ArticleGels (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Kombucha Versus Vegetal Cellulose for Affordable Mucoadhesive (nano)Formulations.
Article in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cellulose nanofibers gained increasing interest in the production of medical devices such as mucoadhesive nanohydrogels due to their ability to retain moisture (high hydrophilicity), flexibility, superior porosity and durability, biodegradability, non-toxicity, and biocompatibility. In this work, we aimed to compare the suitability of selected bacterial and vegetal nanocellulose to form hydrogels for biomedical applications. The vegetal and bacterial cellulose nanofibers were synthesized from brewer's spent grains (BSG) and kombucha membranes, respectively. Two hydrogels were prepared, one based on the vegetal and the other based on the bacterial cellulose nanofibers (VNC and BNC, respectively). VNC was less opaque and more fluid than BNC. The cytocompatibility and in vitro antioxidant activity of the nanocellulose-based hydrogels were investigated using human gingival fibroblasts (HGF-1, ATCC CRL-2014). The investigation of the hydrogel-mucin interaction revealed that the BNC hydrogel had an approx. 2× higher mucin binding efficiency than the VNC hydrogel at a hydrogel/mucin ratio (mg/mg) = 4. The BNC hydrogel exhibited the highest potential to increase the number of metabolically active viable cells (107.60 ± 0.98% of cytotoxicity negative control) among all culture conditions. VNC reduced the amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by about 23% (105.5 ± 2.2% of C-) in comparison with the positive control, whereas the ROS level was slightly higher (120.2 ± 3.9% of C-) following the BNC hydrogel treatment. Neither of the two hydrogels showed antibacterial activity when assessed by the diffusion method. The data suggest that the BNC hydrogel based on nanocellulose from kombucha fermentation could be a better candidate for cytocompatible and mucoadhesive nanoformulations than the VNC hydrogel based on nanocellulose from brewer's spent grains. The antioxidant and antibacterial activity of BNC and both BNC and VNC, respectively, should be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.