| Literature DB >> 35807914 |
Teik Kee Leo1, Eugenie Sin Sing Tan2, Farahnaz Amini2, Navedur Rehman3, Edmond Siah Chye Ng2, Chung Keat Tan2.
Abstract
Ceramides plays a crucial role in maintaining skin barrier function. Although foregoing evidence supported beneficial effects of topical ceramides for restoration of the skin barrier, studies on oral ceramides are extremely scarce, with most published data collected from in vivo and in vitro models. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rice ceramides (RC) supplementation to improve skin barrier function and as a depigmenting agent through comprehensive clinical assessments. This study investigated the beneficial effects of orally administered RC supplementation in 50 voluntary participants. Skin hydration, firmness and elasticity, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), melanin index (MI), erythema index (EI), sebum production, pH, and wrinkle severity were assessed at baseline and during monthly follow-up visits. RC supplementation was found to significantly (p < 0.01) improve skin hydration, sebum production, firmness and elasticity, and wrinkle severity for three assessed areas, namely the left cheek, dorsal neck, and right inner forearm. Additionally, RC significantly (p < 0.01) reduced the rates of TEWL, levels of MI and EI. Analyses of data indicated that participants at older age were more responsive towards the effect of RC supplementation. Our findings suggest that RC supplementation can effectively improve skin barrier function, reduce wrinkle severity, and reduce pigmentation.Entities:
Keywords: pigmentation; rice (Oryza sativa L.) ceramides; skin barrier function; transepidermal water loss (TEWL); wrinkle severity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807914 PMCID: PMC9268538 DOI: 10.3390/nu14132737
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1CONSORT protocol for the study described with flow diagram.
Characteristics of Participant.
| Characteristic | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex ( | |
| Age (years) ( |
Changes in skin barrier function of participants during study.
| Parameters | Baseline | First | Second | Third | a | b | c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEWL (g/h/m2) | |||||||
| Cheek | 21.23 ± 5.01 | 14.20 ± 6.15 | 14.10 ± 6.59 | 13.39 ± 5.06 | <0.001 * | 0.652 | 0.185 |
| Neck | 18.38 ± 5.13 | 11.44 ± 2.47 | 10.50 ± 1.19 | 9.72 ± 2.23 | <0.001 * | 0.524 | 0.396 |
| Arm | 14.45 ± 5.51 | 9.59 ± 3.84 | 8.32 ± 3.18 | 8.79 ± 3.22 | <0.001 * | 0.677 | <0.05 * |
| Skin Hydration (AU) | |||||||
| Cheek | 61.10 ± 14.95 | 60.65 ± 14.50 | 66.53 ± 13.94 | 75.05 ± 14.80 | <0.001 * | 0.544 | 0.605 |
| Neck | 58.07 ± 16.40 | 57.78 ± 13.06 | 60.81 ± 14.42 | 67.56 ± 15.77 | <0.001 * | 0.475 | 0.096 |
| Arm | 38.96 ± 12.98 | 38.17 ± 10.35 | 45.25 ± 12.62 | 51.40 ± 13.97 | <0.001 * | 0.625 | 0.078 |
| Sebum Production (AU) | |||||||
| Cheek | 35.18 ± 10.33 | 51.6 ± 20.40 | 68.34 ± 19.21 | 75.74 ± 28.48 | <0.001 * | 0.425 | <0.01 * |
| Neck | 23.40 ± 5.69 | 37.54 ± 12.11 | 53.34 ± 22.83 | 66.36 ± 22.36 | <0.001 * | 0.935 | <0.05 * |
| Arm | 1.78 ± 0.45 | 3.00 ± 0.10 | 4.60 ± 0.21 | 5.68 ± 1.04 | <0.001 * | 0.23 | 0.316 |
| Skin pH | |||||||
| Cheek | 6.02 ± 0.34 | 6.09 ± 0.37 | 6.10 ± 0.44 | 6.01 ± 0.33 | 0.475 | 0.066 | 0.936 |
| Neck | 5.83 ± 0.29 | 5.86 ± 0.30 | 5.95 ± 0.38 | 5.89 ± 0.32 | 0.226 | 0.497 | 0.952 |
| Arm | 5.73 ± 0.33 | 5.77 ± 0.27 | 5.87 ± 0.35 | 5.79 ± 0.27 | 0.112 | 0.986 | 0.52 |
| VAS | 5.33 ± 1.27 | 5.81 ± 1.29 | 6.57 ± 1.40 | 7.08 ± 1.31 | <0.001 * | 0.41 | 0.776 |
TEWL Transepidermal Water Loss; AU Arbitrary Units; VAS Visual Analogue Scale. Statistically significant p values are marked in asterisks (*). a p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM) for repeated measures model, with sampling time point as within-subjects factor. b p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with sex tested as between-subject effect. c p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with age tested as between-subject effect.
Changes in skin firmness and elasticity of participants during study.
| Parameters | Baseline | First | Second | Third | a | b | c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skin Firmness and Elasticity (VEU) | |||||||
| Cheek | 0.562 ± 0.134 | 0.606 ± 0.116 | 0.610 ± 0.111 | 0.662 ± 0.131 | <0.001 * | 0.347 | 0.851 |
| Neck | 0.775 ± 0.065 | 0.782 ± 0.074 | 0.759 ± 0.092 | 0.829 ± 0.073 | <0.001 * | 0.741 | 0.938 |
| Arm | 0.785 ± 0.042 | 0.789 ± 0.060 | 0.795 ± 0.063 | 0.817 ± 0.056 | <0.01 * | 0.578 | 0.994 |
| WSRS | 1.92 ± 0.89 | 1.78 ± 0.88 | 1.70 ± 0.86 | 1.60 ± 0.78 | <0.01 * | 0.499 | 0.74 |
VEU Viscoelasticity Unit; WSRS Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale. Statistically significant p values are marked in asterisks (*). a p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM) for repeated measures model, with sampling time point as within-subjects factor. b p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with sex tested as between-subject effect. c p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with age tested as between-subject effect.
Figure 2Photographic images of nasolabial folds of a representative patient (a) before supplementation; WSRS grade 3, and (b) at 3 months after rice ceramide supplementation; WSRS grade 2.
Changes in skin pigmentation of participants during study.
| Parameters | Baseline | First | Second | Third | a | b | c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melanin Index (MI) (AU) | |||||||
| Cheek | 175.72 ± 60.86 | 171.77 ± 58.26 | 162.79 ± 60.24 | 152.58 ± 55.31 | <0.001 * | 0.325 | 0.093 |
| Neck | 137.50 ± 39.98 | 128.05 ± 48.19 | 126.53 ± 51.41 | 113.20 ± 43.96 | <0.001 * | 0.727 | 0.116 |
| Arm | 135.27 ± 46.34 | 131.07 ± 40.99 | 127.53 ± 39.27 | 114.74 ± 37.35 | <0.001 * | 0.163 | 0.09 |
| Erythema Index (EI) (AU) | |||||||
| Cheek | 329.80 ± 79.83 | 312.00 ± 87.18 | 301.46 ± 80.80 | 278.00 ± 82.49 | <0.001 * | 0.078 | 0.25 |
| Neck | 255.53 ± 70.95 | 246.35 ± 66.49 | 237.78 ± 64.30 | 216.76 ± 60.47 | <0.001 * | 0.184 | 0.096 |
| Arm | 196.22 ± 57.68 | 192.43 ± 52.72 | 182.94 ± 43.94 | 171.67 ± 51.69 | <0.001 * | 0.104 | 0.836 |
AU Arbitrary Units. Statistically significant p values are marked in asterisks (*). a p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM) for repeated measures model, with sampling time point as within-subjects factor. b p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with sex tested as between-subject effect. c p-value was calculated using general linear model (GLM), with age tested as between-subject effect.