4.7 Article

Influence of cryopreservation methods of ex vivo rat and pig skin on the results of in vitro permeation test

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2023.06.004

关键词

Ex vivo skin cryopreservation; Skin viability; In vitro permeation test; Skin permeability; Transdermal drug delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro permeation test (IVPT) is commonly used for evaluating topical preparations and transdermal drug delivery systems. However, the storage of ex vivo skin for IVPT is challenging. This study investigated the efficacy of two cryopreservation media, 10% DMSO and 10% GLY, for preserving rat and pig skin at -20°C and -80°C, and found that -80°C storage in 10% DMSO or 10% GLY was optimal for maintaining skin viability and permeability. The results also suggested that skin viability could serve as a potential indicator for IVPT skin.
In vitro permeation test (IVPT) is a frequently used method for in vitro assessment of topical preparations and transdermal drug delivery systems. However, the storage of ex vivo skin for IVPT remains a challenge. Here, two cryopreservation media were chosen to preserve rat and pig skin at -20 & DEG;C and -80 & DEG;C for further IVPT, namely, 10 % DMSO and 10 % GLY. The skin viability test confirmed that the skin protective capacity of 10 % DMSO and 10 % GLY was almost equal. The results of skin viability and IVPT showed that the skin viability and permeability of rat skin in 10 %DMSO or 10 % GLY were maintained for at least 7 and 30 days at -20 & DEG;C and -80 & DEG;C compared to fresh skin, respectively; in contrast, those of porcine skin were just maintained for <7 days at -20 & DEG;C and -80 & DEG;C. These results indicated that ex vivo skin for IVPT preserved at -80 & DEG;C in 10 % DMSO or 10 % GLY was optimal. Furthermore, skin permeability was independent of skin barrier integrity. Our study provides reference conditions for preserving IVPT skin, and skin viability can be a potential indicator of IVPT skin.

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