4.6 Article

Biological effects of Er:YAG laser irradiation on the proliferation of primary human gingival fibroblasts

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOPHOTONICS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.201700157

关键词

cell proliferation; gene expression; HSP70 heat shock proteins; laser; temperature; TRP cation channel

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K11825] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the biological effects of Er:YAG laser (2940-nm; DELight, HOYA ConBio, Fremont, California) irradiation at fluences of 3.6, 4.2, 4.9, 6.3, 8.1 or 9.7 J cm(-2) at 20 or 30 Hz for 20 or 30 seconds on primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). Irradiation at 6.3 J cm(-2) promoted maximal cell proliferation, determined by WST-8 assay and crystal violet staining, but was accompanied by lactate dehydrogenase release, on day 3 post-irradiation. Elevation of ATP level, Ki67 staining, and cyclin-A2 mRNA expression confirmed that Er:YAG affected the cell cycle and increased the number of proliferating cells. Transmission electron microscopy showed alterations of mitochondria and ribosomal endoplasmic reticulum (ER) at 3 hours post-irradiation at 6.3 J cm(-2), and the changes subsided after 24 hours, suggesting transient cellular injury. Microarray analysis revealed up-regulation of 21 genes involved in heat-related biological responses and ER-associated degradation. The mRNA expression of heat shock protein 70 family was increased, as validated by Real-time PCR. Surface temperature measurement confirmed that 6.3 J cm(-2) generated heat (40.9 degrees C post-irradiation). Treatment with 40 degrees C-warmed medium increased proliferation. Laser-induced proliferation was suppressed by inhibition of thermosensory transient receptor potential channels. Thus, despite causing transient cellular damage, Er:YAG laser irradiation at 6.3 J cm(-2) strongly potentiated HGF proliferation via photo-thermal stress, suggesting potential wound-healing benefit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据