Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

Microbial production of bioactive molecules provides a promising alternative to traditional isolation or chemical synthesis approaches, enabling high-yield production of pure compounds without the need for heavy-metal catalysts, harsh conditions, or complex plant-based processes. Hydroxytyrosol (HT), a potent antioxidant with significant pharmacological properties, has attracted considerable interest due to its broad applications in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food industries. While Escherichia coli systems have been effective for HT production, optimization of extraction yield and recovery process remain a challenge. Furthermore, isolation of HT and its metabolites continues to suffer from inefficiencies even when biosynthetic pathways are successful. Centrifugal techniques such as annular centrifugal extraction and partition chromatography methods e.g., Annular Centrifugal Extraction - ACE, Countercurrent chromatography - CCC, Centrifugal Partition Chromatography - CPC offer advantages over traditional methods, including the absence of solid stationary phases, reduced organic solvent use, speed, and scalability. However, these techniques have been underutilized in biotechnology workflows. Additionally, existing procedures often employ simplistic analytical methods, which lead to loss of valuable data for pathway monitoring, validation and metabolite discovery. This study presents a comprehensive workflow for the production, extraction, isolation, and identification of HT and derivatives from metabolically engineered E. coli biofactories. The workflow combines ACE for media extraction with CPC for high yield and purity HT isolation. It also emphasizes the analysis and structural elucidation of HT metabolites by means of HRMS/MS and 1 & 2D NMR, facilitating biosynthetic pathway monitoring and discovery of novel HT metabolites with potential enhanced biological activity. Using this approach, 23 compounds were isolated and identified contributing to the completion of the complex biosynthetic route of HT synthesis from l-tyrosine. This is first reported of direct isolation of pure HT metabolites from E. coli biofactories and to our knowledge the first application of liquid-liquid centrifugal techniques in the treatment of biotechnological materials.

Scar formation is a common outcome of tissue injury, manifesting as atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars, which can significantly impact quality of life. Laser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for scars, encompassing ablative and non-ablative approaches, yet there are gaps in understanding their comparative efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. This study aims to comprehensively review published research comparing the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of various laser therapies for treating atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars. A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, involving comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for human comparative clinical trials published in English from January 2010 to February 2024. Studies were included if they compared two or more laser types for the treatment of scars. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Out of 5951 records retrieved, 39 studies involving 1262 participants were included. The majority focused on atrophic scars (48.7%), with treatment typically consisting of three sessions at four-week intervals. Results indicated that ablative lasers, particularly CO2 and Er: YAG, were more effective for atrophic scars but associated with higher pain and downtime. For hypertrophic and keloid scars, both ablative and non-ablative lasers yielded comparable results, especially in combination therapies. Notably, patient skin type influenced treatment choice due to the risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Laser therapy is effective for various scar types, with ablative lasers preferred for atrophic scars, albeit with increased pain and downtime. Both laser types are effective for hypertrophic and keloid scars, and combination treatments can enhance outcomes. Personalized treatment approaches considering skin type are essential to minimize adverse effects. Further research is warranted to refine laser parameters and assess long-term efficacy and patient satisfaction. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: • Scar formation is a common outcome of the wound healing process, resulting in various scar types, including atrophic, hypertrophic, and keloid scars. These scars can significantly reduce the quality of life for affected individuals. • Laser therapy has emerged as a developed technology for scar treatment, utilizing heat and light for coagulation and tissue reconstruction. Laser modalities are primarily categorized into ablative (e.g., CO2 and Er: YAG lasers) and non-ablative types, each targeting different scar characteristics. • Despite advancements, significant gaps exist in knowledge regarding the long-term efficacy of laser treatments, pain management, and overall patient satisfaction. Critical factors influencing treatment outcomes include the timing of therapy initiation, the type of laser used, and the intervals between treatments. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: • A total of 1262 participants were included in the studies, with 54.6% being females. The majority of studies focused on atrophic scars (64.1%), particularly acne scars (48.7%), while studies on hypertrophic and keloid scars accounted for 35.9% of the included. • Scar improvement was assessed using standard existing scoring scales in 67.7% of cases, with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) being used to measure pain in 57.1% of studies. Treatment protocols typically consisted of 3 sessions at 4-week intervals, with follow-up visits scheduled 1 to 6 months after the final treatment session. • In a comparison of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the Long-pulse 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser for treating acne scars, 52.3% of patients treated with the Er: YAG laser experienced improvement, while only 25% of patients treated with the Nd: YAG laser reported similar results. • In a study comparing ablative 10600 nm fx CO2 lasers with nonablative 1550 nm Er: glass lasers for treating acne scars, over 50% recovery was achieved in 37.5% of patients treated with the fx CO2 laser, while only 12.5% of patients had similar recovery with the non-ablative 1550 nm Er: glass laser. • In a comparison of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser with the Fractional CO2 laser for treating acne scars, the fx CO2 laser achieved an improvement of over 50% in 65% of patients, while the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser demonstrated improvement in 55% of patients, with no statistically significant difference between the two (p > 0.05). • In a study comparing the 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser with a diffractive optical element to the non-ablative 1550 nm Er: glass laser for atrophic acne scars, the Nd: YAG laser group demonstrated a 55% improvement in the ECCA criterion, while the Er: glass laser group showed a 42% improvement. • In a comparison between the 1550 nm Er: fiber laser and the 755 nm Picosecond laser for treating atrophic acne scars, 73.91% of patients who received the 1550 nm Er: fiber laser experienced a 26%-50% improvement, while all patients treated with the 755 nm Picosecond laser showed only a 1%-25% improvement, indicating significantly greater effectiveness of the Er: fiber laser (P < 0.05). • In a study comparing the 10600 nm fx CO2 laser and the 1550 nm Er: glass laser for treating hypertrophic scars, the mean improvement was 2.35 ± 0.85 for the Er: glass group and 2.45 ± 0.99 for the fx CO2 group over a three-month period, indicating no statistically significant difference between the two (p > 0.05). • A study assessing the effectiveness of the CO2 laser, Nd: YAG 1064-nm laser, and their combination for treating hypertrophic scars reported recovery rates of 47.33% for the CO2 laser, 41.19% for the Nd: YAG laser, and 44.92% for the combination group, with no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). • In a comparative study of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the 1550 nm Er: glass laser for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars, 85.7% of patients reported a better overall appearance in the areas treated with the Er: YAG laser, and 71.4% noted an improved cosmetic appearance in that area compared to the opposite site. • In a comparative study evaluating the effectiveness of the 2940 nm Er: YAG laser versus the Fractional CO2 laser for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars, the first study showed a 49.8% reduction in the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) for the fx CO2 group compared to 28.2% for the Er: YAG group, with this difference being statistically significant; however, a second study found no significant difference between the two lasers over three months. • In a study comparing the 532 nm potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser with the 595 nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) over a 12-week period, the median improvement score for the KTP laser group was 2, while the PDL group had a score of 1.5; however, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. • In a comparative study of the pulsed dye laser (PDL) and the 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser for treatinghypertrophic scars and keloids, the recovery rate for the Nd: YAG group was 65.44%, whereas the PDL group had a recovery rate of 55.14%. While both groups showed significant improvement, no notable difference was observed between the two treatments.

Hinokitiol (β-thujaplicin) is a natural antimicrobial agent used in cosmetics. The aim of presented studies was to gain insight into the interactions of hinokitiol with lipids in model membranes and to correlate this with the selective effect of hinokitiol on cells. To reach this goal, the toxicity of hinokitiol was evaluated using keratinocyte and fibroblast cell lines, and studies were performed on lipid monolayers (both one component and mixed systems). During investigations the surface pressure - area measurements, penetration studies and Brewster angle microscopy experiments were done. The analysis of the parameters calculated from the experimental data and the comparison of BAM images evidenced that, at membrane - related surface pressure, hinokitiol does not insert into model keratinocyte and fibroblast membranes and its impact on these systems is very weak. This important conclusion correlates with the in vitro experiments. The results for one component systems evidenced that the effect of hinokitiol on mammalian lipid films depends on the monolayer organisation and the lipid structure (especially the lipid polar head). In consequence, the type and proportion of lipids determines the effect of hinokitiol on the mixed films. The latter corroborates with the differences in the influence of hinokitiol on bacteria compared to mammalian lipids. It was concluded that hinokitiol exhibits selective activity toward bacterial cells compared to mammalian cells and their corresponding model membranes. Thus, the predominance of hinokitiol's antibacterial properties over its toxicity to skin cells may therefore be related to interactions of this compound with membrane lipids.