MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cellular Photoprotective and Antioxidant Properties of Lipids in an Oral Skincare Supplement

2019· article· en· W3173678167 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven R. Hall, Anna‐Jean Reid, Marc St‐Onge, Kerry B. Goralski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoprotectionChemistryAntioxidantEicosapentaenoic acidZeaxanthinDocosahexaenoic acidErythemaSunburnDocosapentaenoic acidHuman skinLuteinIngestionFood sciencePharmacologyDermatologyCarotenoidBiochemistryPolyunsaturated fatty acidFatty acidMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) light is associated with multiple health risks from sunburn to skin cancers. The ingestion of natural product photoprotectors can increase skin's UV‐resistance. Our research focuses on the cellular effects of Bend Beauty, Inc.'s oral supplement called “Bend Skincare Anti‐Aging Formula” (AAF), which contains daily doses of the ω‐3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 1050 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 350 mg), ω‐6 fatty acid gamma‐linolenic acid (GLA; 120 mg), carotenoids zeaxanthin (2.5 mg) and lutein (5 mg), and vitamin D3 (1,000 IU). A clinical trial found that ingestion of AAF increased the minimal erythema doses (UV exposure required to induce skin redness) of volunteers' skin by 84% after 8 weeks, warranting further research into AAF's photoprotective properties. Objective To quantify AAF's photoprotective and antioxidant properties in human dermal fibroblasts. Methods & Results Experiments were completed in primary human dermal fibroblasts (passage #3) treated with 0.005% AAF or vehicle control (10% H 2 O, 10% THF, 75% DMSO, 5% FBS). For the initial photoprotection assays, cells were treated with AAF or vehicle for 1, 7, or 14 days and exposed to UVA (365 nm; 216 J/cm 2 ) or UVB (312 nm; 15.6 – 8,000 J/cm 2 ). The viability of 1, 7, and 14‐day AAF‐treated cells after UVA exposure was 2.9, 4.2, and 3.5‐fold higher, respectively, vs. control (P < 0.05), and the UVB IC 50s were 2.6 and 3.2‐fold higher in 7 and 14‐day AAF‐treated cells, respectively, vs. control (P < 0.05) as measured with MTT assays. For morphological analysis, 14‐day AAF‐ or vehicle‐treated fibroblasts were exposed to UVA (100 J/cm 2 ) or UVB (1 J/cm 2 ), stained with propidium iodide (PI; cell death marker), phalloidin (cytoskeleton stain), and Hoechst 32258 (nucleic stain) and imaged using confocal microscopy. After UVA or UVB exposure, the vehicle‐treated cells were visibly more damaged than AAF‐treated cells as assessed by actin staining, and PI staining was present in > 97% of the vehicle‐treated vs. < 8% of AAF‐treated fibroblasts (Figure 1). To quantify AAF's antioxidant effects, MTT assays were completed in 1, 7, and 14‐day AAF‐treated fibroblasts after 48 hours of treatment with the reactive oxygen species (ROS), H 2 O 2 (11.1 – 2,700 mM); H 2 O 2 's IC 50 values were calculated to be 2.0, 2.4, and 2.5‐fold higher, respectively, vs. control (P < 0.05). In identically AAF‐treated fibroblasts, assays to measure the intracellular ROS activity induced by H 2 O 2 (0.9 mM, 1 h) using a ROS‐fluorescent probe (CM‐DCFH 2 ‐DA) were completed. H 2 O‐ 2 ‐induced ROS activity was 67%, 63%, and 62% as high in 1, 7, and 14‐day AAF‐treated cells vs. control, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusions AAF helps to protect human dermal fibroblasts from the damaging effects of UVA, UVB, and H 2 O 2 , demonstrating its cellular photoprotective and antioxidant properties. Support or Funding Information Project funding provided by Bend Beauty, Inc., Mitacs Elevate, and the Dalhousie Pharmacy Endowment Fund This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207