4.5 Article

Erythrocytes and cell line-based assays to evaluate the cytoprotective activity of antioxidant components obtained from natural sources

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 120-124

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2013.10.004

Keywords

Antioxidant extract; Haemolysis; Cytotoxicity; TBARS; AAPH

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Ministry for Science and Innovation) of Spain [CTQ2009-14151-C02-02]
  2. Universitat de Barcelona (Spain)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oxidative stress can damage cellular components including DNA, proteins or lipids, and may cause several skin diseases. To protect from this damage and addressing consumer's appeal to natural products, antioxidants obtained from algal and vegetal extracts are being proposed as antioxidants to be incorporated into formulations. Thus, the development of reliable, quick and economic in vitro methods to study the cytoactivity of these products is a meaningful requirement. A combination of erythrocyte and cell line-based assays was performed on two extracts from Sargassum muticum, one from Ulva lactuca, and one from Castanea sativa. Antioxidant properties were assessed in erythrocytes by the TBARS and AAPH assays, and cytotoxicity and antioxidant cytoprotection were assessed in HaCaT and 3T3 cells by the MTT assay. The extracts showed no antioxidant activity on the TBARS assay, whereas their antioxidant capacity in the AAPH assay was demonstrated. On the cytotoxicity assays, extracts showed low toxicity, with IC50 values higher than 200 mu g/mL. C. sativa extract showed the most favourable antioxidant properties on the antioxidant cytoprotection assays; while S. muticum and U. lactuca extracts showed a slight antioxidant activity. This battery of methods was useful to characterise the biological antioxidant properties of these natural extracts. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available