An <i>in vitro</i> investigation on the physicochemical properties of different quercetin formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Quercetin is a naturally occurring plant flavonoid commonly used as a nutritional supplement due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Its well-known low bioavailability has led to the design of different quercetin formulations by various commercial entities seeking to market a highly bioavailable quercetin product. This study investigates four different commercially available quercetin formulations (LMQ, QUX, QUO, and QUV) for their physicochemical properties that influence bioavailability. LMQ and QUX are liquid-based formulations while QUO and QUV are solid powder-based formulations. Methods Studies were conducted on particle size using a particle size analyzer; solubility (in water, simulated gastric and intestinal fluid) using Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) to quantify the quercetin content; intestinal permeability and toxicity using Caco-2 cells and HepG2 liver cells. Results LMQ and QUX had the narrowest particle size distribution as well as the highest solubility while QUO and QUV had the widest particle size distribution but the poorest solubility. One formulation (QUO) exhibited a significant reduction in cell viability with HepG2 and Caco-2 cells including a significant decrease in TEER value change (−39.0 %; p<0.01); its higher Caco-2 cell permeability (P app 2.85 × 10 −4 ± 4.22 × 10 −5 ; p<0.05) likely resulted from reduced membrane integrity. The other formulations significantly increased the TEER value within the first 4 h ( ≥ 22.7 %; p<0.05). Conclusions The particle size distribution of each of the individual formulations reflected their solubilities in water and gastrointestinal fluids. Despite QUO having the highest permeability, its negative change in TEER value over time revealed its evident cytotoxic effects. QUV performed poorly in terms of solubility, and permeability. LMQ and QUX were the most consistent across each study with LMQ performing better than QUX overall. Findings of this study present one formulation (LMQ) with superior intestinal absorption while maintaining high cell viability, thus making it one of the safer and more effective quercetin formulations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".