4.4 Article

Effect of 660 nm visible red light on cell proliferation and viability in diabetic models in vitro under stressed conditions

期刊

LASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1085-1093

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-017-2432-2

关键词

Diabetes; Laser; Photobiomodulation; Wound healing

资金

  1. South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology
  2. National Research Foundation of South Africa [98337]
  3. University of Johannesburg
  4. CSIR National Laser Centre Laser Rental Pool Program
  5. African Laser Centre (student bursary)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study evaluated the photobiomodulatory effect of visible red light on cell proliferation and viability in various fibroblast diabetic models in vitro, namely, unstressed normal (N) and stressed normal wounded (NW), diabetic wounded (DW), hypoxic wounded (HW) and diabetic hypoxic wounded (DHW). Cells were irradiated at a wavelength of 660 nm with a fluence of 5 J/cm(2) (11.23 mW/cm(2)), which related to an irradiation time of 7 min and 25 s. Control cells were not irradiated (0 J/cm(2)). Cells were incubated for 48 h and cellular proliferation was determined by measuring 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) in the S-phase (flow cytometry), while viability was assessed by the Trypan blue exclusion test and Apoptox-glo triplex assay. In comparison with the respective controls, PBM increased viability in N- (P 0.001), HW- (P 0.01) and DHW-cells (P 0.05). HW-cells showed a significant progression in the S-phase (P 0.05). Also, there was a decrease in the G2M phase in HW- and DHW-cells (P 0.05 and P 0.05, respectively). This study concludes that hypoxic wounded and diabetic hypoxic wounded models responded positively to PBM, and PBM does not damage stressed cells but has a stimulatory effect on cell viability and proliferation to promote repair and wound healing. This suggests that the more stressed the cells are the better they responded to photobiomodulation (PBM).

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

4.4
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