4.8 Article

Fabrication of quercetin and curcumin bionanovesicles for the prevention and rapid regeneration of full-thickness skin defects on mice

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 1292-1300

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.005

关键词

Vesicles; Polyphenols; Skin inflammation; Histopathology; Wound healing

资金

  1. Sardinia Regional Government
  2. MIUR [2010H834LS_004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present work biocompatible quercetin and curcumin nanovesicles were developed as a novel approach to prevent and restore skin tissue defects on chronic cutaneous pathologies. Stable and suitable quercetin- and curcumin-loaded phospholipid vesicles, namely liposomes and penetration enhancer-containing vesicles (PEVs), were prepared. Vesicles were made from a highly biocompatible mixture of phospholipids and alternatively a natural polyphenol, quercetin or curcumin. Liposomes were obtained by adding water, while PEVs by adding polyethylene glycol 400 and Oramix(R)CG110 to the water phase. Transmission electron microscopy, cryogenic-transmission electron microscopy and small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering showed that vesicles were spherical, oligo- or multilamellar and small in size (112-220 nm). In vitro and in vivo tests underlined a good effectiveness of quercetin and curcumin nanovesicles in counteracting phorbol ester 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) induced lesions and inflammation. Myeloperoxydase activity, used to gauge inflammation, was markedly inhibited by quercetin liposomes (59%) and curcumin liposomes and polyethylene glycol (PEG)-PEVs (similar to 68%). Histology showed that PEG-PEVs provided an extensive re-epithelization of the TPA-damaged skin, with multiple layers of thick epidermis. In conclusion, nanoentrapped polyphenols prevented the formation of skin lesions abrogating the various biochemical processes that cause epithelial loss and skin damage. (C) 2013 Acts Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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