(Credit: Marcio I. Sá - stock.adobe.com)
In a Nutshell
- A compound from a rainforest tree’s leaves, added to an ordinary SPF 15 sunscreen base, blocked UV light from damaging skin nerve fibers in human skin samples, while the SPF 15 base alone did not.
- Brachycerine also prevented measurable UV-B DNA damage in skin cells, and showed no toxicity in the cells tested.
- Untreated skin lost about half of its nerve ending density after UV exposure, showing how much damage sunlight can cause beneath the surface.
Sunburn is the damage that shows. Beneath it, a single dose of UV light can wipe out close to half the nerve endings in unprotected skin, with nothing on a sunscreen bottle to flag it. In a new lab study, a compound borrowed from a Brazilian rainforest tree stopped that hidden nerve loss completely and shut down UV-B damage to skin-cell DNA.
Scientists applied skincare formulas containing brachycerine, a compound pulled from the leaves of the tree Psychotria brachyceras, to real human skin samples studied outside the body. After exposure to UV-A and UV-B rays, the kind that reach skin from ordinary sunlight, the treated samples showed no nerve fiber loss and no detectable DNA damage, while untreated and placebo-treated skin showed both. The results appeared in the journal Photochemistry and Photobiology.
Sun damage goes deeper than a burn. Nerve damage and broken DNA strands are both tied to the kind of cellular injury that can raise skin cancer risk over time. A natural compound that appears to block both at once, rather than only one, could shape how future sunscreens are built.
How Scientists Tested This Rainforest Compound Against UV Damage
Researchers didn’t rely on mice or synthetic skin models for this study. They used real human skin, obtained from plastic surgery patients and studied outside the body, a method scientists call ex vivo testing. That detail matters because the results reflect how actual human skin, not an animal stand-in or a lab-grown substitute, responds to both UV damage and the protective treatment.
Formulations tested on the skin contained either brachycerine itself or a leaf extract from the Psychotria brachyceras tree. Both were mixed into the same base, an SPF 15 sunscreen that already included conventional UV filters such as avobenzone and octyl methoxycinnamate, allowing researchers to see whether the plant compound added protection beyond a standard sunscreen. Samples were then exposed to UV-A and UV-B radiation, the two types of ultraviolet light that reach the ground from sunlight and are known to cause skin aging, burning, and cancer risk over time. A placebo group received the SPF 15 base with no brachycerine or extract added, serving as the comparison point.
To measure nerve damage, scientists used immunofluorescence, a technique that lights up specific structures in tissue so they can be photographed and measured. This let them count and compare nerve ending density in treated versus untreated skin after UV exposure. Separately, they ran a comet assay on skin exposed to UV-B. In this test, damaged DNA streaks out from cells under certain lab conditions, forming a shape like a comet’s tail. The longer and more visible the streak, the more DNA damage occurred. Healthy, undamaged DNA stays compact and doesn’t streak.
Both experiments pointed the same way. Skin left untreated and skin given the plain SPF 15 base showed the expected damage, while the most protective brachycerine formulas kept nerve fibers at levels close to unexposed skin and prevented measurable UV-B DNA damage. Protection was strongest at the higher concentrations of the compound and the extract.
Researchers also checked whether brachycerine itself might harm cells, since any potential skincare ingredient needs to be safe for regular use. Cytotoxicity testing, which checks whether a substance kills or damages living cells, found that brachycerine was not toxic to the mammalian cells examined.
Why a Rainforest Tree Makes Its Own Sun Protection
Psychotria brachyceras isn’t making brachycerine to help human skin. Plants produce specialized chemicals to cope with environmental stress, and sunlight is one of the biggest stressors they face. According to the study, brachycerine absorbs light in the UV range and acts as a strong antioxidant that protects the plant’s photosynthesis machinery, the cellular system plants use to turn sunlight into energy, from that same radiation.
That double duty, absorbing UV light directly while also cleaning up the cellular damage it causes, is rare in sunscreen ingredients today. Most conventional options either block or absorb UV rays physically. Few also act as antioxidants that can mop up the damage that gets through anyway. Brachycerine appears to do both, at least in this lab setting.
What This Means for Future Protection Against UV Damage
None of this means brachycerine-based sunscreen will show up on drugstore shelves soon. This was a laboratory study using skin samples and controlled UV exposure, not a trial testing how a finished product performs on living people going about their daily lives, in changing weather, over months or years. Even so, the results identify a strong natural candidate for broad-spectrum sun protection, meaning a product designed to guard against both UV-A and UV-B rays rather than just one.
Skin cancer risk builds up over a lifetime of sun exposure, and the invisible damage to nerve fibers and DNA from every unprotected day outside often goes unnoticed until years later. A compound that helps plants survive sunlight stress, now shown in lab testing to protect human skin samples from nerve and DNA damage while showing no toxicity in the cells tested, is an encouraging lead worth pursuing. Whether it ends up in a tube of sunscreen depends on more testing, but the early results make a convincing case that better sun protection might come from how plants solved this problem millions of years before humans ever needed it.
Disclaimer: This article describes an early-stage laboratory study using human skin samples tested outside the body, not a clinical trial in living people. Brachycerine is not an approved or available sunscreen ingredient, and further testing would be needed before the findings could inform any product or sun-safety decision.
Paper Notes
Limitations
This was a laboratory study on ex vivo human skin, tissue studied outside the body, rather than a clinical trial on living participants. The skin came from only eight patients, all of them Caucasian women between the ages of 14 and 56 who were undergoing breast or abdominal plastic surgery, so the findings cannot yet speak to men, to other skin tones, or to a broader population. Samples received a single 30-minute dose of UV-A or UV-B, which does not capture the cumulative, real-world exposure skin absorbs over years. Safety testing was limited to one cultured cell line, so it does not confirm that a finished formula is safe for regular human use. The authors also note that long-term photoprotection in living people is difficult to measure and that current guidelines still lean heavily on animal models.
Funding and Disclosures
This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) under grant 310775/2021-3 and by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, finance code 001), which also covered the article’s publication charge. According to the paper, the data supporting the findings are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The published article includes no separate conflict-of-interest statement.
Publication Details
Paper Title: “Evaluation of the plant glucoside monoterpene indole alkaloid brachycerine for potential protection of human skin against ultraviolet damage”
Authors: Naíla Cannes do Nascimento, Betania Longaray Fonseca, Cristina Bonorino, Moisés E. Bauer, Hélio Nitta Matsuura, Isabela Penna Ceravolo, Dinara Jaqueline Moura, Jenifer Saffi, Janette Palma Fett, and Arthur Germano Fett-Neto Corresponding author: Arthur Germano Fett-Neto, Plant Physiology Laboratory, Center for Biotechnology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil ([email protected]).
Journal: Photochemistry and Photobiology, 2026, pages 1–13
DOI: 10.1111/php.70171







