| Literature DB >> 36234901 |
Philipi Cavalcante Ricardo1, Ricardo Lima Serudo2, Ştefan Ţălu3, Carlos Victor Lamarão4, Henrique Duarte da Fonseca Filho1,5, Jaqueline de Araújo Bezerra6, Edgar Aparecido Sanches1, Pedro Henrique Campelo1,7.
Abstract
Bromelain has potential as an analgesic, an anti-inflammatory, and in cancer treatments. Despite its therapeutic effects, this protein undergoes denaturation when administered orally. Microencapsulation processes have shown potential in protein protection and as controlled release systems. Thus, this paper aimed to develop encapsulating systems using sodium alginate as a carrier material and positively charged amino acids as stabilizing agents for the controlled release of bromelain in in vitro tests. The systems were produced from the experimental design of centroid simplex mixtures. Characterizations were performed by FTIR showing that bromelain was encapsulated in all systems. XRD analyses showed that the systems are semi-crystalline solids and through SEM analysis the morphology of the formed systems followed a pattern of rough microparticles. The application of statistical analysis showed that the systems presented behavior that can be evaluated by quadratic and special cubic models, with a p-value < 0.05. The interaction between amino acids and bromelain/alginate was evaluated, and free bromelain showed a reduction of 74.0% in protein content and 23.6% in enzymatic activity at the end of gastric digestion. Furthermore, a reduction of 91.6% of protein content and 65.9% of enzymatic activity was observed at the end of intestinal digestion. The Lis system showed better interaction due to the increased stability of bromelain in terms of the amount of proteins (above 63% until the end of the intestinal phase) and the enzymatic activity of 89.3%. Thus, this study proposes the development of pH-controlled release systems aiming at increasing the stability and bioavailability of bromelain in intestinal systems.Entities:
Keywords: alginate; bioavailability; bromelain; controlled release; encapsulation; gastric digestion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234901 PMCID: PMC9570880 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
A simplex-centroid design with ratios of l-lysine (X1), l-arginine (X2), and l-histidine (X3).
| Code | Component Ratio (% m·V−1) | Execution Order | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sodium Alginate | Bromelain | X1 | X2 | X3 | ||
| Lis | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7(C) |
| Arg | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| His | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| LA | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 0 | 7(C) |
| LH | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1/2 | 0 | 1/2 | 2 |
| AH | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 4 |
| LAH | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1 |
| LAH | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 7(C) |
| LAH | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 6 |
The first three systems were labeled using the initial letters corresponding to the amino acid content, i.e., l-lysine = Lis, l-arginine = Arg, and l-histidine = His. In the other systems, the first letter of the corresponding amino acid was used to label the systems: LA = mixture of l-lysine and l-arginine, LH = mixture of l-lysine and l-histidine, AH = mixture of l-arginine and l-histidine, and LAH = mixture of l-lysine, l-arginine, and l = histidine.
Behavior of the developed systems in relation to the unloaded bromelain.
| Code | Yield | Moisture Content | Protein Content | Protein Content | Residual Enzyme Activity | Residual Enzyme Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lis | 26.8 | 0.62 | 63.6 | 59.7 | 43.3 | 89.3 |
| Arg | 33.1 | 1.92 | 90.1 | 31.7 | 67.5 | 5.7 |
| His | 38.0 | 1.67 | 72.3 | 44.6 | 27.4 | 50.7 |
| LA | 36.7 | 1.27 | 78.3 | 33.0 | 50.2 | 6.3 |
| LH | 44.6 | 1.25 | 85.8 | 46.2 | 68.5 | 55.4 |
| AH | 40.1 | 1.84 | 85.8 | 51.5 | 19.9 | 45.9 |
| LAH | 38.5 | 0.61 | 87.1 | 41.8 | 15.1 | 3.5 |
| LAH | 39.7 | 0.49 | 87.3 | 42.4 | 13.9 | 3.3 |
| LAH | 37.9 | 0.29 | 89.8 | 44.0 | 13.6 | 4.8 |
Analysis of variance for the applied models.
| Source | Degree of Freedom | Adjusted Sum of Square | Adjusted Mean Square | F Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Yield (%) | |||||
| Model | 6 | 195.99 | 32.66539 | 39.2081 | 0.0251 |
| Lack-of-fit | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Pure Error | 2 | 1.6663 | 0.83313 | ||
| Moisture Content (%) | |||||
| Model | 6 | 3.042333 | 0.507056 | 19.4026 | 0.0498 |
| Lack-of-fit | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Pure Error | 2 | 0.0523 | 0.0261 | ||
| Residual Enzyme Activity (%) SFG | |||||
| Model | 6 | 4058.963 | 676.4938 | 1070.36 | 0.0009 |
| Lack-of-fit | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Pure Error | 2 | 1.264 | 0.632 | ||
| Residual Enzyme Activity (%) SFI | |||||
| Model | 6 | 8032.828 | 1338.805 | 2216.15 | 0.0005 |
| Lack-of-fit | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Pure Error | 2 | 1.208 | 0.604 | ||
|
| |||||
| PC (%) SFG | |||||
| Model | 5 | 648.0382 | 129.6076 | 42.4920 | 0.0055 |
| Lack-of-fit | 1 | 4.5162 | 4.5162 | 1.9491 | 0.2975 |
| Pure Error | 2 | 4.6343 | 2.3171 | ||
| PC (%) SFI | |||||
| Model | 5 | 585.9594 | 117.1919 | 130.7413 | 0.0010 |
| Lack-of-fit | 1 | 0.0622 | 0.0622 | 0.0473 | 0.8479 |
| Pure Error | 2 | 2.6269 | 1.3135 |
Regression coefficients (β1, β2, and β3) and adjusted R2 of the produced models.
| Response | β1 | β2 | β3 | β12 | β13 | β23 | β123 | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield (%) | 26.8 | 33.1 | 38.0 | 27.2 | 48.8 | * | –118.9 | 0.9663 |
| Moisture Content (%) | * | 1.9 | 1.7 | * | * | * | –27.2 | 0.9324 |
| Residual Enzymatic Activity (%) SFG | 43.3 | 67.5 | 27.4 | –20.8 | 132.5 | −110.3 | –864.4 | 0.9629 |
| Residual Enzymatic Activity (%) SFI | 89.3 | 5.7 | 50.7 | –164.7 | –58.3 | 70.6 | –749.7 | 0.9878 |
| Protein Content (%) SFG | 63.3 | 89.8 | 72.1 | * | 76.4 | * | - | 0.9994 |
| Protein Content (%) SFI | 59.8 | 31.7 | 44.6 | –51.2 | –24.2 | 52.8 | - | 0.9475 |
*: No significant regression coefficient.
Figure 1Contour curve of the tested systems for protein content (%) in (a) SFG and (b) SFI.
Figure 2Contour curve of the tested systems for residual enzyme activity (%) in (a) SFG and (b) SFI.
Figure 3Dry system (left); process of rehydration and protein diffusion in contact with SFG in pH 3.0 (center) and processes of degradation of the systems with release of non-diffuse proteins from the gastric phase in pH 7.0 (right).
Figure 4Contour curve of the tested systems in (a) yield (%) and (b) moisture content (%).
Figure 5(a) FTIR spectra of the individual compounds of the developed systems and (b) FTIR spectra of the developed systems.
Figure 6(a) XRD patterns of the individual compounds of the developed systems; (b) XRD patterns of the developed systems.
Figure 7SEM images of the developed systems.