Evaluation of Protective Effect of a Water-In-Oil Microemulsion Incorporating Quercetin Against UVB-Induced Damage in Hairless Mice Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the present study, histological aspects were considered in order to evaluate the in vivo photoprotective effect of a w/o microemulsion containing quercetin against UVB irradiation-induced dermal damages. The toxicity in cell culture and the potential skin irritation resulting from topical application of this formulation were also investigated. METHODS: Mouse dorsal surfaces were treated topically with 300 mg of the unloaded and quercetin-loaded (0.3%, w/w) microemulsions before and after exposure to UVB (2.87 J/cm2) irradiation. The untreated control groups irradiated and non-irradiated were also evaluated. UVB-induced histopathological changes as well as the photoprotective effect of this formulation were evaluated considering the parameters of infiltration of inflammatory cells, epidermis thickening (basale and spinosum layers) and collagen and elastic fiber contents. The cytotoxicity of the reported formulation was evaluated in L929 mice fibroblasts by MTT assay and the skin irritation was investigated after topical application of both unloaded and quercetin-loaded microemulsions once a day for 15 days. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the w/o microemulsion containing quercetin reduced the incidence of histological skin alterations, mainly the connective-tissue damage, induced by exposure to UVB irradiation, this allows the suggestion that protective effects of this formulation against UV-induced responses are not secondary to the interference of UV transmission (i.e., blocking the UVB radiation from being absorbed by the skin), as is usually done with UVB absorbers and sunscreens, but is instead due to different biological effects of this flavonoid. Furthermore, by evaluating the cytotoxic effect on L929 cells and histological aspects such as infiltration of inflammatory cells and epidermis thickness of hairless mice, the present study also demonstrated no toxicity of the proposed system. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, based on these mouse models, a detailed characterization of the w/o microemulsion incorporating quercetin effects as a photochemoprotective agent on human skin is thus indicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".