São José dos Pinhais, Brazil
São José dos Pinhais, Brazil

Time filter

Source Type

Brohem C.A.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | De Carvalho C.M.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | De Carvalho C.M.,Positivo University | Radoski C.L.,Positivo University | And 8 more authors.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science | Year: 2013

Synopsis Objective Stem cells have the ability to renew themselves and differentiate into various cell types. For this reason, numerous research groups have been studying these cells for their therapeutic potential. Some of the therapies, however, are not producing the expected results because of contamination by other cell types, especially by fibroblasts. In the cosmetic industry, stem cells are used to test the efficacy of anti-ageing and rejuvenation products. The purpose of this work was to gain a better understanding of the differences in phenotype, in gene expression associated with stem cells, in the pattern of cell surface proteins and in the differentiation capacity of adipose-derived stem cells, of skin-derived stem cells and of commercially available fibroblasts. Methods In this study, we compared fibroblasts with mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow, skin (dermis) and adipose tissue, to assess the differentiation potential of fibroblasts. Dermal and adipose stem cells were isolated from aesthetic surgery patients, and fibroblasts were obtained from a commercial source. The following parameters were used in this study: immunophenotypic profile (positive: CD29, CD73, CD90 and CD105; negative: CD14, CD45 and HLA-DR); differentiation into osteoblastic, chondrogenic and adipogenic cell types; and PCR array to analyse the gene expression of cells isolated from different culture passages. Results Fibroblasts express the same cell immunophenotypic markers, as well as the genes that are known to be expressed in stem cells, and were shown to be expressed also in adipose and dermis stem cells. Fibroblasts are also able to differentiate into the three cell lineages mentioned above, that is, adipocytes, osteocytes and chondrocytes. Conclusion Human dermal fibroblasts have a potential to adhere to plastic surfaces and differentiate into other cell types. However, for stem cells intended to be used in cosmetics, experiments conducted with contaminated fibroblasts may produce poor or even falsely negative results for the efficacy of the active ingredient or formulation and thus conceal their promising effects as anti-ageing and skin rejuvenation products. © 2013 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie.


De Carvalho C.M.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | Menezes P.F.C.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | Letenski G.C.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | Praes C.E.O.,Biomolecular Research Laboratory | And 2 more authors.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science | Year: 2012

Synopsis Preservatives are used in cosmetics to prevent microbial contamination; however, some preservatives are not free of allergenic and cytotoxic potential. Allergenicity and cytotoxicity potential values are major aspects of preservative safety, which determine limitations and maximum concentration dose in a cosmetic product. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the in vitro apoptosis, necrosis and genotoxicity-inducing potential of five different types of preservatives: Phenoxyethanol (PE), Propylparaben (PP), Methylparaben (MP), Benzyl Alcohol (BA) and Ethylhexyl Glycerine (EG). In vitro experiments were carried out on human dermal fibroblasts by a quantitative flow cytometry method, using specific cell markers (Annexin V, Propidium Iodide and H2AX). We compared the resulting cell viability by means of neutral red uptake (NRU) and established the IC 50. Our results showed that PE, PP, MP and BA have similar cytotoxic mechanisms (high apoptosis and necrosis levels only at the test concentration of 1%), whereas EG showed only an apoptosis pathway. For genotoxicity, both parabens yielded the highest values. Results obtained by flow cytometry for necrosis were comparable to those produced by NRU; however, NRU does not distinguish apoptosis from necrosis. We propose that flow cytometry is a more sophisticated methodology for understanding the cytotoxic mechanisms of cosmetic preservatives and can be used to complement the NRU. © 2011 Grupo Boticário. ICS © 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie.


PubMed | Biomolecular Research Laboratory
Type: Journal Article | Journal: International journal of cosmetic science | Year: 2012

Preservatives are used in cosmetics to prevent microbial contamination; however, some preservatives are not free of allergenic and cytotoxic potential. Allergenicity and cytotoxicity potential values are major aspects of preservative safety, which determine limitations and maximum concentration dose in a cosmetic product. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the in vitro apoptosis, necrosis and genotoxicity-inducing potential of five different types of preservatives: Phenoxyethanol (PE), Propylparaben (PP), Methylparaben (MP), Benzyl Alcohol (BA) and Ethylhexyl Glycerine (EG). In vitro experiments were carried out on human dermal fibroblasts by a quantitative flow cytometry method, using specific cell markers (Annexin V, Propidium Iodide and H2AX). We compared the resulting cell viability by means of neutral red uptake (NRU) and established the IC(50) . Our results showed that PE, PP, MP and BA have similar cytotoxic mechanisms (high apoptosis and necrosis levels only at the test concentration of 1%), whereas EG showed only an apoptosis pathway. For genotoxicity, both parabens yielded the highest values. Results obtained by flow cytometry for necrosis were comparable to those produced by NRU; however, NRU does not distinguish apoptosis from necrosis. We propose that flow cytometry is a more sophisticated methodology for understanding the cytotoxic mechanisms of cosmetic preservatives and can be used to complement the NRU.

Loading Biomolecular Research Laboratory collaborators
Loading Biomolecular Research Laboratory collaborators