Comparative in vitro efficacy of a hyaluronic acid (HA) matrix ingredient containing HA, dermatan sulphate and collagen (Dermial®) versus pure HA from extraction or fermentation origin

• Published in: The FASEB journal Vol. 36; no. S1
• Main Authors: Galvez‐Martin, Patricia, Martinez‐Puig, Daniel, Soto‐Fernández, Cristina, Romero‐Rueda, Jessica
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 01-05-2022
• ISSN: 0892-6638; 1530-6860
• DOI: 10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.S1.R3806

Introduction
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a high‐molecular‐weight polysaccharide composed of glucuronic acid and N‐acetylglucosamine. HA constitutes a major component of the extracellular matrix (ECM) of the skin. With aging, the amount of HA in skin decreases, which implies a loss of skin moisture causing wrinkles, sagging and aging of the skin. Oral supplementation with HA has been widely studied in order to provide an anti‐aging effect on the skin. There are mainly two types of HA: HA of fermentation and HA of extraction from a natural source. Dermial® is a HA matrix ingredient composed of HA and other naturally occurring components such as, dermatan sulphate and collagen, which have been shown to exert beneficial effects for skin health.
This study was performed to determine the comparative in‐vitro effects of Dermial®, pure HA from extraction (HA‐E), and pure HA from fermentation (HA‐F).
Methods
The effect of the HA products on cell proliferation was assessed in Human Dermal Fibroblasts (HDF) and in Human Epidermal Keratinocytes (HEK) using the method bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation, detected by ELISA. The cell migration was evaluated in HDF and in HEK using the Oris™ Cell Migration Assay. The inductive capacity on ECM protein synthesis was evaluated by immunolocalization‐ELISA.
Results
The results showed that the rate of cell proliferation in HDF with respect to untreated HDF was significantly higher in Dermial® showing a dose‐dependent response and reaching a proliferation rate of 1.81 (± 27) times with the highest concentration tested (1mg/mL) in comparison to HA‐E and HA‐F. Regarding HEK cell proliferation, Dermial® showed a significant capacity to induce this mechanism, increasing a rate of 85‐95% at 25 and 50 µg/mL. HA‐E and HA‐F showed similar effects, with significant increases on HEK cell proliferation (88% increase at 50 µg/mL of HA‐E and 100% at 25 µg/mL of HA‐F).
Dermial®, HA‐E and HA‐F induced the migration of HDF with significant increases equal to or greater than 50%. However, only Dermial® showed a significant stimulatory effect on HEK migration, showing an increase of 102.77% (± 40.86) at 200 µg/mL.
Dermial® showed a significant effect on the production of type I collagen, with an increase of 48.04% (± 11.49%) at 1 mg/mL. The quantification of type III collagen showed a significant effect of Dermial® and HA‐F, with increases of 77% for 1mg/mL Dermial® and 89‐118% for 50 µg/mL and 1 mg/mL HA‐F. Regarding the quantification of elastin, all evaluated products showed a significant effect, with increases of 17‐38%. Only Dermial® showed significant effect on the production of three proteins tested.
Conclusions
The overall results showed a superior effect of HA matrix ingredient (Dermial®) as compared to pure HA, either HA‐E or HA‐F, on HDF cell proliferation, on HEK cell migration and in the stimulation of the synthesis of type I collagen. Dermial® presents better regenerative properties of the dermis and epidermis, in addition to stimulating the synthesis of ECM proteins, favouring the maintenance and functionality of the dermis. Thus, Dermial® may be beneficial as an ingredient with antiaging activity in nutricosmetic applications.