| Literature DB >> 35883762 |
Carlos Asensio-Regalado1, Rosa María Alonso-Salces2, Blanca Gallo1, Luis A Berrueta1, Clara Porcedda3, Francesca Pintus4, Antonio Vassallo5, Carla Caddeo6.
Abstract
Antioxidant compounds with health benefits can be found in food processing residues, such as grape pomace. In this study, antioxidants were identified and quantified in an extract obtained from Graciano red grape pomace via a green process. The antioxidant activity of the extract was assessed by the DPPH and FRAP tests, and the phenolic content by the Folin-Ciocalteu test. Furthermore, nanotechnologies were employed to produce a safe and effective formulation that would exploit the antioxidant potential of the extract for skin applications. Anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols and flavanols were the main constituents of the grape pomace extract. Phospholipid vesicles, namely liposomes, were prepared and characterized. Cryo-TEM images showed that the extract-loaded liposomes were predominantly spherical/elongated, small, unilamellar vesicles. Light scattering results revealed that the liposomes were small (~100 nm), homogeneously dispersed, and stable during storage. The non-toxicity of the liposomal formulation was demonstrated in vitro in skin cells, suggesting its possible safe use. These findings indicate that an extract with antioxidant properties can be obtained from food processing residues, and a liposomal formulation can be developed to exploit its bioactive value, resulting in a promising healthy product.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; cytocompatibility; grape pomace; green extraction; liposomes; skin cells
Year: 2022 PMID: 35883762 PMCID: PMC9312101 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11071270
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Chromatogram of the anthocyanins in GE detected at 530 nm by HPLC-DAD-MS. Thirteen anthocyanins were identified as reported in Table 1.
Quantification of anthocyanins in GE by HPLC-DAD-MS analysis. Retention times (tR), mass data and concentration values are presented.
| # | Compound | Max. UV-Vis Bands (nm) | tR (min) | [M]+
| [Y0]+
| Conc. (µg Mv-3- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Delphinidin-3- | 276, 525 | 8.98 | 465.3 | 303.2 | 252.82 |
| 2 | Cyanidin-3- | 279, 519 | 12.63 | 449.6 | 287.2 | 66.05 |
| 3 | Petunidin-3- | 276, 525 | 14.48 | 479.4 | 317.0 | 224.84 |
| 4 | Peonidin-3- | 279, 516 | 19.42 | 463.1 | 301.2 | 517.50 |
| 5 | Malvidin-3- | 276, 525 | 21.52 | 493.2 | 331.2 | 917.45 |
| 6 | Delphinidin-3- | 275, 533 | 28.25 | 507.4 | 303.2 | 10.26 |
| 7 | Petunidin-3- | 268, 525 | 36.10 | 520.9 | 317.1 | 12.69 |
| 8 | Peonidin-3- | 279, 525 | 39.42 | 505.1 | 301.3 | 25.42 |
| 9 | Malvidin-3- | 278, 525 | 40.07 | 535.2 | 331.2 | 111.41 |
| 10 | Malvidin-3- | 280, 530 | 41.87 | 655.4 | 331.1 | 15.61 |
| 11 | Petunidin-3-(6- | 279, 532 | 43.00 | 625.3 | 317.1 | 20.92 |
| 12 | Peonidin-3- | 281, 525 | 45.65 | 609.4 | 301.2 | 252.19 1 |
| 13 | Malvidin-3- | 281, 532 | 45.88 | 639.3 | 331.2 |
1 coeluting compounds.
Identification of phenolic compounds in GE by UHPLC-DAD-MS analysis. Twenty-three compounds were identified including flavan-3-ols, flavanols, dihydroflavanols, hydroxycinnamic acids and hydroxybenzoic acids.
| # | Compound | tR (min) | Max. UV-Vis Bands (nm) | Molecular Formula [M + H]+ | [M + H]+
| Molecular Formula [M − H]− | [M − H]−
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| 1 | ((Epi)catechin)3 (1) 1 | 3.27 | 283 | C45H39O18 | 867.2144 | C45H37O18 | 865.1988 |
| 2 | Procyanidin B I | 5.50 | 280 | C30H27O12 | 579.1508 | C30H25O12 | 577.1351 |
| 3 | Procyanidin B II | 6.42 | 280 | C30H27O12 | 579.1496 | C30H25O12 | 577.1358 |
| 4 | ((Epi)catechin)3 (2) 1,2 | 7.53 | 283 | C45H39O18 | 867.2121 | C45H37O18 | 865.1988 |
| 5 | Catechin 2 | 7.53 | 278 | C15H15O6 | 291.0873 | C15H13O6 | 289.0717 |
| 6 | Procyanidin B III | 8.30 | 280 | C30H27O12 | 579.1500 | C30H25O12 | 577.1349 |
| 7 | Procyanidin B IV | 12.06 | 280 | C30H27O12 | 579.1509 | C30H25O12 | 577.1349 |
| 8 | Epicatechin | 16.19 | 278 | C15H15O6 | 291.0869 | C15H13O6 | 289.0719 |
| 9 | Procyanidin B-gallate | 19.37 | 280 | C37H31O16 | 731.1599 | C37H29O16 | 729.1398 |
| 10 | ((Epi)catechin)3 (3) 1 | 20.48 | 283 | C45H39O18 | 867.2164 | C45H37O18 | 865.1988 |
|
| |||||||
| 11 | Quercetin-hexosyl-hexoside-1 | 20.22 | 264, 344 | C27H31O17 | 627.1572 | C27H29O17 | 625.1370 |
| 12 | Quercetin-hexosyl-hexoside-2 | 25.20 | 264, 344 | C27H31O17 | 627.1562 | C27H29O17 | 625.1401 |
| 13 | Quercetin-3- | 27.58 | 255, 353 | - | n.d. 3 | C21H19O12 | 463.0824 |
| 14 | Quercetin-3- | 27.85 | 255, 352 | C21H19O13 | 479.0824 | C21H17O13 | 477.0667 |
| 15 | Quercetin-3- | 28.35 | 255, 352 | - | n.d. 3 | C21H19O12 | 463.0918 |
| 16 | Kaempferol-3- | 30.22 | 265, 345 | C21H21O11 | 449.1081 | C21H19O11 | 447.0929 |
| 17 | Kaempferol-3- | 30.96 | 265, 345 | C21H19O12 | 463.0878 | C21H17O12 | 461.0701 |
| 18 | Kaempferol-3- | 31.49 | 265, 348 | C21H21O11 | 449.1080 | C21H19O11 | 447.0934 |
| 19 | Isorhamnetin-3- | 31.83 | 254, 352 | C22H23O12 | 479.1192 | C22H21O12 | 477.1033 |
| 20 | Isorhamnetin-3- | 32.37 | 254, 352 | C22H23O12 | 479.1188 | C22H21O12 | 477.1042 |
|
| |||||||
| 21 | Dihydroquercetin-3- | 26.92 | 255, 352 | C21H23O11 | 451.1241 | C21H21O11 | 449.1086 |
|
| |||||||
| 22 | 10.50 | 313 | - | n.d. 3 | C15H17O8 | 325.0925 | |
|
| |||||||
| 23 | Galloyl rhamnoside | 3.23 | 279 | - | n.d. 3 | C13H15O9 | 315.0717 |
1 (Epi)catechin: (+)-Catechin or (−)-Epicatechin, unknown isomer. 2 coeluting compounds. 3 n.d.: not detected.
Characteristics of GE liposomes in comparison with empty liposomes: mean diameter, PI and ZP measured by light scattering technique. The results show small, homogeneously dispersed, highly negatively charged vesicles, The values are the means ± SD (n > 6). ** GE liposomes vs. empty liposomes: ** p < 0.01.
| Formulation | MD | PI | ZP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empty liposomes | 116 ± 7 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | −62 ± 3 |
| GE liposomes | ** 104 ± 4 | ** 0.29 ± 0.01 | −65 ± 4 |
Figure 2Cryo-TEM images of GE liposomes display spherical/elongated, small, unilamellar vesicles. Two magnifications are shown: 29,000× (left) and 62,000× (right).
Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of GE methanol solution, empty liposomes and GE liposomes. The results of the DPPH, FRAP and Folin–Ciocalteu assays show that the antioxidant activity and the phenolic content of GE were preserved in the liposomal formulation. DPPH values are expressed as AA (%) and as μg TE/mL of solution; FRAP values are expressed as µg FE/mL of solution; total phenolic content is expressed as μg GAE/mL of solution. Mean values ± SDs of at least 3 independent experiments, each performed in triplicate, are reported. ## values statistically different (p < 0.01) from GE solution.
| Formulation | DPPH Assay | FRAP Assay | Folin–Ciocalteu Assay | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA (%) | (µg TE/mL) | (µg FE/mL) | (µg GAE/mL) | |
| GE solution | 61 ± 3 | 201 ± 9 | 819 ± 77 | 217 ± 10 |
| Empty liposomes | 38 ± 3 | 131 ± 11 | 339 ± 42 | 92 ± 9 |
| GE liposomes | 741 ± 63 | |||
Figure 3Effect of GE ethanol solution, empty liposomes, and GE liposomes on HaCaT cell viability assayed by the MTT test. The cells were untreated (CTR) or treated with different sample concentrations (0.1–10 μg/mL) for 24 h. The results show no sign of alteration of cell viability.