| Literature DB >> 36080266 |
Diana Ioana Gavra1,2, Laura Endres3, Ágota Pető4,5,6, Liza Józsa4,5,6, Pálma Fehér4, Zoltán Ujhelyi4, Annamária Pallag1,2, Eleonora Marian1,2, Laura Gratiela Vicas1, Timea Claudia Ghitea1, Mariana Muresan2,7, Ildikó Bácskay4,6, Tünde Jurca1,2.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the phytochemical profile and antioxidant properties of the extracts from three Rosa species (R. canina, R. damascena, R. cairo), to develop and investigate topical formulations with lyophilized forms of extracts for the treatment of psoriasis. Phytochemical screening and in vitro total antioxidant capacity (DPPH, FRAP, CUPRAC, SOD) of studied samples were examined and compared. Lyophilized extracts of roses were dissolved in Transcutol HP and different formulations of creams were prepared. Franz diffusion method was used to evaluate the drug release and biocompatibility was tested on HaCaT cells. Rosa damascene had the best results regarding all the analyses that were conducted. After the evaluation of topical products, the formulation with Rosa damascena extract in a self-emulsifying drug delivery system was tested on a human clinical study that involved 20 patients. At the end of the clinical study an improvement in the quality of life of the patients was observed and erythema, induration and scaling were reduced. The present study indicates that our examined extracts exhibited great phenolic content, antioxidant capacity and safety profile of topical formulation and therefore can be used as a reliable source of natural antioxidants and may be used as a complementary treatment to improve the quality life of patients with psoriasis or may be tested on another diseases.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant capacity; bioactive compounds; biocompatibility; human clinical study; phytochemical profile; topical formulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080266 PMCID: PMC9458126 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27175499
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Antioxidant capacity of alcoholic extracts.
| Extract (Alcoholic 10%) | DPPH (%) | FRAP | CUPRAC |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60.03 ± 0.01 | 844.24 ± 0.03 | 2077.67 ± 0.04 |
|
| 61.97 ± 0.03 | 850.12 ± 0.02 | 2055 ± 0.05 |
In this table antioxidant activity (means ± SD) of rose extracts is presented with different methods. Abbreviations: DW—Dry Weight, TE—Trolox Equivalent.
Figure 1Pseudoternary phase diagrams of the different compositions. The dark area shows the nanoemulsion zone of the preparations.
Droplet size and zeta potential values of the formulated SNEDDS.
| Composition | Droplet Size (nm) | Zeta Potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|
| SNEDDS– | 91.75 ± 4.12 | −33.1 ± 0.21 |
| SNEDDS– | 127.12 ± 3.22 | −31.5 ± 0.18 |
| SNEDDS– | 131.35 ± 5.21 | −31.8 ± 0.24 |
Figure 2Cytotoxicity of different Rose SNEDDS samples on HaCaT cell line. Results of MTT assay of SNEDDS samples. Rosa damascena and Rosa cairo SNEDDS does not affect the cell viability because values are above 70%, however Rosa canina has a cytotoxic effect as cell viability is decreased below 70%. The results present the mean of 6 wells ± SD. Statistical analysis happened with one way ANOVA and t-test. Significant differences are marked in the figures with asterisks. * indicates significant differences at p = 0.0156; 0.0478; 0.0486; 0.0137. ** means significant differences at p = 0.0090; 0.023. **** means significant difference at p < 0.0001. The red line marks 70% of cell viability value, which is the recommendation of ISO 10993-5.
Figure 3Results of the texture analysis of the formulated ointments with or without SNEDDS. Those ointment formulations, which contain the active ingredient in SNEDDS, demonstrated lower resistance values compared to those ones where rose was incorporated in suspended form.
Figure 4Diffusion profile of formulations without SNEDDS. The maximum amount of diffused quercetin reached 19.54% after 60 min, remaining at the same value after 90 min.
Figure 5Diffusion profile of formulations with SNEDDS. The highest diffused amount of quercetin was obtained in the formulations with SNEDDS. The maximum diffuse amount of quercetin was 31.83% after 90 min.
Quercetin release rate and the diffusion coefficient values related to the compositions.
| Composition | Release Rate | Diffusion Coefficient (after 90 min) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 6.139 ± 0.05 | 0.146 ± 0.003 |
|
| 5.597 ± 0.09 | 0.156 ± 0.005 |
|
| 5.894 ± 0.10 | 0.212 ± 0.011 |
| 10.199 ± 1.32 ** | 0.213 ± 0.008 ** | |
| 6.436 ± 0.45 * | 0.225 ± 0.006 | |
| 6.622 ± 0.32 * | 0.564 ± 0.012 ** |
Each data point represents the mean ± S.D., n = 5, and p < 0.05. Ordinary one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test were performed to compare formulations with or without SNEDDS. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Significant differences are marked with * in the table.
Figure 6SOD activity of samples (green: without SNEDDS, blue: with SNEDDS, orange: extracts). SOD enzyme activity is expressed as the percentage of the enzyme activity of the cells without UV radiation (untreated). Data are expressed as mean ± SD and n = 6. Statistical significance is indicated *, **, ***, **** at p < 0.005, p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.0001. Treated groups were compared to PBS with one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test.
Figure 7Graphic presentation of the percentage of the affected area in the 3 visits, at the two research groups. The treated group is represented by Group 1 and the placebo group is represented by Group 2.
Figure 8Nominal graphical presentation of the research parameters in the 3 visits, erythema (redness) (A), induration (thickness) (B), desquamation (scaling) (C), PASI Score (D), DLQI score (E), in the 2 research groups. The treated group is represented by Group 1 and the placebo group is represented by Group 2.
Comparative statistics by the paired samples test method of the research parameters.
| Paired Variables | Group 1 | Group 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | t |
| Mean | SD | t |
| |
| Area_1—Area_3 | 0.30000 | 0.48305 | 1.964 | 0.081 | 0.30000 | 0.48305 | 1.964 | 0.081 |
| Area_2—Area_3 | 0.30000 | 0.48305 | 1.964 | 0.081 | 0.30000 | 0.48305 | 1.964 | 0.081 |
| Erythema_1—Erythema_2 | 0.60000 | 0.69921 | 2.714 | 0.024 | 0.10000 | 0.31623 | 1.000 | 0.343 |
| Erythema_1—Erythema_3 | 1.90000 | 0.56765 | 10.585 | 0.001 | 0.70000 | 0.48305 | 4.583 | 0.001 |
| Erythema_2—Erythema_3 | 1.30000 | 0.48305 | 8.510 | 0.001 | 0.60000 | 0.51640 | 3.674 | 0.005 |
| Induration_1—Induration_2 | 0.80000 | 0.42164 | 6.000 | 0.001 | 0.20000 | 0.42164 | 1.500 | 0.168 |
| Induration_1—Induration_3 | 1.70000 | 0.82327 | 6.530 | 0.001 | 0.80000 | 0.63246 | 4.000 | 0.003 |
| Induration_2—Induration_3 | 0.90000 | 0.56765 | 5.014 | 0.001 | 0.60000 | 0.51640 | 3.674 | 0.005 |
| Desquamation_1—Desquamation_2 | 0.80000 | 0.63246 | 4.000 | 0.003 | 0.70000 | 0.48305 | 4.583 | 0.001 |
| Desquamation_1—Desquamation_3 | 2.00000 | 0.66667 | 9.487 | 0.001 | 1.60000 | 0.51640 | 9.798 | 0.001 |
| Desquamation_2—Desquamation_3 | 1.20000 | 0.63246 | 6.000 | 0.001 | 0.90000 | 0.56765 | 5.014 | 0.001 |
| PASI_Score_1—PASI_Score_2 | 1.12000 | 0.66800 | 5.302 | 0.001 | 0.54000 | 0.29889 | 5.713 | 0.001 |
| PASI_Score_1—PASI_Score_3 | 2.84000 | 1.11076 | 8.085 | 0.001 | 1.70000 | 0.71336 | 7.536 | 0.001 |
| PASI_Score_2—PASI_Score_3 | 1.72000 | 0.68767 | 7.909 | 0.001 | 1.16000 | 0.57966 | 6.328 | 0.001 |
| DLQI_Score_1—DLQI_Score_2 | 0.10000 | 0.31623 | 1.000 | 0.343 | 0.40000 | 0.51640 | 2.449 | 0.037 |
| DLQI_Score_1—DLQI_Score_3 | 2.10000 | 0.56765 | 11.699 | 0.001 | 1.00000 | 0.47140 | 6.708 | 0.001 |
| DLQI_Score_2—DLQI_Score_3 | 2.00000 | 0.66667 | 9.487 | 0.001 | 0.60000 | 0.51640 | 3.674 | 0.005 |
The research parameters are presented from visit 1 to visit 3.
Pearson correlation of the difference between research parameters.
| Correlations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation | Area | Erythema | Induration | Desquamation | PASI Score | DLQI Score | |
| Area | r | 1 | 0.556 * | 0.549 * | 0.373 | 0.052 | 0.445 * |
|
| 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.105 | 0.828 | 0.049 | ||
| Erythema | r | 0.556 * | 1 | 0.579 ** | 0.448 * | 0.473 * | 0.493 * |
|
| 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.048 | 0.035 | 0.027 | ||
| Induration | r | 0.549 * | 0.579 ** | 1 | 0.704 ** | 0.564 ** | 0.346 |
|
| 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.135 | ||
| Desquamation | r | 0.373 | 0.448 * | 0.704 ** | 1 | 0.529 * | 0.248 |
|
| 0.105 | 0.048 | 0.001 | 0.017 | 0.292 | ||
| PASI Score | r | 0.052 | 0.473 * | 0.564 ** | 0.529 * | 1 | 0.502 * |
|
| 0.828 | 0.035 | 0.010 | 0.017 | 0.024 | ||
| DLQI Score | r | 0.445 * | 0.493 * | 0.346 | 0.248 | 0.502 * | 1 |
|
| 0.049 | 0.027 | 0.135 | 0.292 | 0.024 | ||
| N | 20 | ||||||
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Compositions of the formulated SNEDDS containing different rose extracts.
| SNEDDS | Rose Extract | IPM | Cremophor RH 40 | Transcutol HP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rose-SNEDDS | 5 g | 15 g | 40 g | 40 g |
Compositions of the formulated ointments containing different rose extracts.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SP70 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Cetostearyl Alcohol | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Stearic acid | + | + | + | + | + | + |
|
| + | - | - | - | - | - |
|
| - | + | - | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | + | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | + | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - | + | - | |
| - | - | - | - | - | + | |
| Isopropyl Myristate | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Propylene Glycol | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Distilled Water | + | + | + | + | + | + |
+ sign means the component was incorporated into the formulation, - sign means it was not added to the given formulation.