| Literature DB >> 36235550 |
Magdalena Paczkowska-Walendowska1, Andrzej Miklaszewski2, Judyta Cielecka-Piontek1.
Abstract
The low bioavailability of resveratrol and polydatin obtained from Polygoni cuspidati extract limits the application of their pro-health properties. While nanofibers have attracted increasing attention in nutrition delivery due to their special properties, including an increase in the dissolution and permeability, which affects the bioavailability. Therefore, it is justified to obtain nanofibers from Polygoni cuspidati extract, which showed antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties as a result of a presence of stilbene analogs in the Polygoni cuspidati extract (especially resveratrol and polydatin). In the first stage of the work, using the Design of Experiment (DoE) approach, the Polygoni cuspidati extract (70% of methanol, temperature 70 °C and 4 cycles) was obtained, which showed the best antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Using the Polygoni cuspidati extract as a substrate, nanofibers were obtained by electrospinning. The identification of nanofibers was confirmed on the basis of the analysis of changes in XRPD diffractograms, SEM picture and FTIR-ATR spectra. Obtaining nanofibers from the Polygoni cuspidati extract significantly improved the solubility of resveratrol and polydatin (approx. 6-fold comparing to pure substance). As a consequence, the penetration coefficients of both tested resveratrol and polydatin also increased. The proposed strategy for the preparation of nanofibers from the Polygoni cuspidati extract is an innovative approach to better use the synergy of biological action of active compounds present in extracts. It is especially during the development of nutraceuticals based on the use of selected stilbenes.Entities:
Keywords: Polygoni cuspidate extract; bioavailability; nanofibers; polydatin; resveratrol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235550 PMCID: PMC9572329 DOI: 10.3390/nu14193897
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Factorial Extraction Process Experiment Plan.
| No. | % of Methanol in the Extraction Mixture | Temperature | Number of Cycles |
|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | 0 | 30 | 3 |
| W2 | 0 | 50 | 5 |
| W3 | 0 | 70 | 4 |
| W4 | 35 | 30 | 5 |
| W5 | 35 | 50 | 4 |
| W6 | 35 | 70 | 3 |
| W7 | 70 | 30 | 4 |
| W8 | 70 | 50 | 3 |
| W9 | 70 | 70 | 5 |
Factorial Electrospinning Process Experiment Plan.
| No. | Content | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| W10 Extract (g) | HPβCD (g) | PVP (g) | |
| F1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| F2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| F3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| F4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| F5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| F6 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| F7 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| F8 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| F9 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Figure 1Chromatogram of extract W9.
Content of Active Compounds in the Extracts.
| No. | Content (µg/1 g Plant Material) | Sum of Active Compounds (µg/1 g Plant Material) | TPC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polydatin | Resveratrol | Emodin | Parietin | |||
| W1 | 174.29 ± 0.68 | 185.85 ± 10.75 | 7.85 ± 0.41 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 452.61 | 7.85 ± 0.41 |
| W2 | 288.76 ± 22.64 | 206.69 ± 3.99 | 11.97 ± 0.62 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 729.16 | 11.97 ± 0.62 |
| W3 | 1384.68 ± 6.51 | 307.38 ± 1.57 | 12.95 ± 1.95 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 1892.28 | 12.95 ± 1.95 |
| W4 | 1060.43 ± 8.74 | 324.95 ± 15.49 | 20.35 ± 0.72 | 0.19 ± 0.08 | 1631.68 | 20.35 ± 0.72 |
| W5 | 1388.60 ± 66.33 | 353.33 ± 12.53 | 21.96 ± 0.88 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 2001.47 | 21.96 ± 0.88 |
| W6 | 2891.96 ± 26.31 | 369.26 ± 3.88 | 23.11 ± 1.06 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 3738.75 | 23.11 ± 1.06 |
| W7 | 2730.72 ± 30.61 | 414.12 ± 5.30 | 23.09 ± 2.22 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 3931.77 | 23.09 ± 2.22 |
| W8 | 4179.04 ± 29.44 | 449.50 ± 1.24 | 30.75 ± 2.14 | 0.13 ± 0.08 | 4925.62 | 30.75 ± 2.14 |
| W9 | 4199.43 ± 68.10 | 652.67 ± 17.44 | 35.01 ± 1.77 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 5241.30 | 35.01 ± 1.77 |
Antioxidant and Anti-Hialuronidase Activities.
| No. | DPPH | ABTS | CUPRAC | FRAP | Hyaluronidase Inhibition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | |||||
| W1 | 0.80 ± 0.02 | 0.66 ± 0.08 | 2.16 ± 0.02 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 73.52 ± 2.37 |
| W2 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.04 | 1.63 ± 0.03 | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 44.02 ± 1.48 |
| W3 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.04 | 1.33 ± 0.30 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 33.21 ± 2.40 |
| W4 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.04 | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 25.45 ± 0.87 |
| W5 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.03 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 19.98 ± 1.67 |
| W6 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 11.34 ± 2.45 |
| W7 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 10.43 ± 1.33 |
| W8 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 4.69 ± 0.33 |
| W9 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 4.35 ± 0.28 |
| IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µg/mL) | ||
| Resveratrol | 22.32 ± 0.20 | 10.84 ± 0.23 | 20.82 ± 1.29 | 9.17 ± 0.68 | |
| Polydatin | 35.06 ± 1.11 | 25.21 ± 2.32 | 68.73 ± 0.48 | 12.90 ± 0.29 | |
Figure 2Model utility contour profiles for effect with a positive sign (a) and negative sign (b) for extract optimalization.
Figure 3SEM image for nanofibers no. 5.
Figure 4Diffractograms for powder systems and nanofibers no. 5.
XRPD Signals’ Positions.
| Sample | PVP | HPβCD | Lyophilized Extract | Nanofiber HPBCD-PVP | Nanofiber no. 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Peak position [2 | 11.45 | 10.26 | - | 11.11 | 9.48 |
| (2) Peak position [2 | 21.28 | 18.72 | 21.37 | 20.61 | 21.16 |
| Matrix peak position displacement [2 | - | - | - | (1) −0.34 | (1) −1.97 |
| Matrix peak position displacement [Å] | - | (1) 0.24 | (1) 1.76 |
Figure 5FTIR-ATR spectra for powder samples and nanofiber no. 5.
Figure 6Model utility contour profiles for all effects for electrospun nanofibers optimalization.
Content of Active Components in Nanofibers.
| Nanofibers 2 | Nanofibers 3 | Nanofibers 4 | Nanofibers 5 | Nanofibers 6 | Nanofibers 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content (µg/100 mg Nanofibers) | ||||||
| Solvent: methanol | ||||||
| Polydatin | 5.16 ± 0.11 | 8.35 ± 0.11 | 13.66 ± 0.87 | 33.32 ± 1.60 | 15.04 ± 3.48 | 9.45 ± 0.33 |
| Resveratrol | 3.70 ± 0.01 | 1.28 ± 0.01 | 5.93 ± 0.59 | 8.60 ± 0.39 | 1.68 ± 0.33 | 1.05 ± 0.04 |
| Solvent: artificial saliva solution at pH 6.8 | ||||||
| Polydatin | 8.20 ± 0.01 | 6.96 ± 0.06 | 15.46 ± 0.01 | 27.46 ± 1.08 | 18.62 ± 0.27 | 19.24 ± 0.08 |
| Resveratrol | 0.81 ± 0.03 | 0.60 ± 0.03 | 1.02 ± 0.01 | 11.00 ± 0.52 | 1.79 ± 0.02 | 2.26 ± 0.05 |
Figure 7Dissolution profiles of polydatin (a) and resveratrol (b) from the nanofibers at artificial saliva solution at pH 6.8.
Total Amount of Released Polydatin and Resveratrol from Nanofibers at 15 Minutes.
| Nanofibers 2 | Nanofibers 3 | Nanofibers 4 | Nanofibers 5 | Nanofibers 6 | Nanofibers 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Amount of Released Drug from 100 mg of Nanofibers (µg) at 15 min | ||||||
| Polydatin | 5.75 ± 0.07 | 5.83 ± 0.04 | 12.50 ± 0.03 | 16.56 ± 0.22 | 18.80 ± 0.29 | 17.47 ± 0.02 |
| Resveratrol | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 0 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 3.80 ± 0.20 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.01 |
Figure 8Component of bioadhesion of the nanofibers.
Apparent Permeability Coefficients for Standards, as well as Active Compounds from Extract W10 and Nanofibers.
| Standards | W10 | Nanofibers 2 | Nanofibers 3 | Nanofibers 4 | Nanofibers 5 | Nanofibers 6 | Nanofibers 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apparent Permeability Coefficient Papp × 10−6 (cm/s) | ||||||||
| Polydatin | 0.0036 ± 0.0001 | 0.0096 ± 0.0007 | 3.6213 ± 0.4921 | 0.7235 ± 0.0460 | 0.1740 ± 0.0043 | 0.2060 ± 0.0155 | 0.0455 ± 0.0039 | 0.0088 ± 0.0003 |
| Resveratrol | 1.0924 ± 0.0778 | 0.0281 ± 0.0017 | 47.5107 ± 6.1468 | 11.7056 ± 0.6146 | 11.3306 ± 0.2093 | 13.4603 ± 0.9008 | 0.1387 ± 0.0070 | 0.1102 ± 0.0042 |