained formulations to be used for the treatment of skin diseases associated with oxidative stress and inflammation.Entities:
Keywords: Lavandula angustifolia; biotechnologically produced extract; fibroblasts; hyalurosomes; lamellar vesicles; natural antioxidant
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458621 PMCID: PMC9029676 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27082423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Composition of L. angustifolia extract loaded hyalurosomes.
| Extract, | P90G, | Hyaluronan, | Water, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 5 | 195 | 0.5 | 2 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 10 | 195 | 0.5 | 2 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 20 | 195 | 0.5 | 2 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 5 | 195 | 1 | 2 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 10 | 195 | 1 | 2 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 20 | 195 | 1 | 2 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 5 | 195 | 2 | 2 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 10 | 195 | 2 | 2 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 20 | 195 | 2 | 2 |
Mean diameter (MD); polydispersity index (PI); zeta potential (ZP); entrapment efficiency (EE) and Trolox equivalents (TE). Mean values ± standard deviations are reported (n = 6). Same symbol (*, °, §, #) indicates the same value (p > 0.05).
| Extract, | MD, | PI | ZP, | EE, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 5 | ° 123 ± 5 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | −21 ± 1 | 99 ± 1 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 10 | # 133 ± 4 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | −24 ± 1 | 100 ± 1 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 20 | # 135 ± 3 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | −27 ± 1 | 100 ± 1 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 5 | * 142 ± 4 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | −21 ± 1 | 106 ± 3 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 10 | * 141 ± 5 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | −24 ± 1 | 101 ± 1 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 20 | *# 137 ± 20 | 0.30 ± 0.04 | −26 ± 1 | 101 ± 1 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 5 | # 130 ± 2 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | −23 ± 1 | 100 ± 1 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 10 | § 157 ± 4 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | −25 ± 1 | 100 ± 1 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 20 | § 161 ± 12 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | −26 ± 1 | 100 ± 1 |
Antioxidant activity of L. angustifolia extract in dispersion or loaded in hyalurosomes, expressed as Trolox equivalents (TE) and µmol Fe2+ (FRAP). Mean values ± standard deviations are reported (n = 6).
| Extract | TE | FRAP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-Dispersion | 5 | 1.72 ± 0.08 | 228.69 ± 22.40 |
| 10-Dispersion | 10 | 1.85 ± 0.06 | 368.02 ± 49.29 |
| 20-Dispersion | 20 | 1.76 ± 0.03 | 554.53 ± 35.80 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 5 | 1.71 ± 0.04 | 200.97 ± 16.61 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 10 | 1.81 ± 0.01 | 325.83 ± 3.95 |
| 0.05% hyalurosomes | 20 | 1.76 ± 0.02 | 531.63 ± 7.89 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 5 | 1.54 ± 0.07 | 223.18 ± 13 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 10 | 1.93 ± 0.01 | 362.68 ± 5.43 |
| 0.1% hyalurosomes | 20 | 1.80 ± 0.02 | 533.18 ± 1.30 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 5 | 1.72 ± 0.02 | 249.19 ± 16.13 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 10 | 1.80 ± 0.01 | 426.58 ± 7.89 |
| 0.2% hyalurosomes | 20 | 1.74 ± 0.01 | 600.18 ± 4.14 |
Figure 1Representative Cryo-TEM images of 0.05% hyalurosomes loading 5 mg/mL of extract (A); 0.1% hyalurosomes loading 10 mg/mL of extract (B); and 0.1% hyalurosomes loading 20 mg/mL of extract (C).
Figure 2Cell viability of fibroblasts treated for 48 h with extract in dispersion or loaded in hyalurosomes diluted to reach 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01 μg/mL of extract. Data are reported as mean values (n = 9) ± standard deviations (error bars) of cell viability expressed as the percentage of untreated cells (100% of viability). Symbol (*) indicates that the viability of cells treated with 0.1 hyalurosomes is statistically different from that of cells treated with the extract in dispersion (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Viability of fibroblasts stressed with hydrogen peroxide and protected with Lavandula angustifolia extract in dispersion or loaded in hyalurosomes properly diluted to reach 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01 μg/mL of extract. Data are reported as mean values (n = 9) ± standard deviations (error bars) of cell viability expressed as the percentage of untreated cells (100% viability). Symbol (*) indicates that the viability of the cells treated with the extract in dispersion and loaded in 0.1 hyalurosomes are statistically different from that of cells treated with hydrogen peroxide (p < 0.05); symbol (⦿) indicates that the viability of the cells treated with 0.1 hyalurosomes is statistically different from that of cells treated with the extract in dispersion (p < 0.05).