4.6 Article

Dermal Delivery of Selected Polyphenols from Silybum marianum. Theoretical and Experimental Study

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24010061

关键词

Silybum marianum; flavonolignans; flavonoids; experimental and computational hydrophobicity; theoretical lipid membrane models; skin intake

资金

  1. Czech Grant Agency [15-10897S, P208/12/G016]
  2. Palacky University in Olomouc [RVO 61989592]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silymarin is a well-known standardized extract from the seeds of milk thistle (Silybum marianum L., Asteraceae) with a pleiotropic effect on human health, including skin anticancer potential. Detailed characterization of flavonolignans properties affecting interactions with human skin was of interest. The partition coefficients log P-ow of main constitutive flavonolignans, taxifolin and their respective dehydro derivatives were determined by a High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) method and by mathematical (in silico) approaches in n-octanol/water and model lipid membranes. These parameters were compared with human skin intake ex vivo. The experimental log P-ow values for individual diastereomers were estimated for the first time. The replacement of n-octanol with model lipid membranes in the theoretical lipophilicity estimation improved the prediction strength. During transdermal transport, all the studied compounds permeated the human skin ex vivo; none of them reached the acceptor liquid. Both experimental/theoretical tools allowed the studied polyphenols to be divided into two groups: low (taxifolin, silychristin, silydianin) vs. high (silybin, dehydrosilybin, isosilybin) lipophilicity and skin intake. In silico predictions can be usefully applied for estimating general lipophilicity trends, such as skin penetration or accumulation predictions. However, the theoretical models cannot yet provide the dermal delivery differences of compounds with very similar physico-chemical properties; e.g., between diastereomers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据