4.7 Article

Waste Autochthonous Tuscan Olive Leaves (Olea europaea var. Olivastra seggianese) as Antioxidant Source for Biomedicine

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20235918

关键词

olive leaf extract (OLE); polyphenol; endothelial cells; oxidative stress; in vitro model; scaffold; tissue engineering; biowaste; pruning; poly(vinylidene fluoride tri-fluoroethylene)

资金

  1. Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking under the European Union Horizon 2020 research program (BBI-H2020), PolyBioSkin project [G.A. 745839]
  2. Doctorate Degree program PEGASO of the Tuscany region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Olive leaf extract (OLE) can be obtained as biowaste and is extensively used a food supplement and an over-the-counter drug for its beneficial effects. New studies have investigated OLE concerning the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of vascular disease. This in vitro study aims to evaluate if OLE extracted from the Tuscan Olea europaea protects endothelial cells against oxidative stress generated by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Methods: OLE total polyphenols (TPs) were characterized by the Folin-Ciocalteu method. Endothelial cells were grown in conventional cultures (i.e., two-dimensional, 2D) and on a biomaterial scaffold (i.e., three-dimensional, 3D) fabricated via electrospinning. Cell viability and ROS measurement after H2O2 insults were performed. Results: OLE TP content was 23.29 mg GAE/g, and oleuropein was the principal compound. The dose-dependent viability curve highlighted the absence of significant cytotoxic effects at OLE concentrations below 250 mu g/mL TPs. By using OLE preconditioning at 100 mu g/mL, cell viability decrease was observed, being in 3D lower than in the 2D model. OLE was protective against ROS in both models. Conclusions: OLE represents a high-value antioxidant source obtained by biowaste that is interesting for biomedical products. Using a 3D scaffold could be the best predictive model to mimic the physiological conditions of vascular tissue reaction.

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

4.7
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