Potential Cosmetic Applications of the Combined Extract of Panax ginseng, Ganoderma lucidum, Cordyceps militaris, and Several Asian Plants

Abstract

Objective: Although bioactive compounds from single herbs are extensively explored in cosmetics, the synergistic potential of herbal combinations remains understudied. This study aimed to evaluate the stability of a combined extract of Panax ginseng, Ganoderma lucidum, Cordyceps militaris, and several Asian plants (PGC), and its multifunctional efficacy for acne-related skin dysfunction.

Methods: PGC was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for batch consistency and bioactive quantification. Network pharmacology and molecular docking were used to identify active components and targets and assess binding affinities, respectively. In vitro assays were conducted to evaluate antibacterial activity, skin barrier repair, keratinocyte migration, reactive oxygen species (ROS) reduction, anti-inflammatory effects, and inhibition of lipid accumulation. The safety was tested via cytotoxicity assessments.

Results: HPLC analysis validated batch consistency and identified key bioactive constituents in PGC, including phenolic acids, flavonoids, and alkaloids. Integrated network pharmacology and molecular docking revealed multitarget mechanisms through the regulation of the IL-17/TNF/NF-κB axis pathway modulation. PGC exhibited potent antibacterial efficacy against acne-associated pathogens (Cutibacterium acne, MIC = 25 μg/mL), restored skin barrier integrity (filaggrin, +235%; loricrin, +261%), and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-induced damage (85%). Concurrently, PGC accelerated keratinocyte migration (40%), reduced ROS (45%) and abnormal lipid droplet content (60%), and attenuated inflammatory responses (40% nitric oxide (NO) inhibition) while maintaining biosafety (no cytotoxicity ≤ 200 μg/mL).

Conclusion: PGC exemplified the translational potential of herbal compatibility, offering a multitargets solution for acne management through integrating antibacterial, barrier-repair, anti-inflammatory actions, and several other effects. This study established a network pharmacology-guided framework for developing evidence-based multitargets cosmetics.

Keywords: cell culture; computer modeling; cosmetic formulation; herbal synergy; multitargets efficacy; skin barrier.

FIGURE 1

Research design.

FIGURE 2

The fingerprints for the 10 PGC batches.

FIGURE 3

Venn diagram of PGC targets and application associated targets.

FIGURE 4

The “PGC‐Components‐Targets‐Applications” network diagram. Round rectangles denote the active compounds, whereas ellipse nodes indicate targets. The size of nodes is associated with their respective degree value.

FIGURE 5

The PPI network of hub targets.

FIGURE 6

Bubble charts of (a) GO term enrichment analysis and (b) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis.

FIGURE 7

Molecular docking visualization (a) Potential binding position between bicuculline and HSP90AA1. (b) Potential binding position between frutinone A and HSP90AA1. (c) Potential binding position between fumarine and HSP90AA1.

FIGURE 8

The effect of varying PGC concentrations on cellular activity. (a) HaCaT. (b) RAW 264.7. (c) SZ95.

FIGURE 9

Effect of PGC on cell activity after SDS stimulation. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6); versus BC, p** < 0.01; versus NC, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).

FIGURE 10

Effects of PGC on FLG and LOR expression. (a) Integrated optical density of LOR. (b) Integrated optical density of FLG. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6); versus BC, p** < 0.01; versus NC, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).

FIGURE 11

Effect of PGC on migration rate. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6), versus 1% FBS, p** < 0.01; versus 10% FBS, 0.01 < p ^# < 0.05, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).

FIGURE 12

Oil control properties of PGC after DHT and PA induction. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6), versus BC, p** < 0.01; versus NC, 0.01 < p ^# < 0.05, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).

FIGURE 13

Variations in NO levels within the supernatant of cell cultures. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6), versus BC, p** < 0.01; versus NC, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).

FIGURE 14

The antioxidant properties of PGCs after H₂O₂ stimulation. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of study (n = 6), versus BC, p** < 0.01; versus NC, p ^## < 0.01 when compared between two groups (Student's t‐test).