Next Article in Journal
Enhanced Differentiation Capacity and Transplantation Efficacy of Insulin-Producing Cell Clusters from Human iPSCs Using Permeable Nanofibrous Microwell-Arrayed Membrane for Diabetes Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Multiple Light-Activated Photodynamic Therapy of Tetraphenylethylene Derivative with AIE Characteristics for Hepatocellular Carcinoma via Dual-Organelles Targeting
Previous Article in Journal
Relevance of Fluorinated Ligands to the Design of Metallodrugs for Their Potential Use in Cancer Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Parietin Cyclodextrin-Inclusion Complex as an Effective Formulation for Bacterial Photoinactivation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceutics
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/pharmaceutics14020399
pharmaceutics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The In Vivo Quantitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Low-Dose Photodynamic Therapy on Wound Healing Using Optical Coherence Tomography

by
Hala Zuhayri
,
Viktor V. Nikolaev
,
Tatiana B. Lepekhina
,
Ekaterina A. Sandykova
,
Natalya A. Krivova
and
Yury V. Kistenev
*
Laboratory of Laser Molecular Imaging and Machine Learning, Tomsk State University, Lenin Ave. 36, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2022, 14(2), 399; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14020399
Submission received: 18 December 2021 / Revised: 30 January 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 11 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Special Issue in Honor of Dr. Michael Weber’s 70th Birthday: Photodynamic Therapy: Rising Star in Pharmaceutical Applications)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effect of low-dose photodynamic therapy on in vivo wound healing was investigated using optical coherence tomography. This work aims to develop an approach to quantitative assessment of the wound’s state during wound healing including the effect of low-dose photodynamic therapy using topical application of two different photosensitizers, 5-aminolevulinic acid and methylene blue, and two laser doses of 1 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2. It was concluded that the laser dose of 4 J/cm2 was better compared to 1 J/cm2 and allowed the wound healing process to accelerate.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), burn wounds result in approximately 180,000 deaths every year and nearly 11 million injuries that require medical treatment worldwide [1]. Cutaneous wounds are widespread and differentiated into acute and chronic wounds [2].
Wound healing is a complex physiological process at the cellular and molecular levels including the extracellular matrix synthesis, the replacement of type III collagen with type I collagen, and scar tissue formation [3,4,5,6]. These processes are divided into four overlapping stages: coagulation (hemostasis), inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling [7,8]. Some underlying diseases affect the wound healing process including peripheral arterial and venous disease or diabetes; acute wounds may have impaired healing, which can lead to a chronic stage [9,10,11]. In developed countries, 1–6% of the population suffers from chronic wounds [12,13,14].
It is known that a low dose photo process with photoactive compounds promotes the healing of skin diseases and leads to results in rejuvenation and wound healing [15,16]. Low-dose photodynamic therapy (LDPDT) is widely used to treat skin diseases and wound healing where it reduces the treatment time, accelerates tissue repair, and promotes healing [17,18]. The method is based on using a photosensitizer (PS), which accumulates in tissues, followed by irradiation of the tissue with a light source with an appropriate wavelength. The latter causes the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [19,20]. Low concentrations of ROS can trigger cell repair processes including proliferation and offer promising treatments to accelerate healing. Different PSs have been studied in the wound healing process, which has a relevant role in ensuring PDT effectiveness in skin wound healing [21] such as 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) and methylene blue (MB) [22,23,24,25]. MB is a popular PS among the phenothiazinium derivatives that have attracted the attention of different research groups working and achieving good results in wound healing [25,26,27]. Recently, MB was shown to have an antioxidant role [28]. Additionally, 5-ALA is among the most effective photosensitizers and is widely used to present a better achievement concerning wound healing [17,22,29].
The Arndt–Schultz Law is an appropriate model to demonstrate that low levels of light have a better effect in wound healing than higher levels, which may have an inhibitory or cytotoxic effect [30,31]. Hawkins and Abrahamse studied the behavior in vitro of human skin fibroblasts using different irradiation doses of 0.5, 2.5, 5, 10, and 16 J/cm2. They demonstrated that higher laser doses (10 and 16 J/cm2) resulted in increased cellular damage as well as decreased cell viability and proliferation [32]. Results for different energy doses were described for 4 J/cm2 [33] and for 1 J/cm2 and 2 J/cm2 [34]. Basso et al. demonstrated that irradiation of cultured human gingival fibroblasts with energy doses of 0.5 and 3 J/cm2 resulted in a significant increase in cellular metabolism compared with the non-irradiated control group and the cells irradiated with higher energy doses of 5 and 7 J/cm2 [35]. The most significant biological effects were seen with predominant dose values (i.e., up to 5 J/cm2), which were within the Arndt–Schultz curve [36].
Traditionally, wounds have been observed invasively with a histochemical assessment of the biopsies [3,8]. Visual observation is a common tool for wound assessment. Additionally, clinical wound evaluation is a widely used and the least expensive method of assessing wound depth. This method relies on a subjective evaluation of the external features of the wound such as wound appearance, capillary refill, and burn wound sensibility to touch and pinprick, providing diagnostic accuracy at the level of 60–75% [37]. These methods are not quantitative and can lead to additional tissue damage and impair healing. Accordingly, the development of noninvasive and accurate methods of wound analysis is relevant.
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a noninvasive 3D imaging method of biological tissues with a spatial resolution of 5–10 µm and a penetration depth of 1–2 mm [38,39]. Epidermal thickness is a critical parameter for assessing epithelialization during wound healing [40,41].
OCT could detect essential morphological changes during wound healing (e.g., epidermis, dermis, adipose tissue, and granulation) that was based primarily on their backscattering characteristics [42,43,44]. The use of polarization-sensitive OCT revealed higher birefringence in scars compared to healthy skin [45]. OCT-based angiography provides in vivo, three-dimensional vascular information by using flowing red blood cells as intrinsic contrast agents, allowing visualization of functional vessel networks within microcirculatory tissue beds non-invasively, without needing dye injection [46].
This work aims to develop a method for quantitative in vivo evaluation of wounds using OCT during the wound healing process including a quantitative assessment of the effect of LDPDT using the topical application of two different photosensitizers (5-ALA and MB) and two laser doses of 1 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Wound Model Protocol

This study used 15 male laboratory CD1 mice, weighing 25–30 g and aged 6–7 weeks, obtained from the Department of Experimental Biological Models of the Research Institute of Pharmacology, TSC SB RAMS. Before the experiment, the mice were kept seven days in the standard conditions of a conventional vivarium with free access to water and food, and a 12/12 light regime, in a ventilated room at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and a humidity of 60%. The experimental protocol of this research was approved by the Bioethical Committee of Tomsk State University (Protocol No. 4, 10.02.2021), registration No. 6.
The mice were anesthetized by isoflurane using the Ugo Basile gas anesthesia system, where the mice were put in a glass chamber connected to isoflurane (Figure 1). The wound area was prepared through depilation using Veet cream (made in France), rinsed with saline solution, and sterilized using chlorhexidine 20%. A full-thickness cutaneous wound (diameter 5 mm) was formed by cutting out a whole layer skin flap with scissors on both of the hind paws of each animal under isoflurane anesthesia. The experiment was performed in a time-lapsed schedule for the wound aging on days 1, 3, 7, and 14. Additionally, the day of wound formation was defined as day 0.

2.2. Low Dose Photodynamic Therapy Protocol

Both of the photosensitizers 5-ALA 20% and MB 0.01% in saline solution were topically administered directly on the wound; after 30 min, the irradiation was started by an AlGalnP laser (λ = 630 nm, P = 5 mW) with two doses: 1 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2, and the procedure was carried out under the influence of isoflurane. 5-ALA was applied on the wounds on the right hind paws, MB was applied on the left ones. The animals were divided according to the laser dose and photosensitizer into five groups: the control group, the LDPDT–5-ALA 1 J/cm2, LDPDT–MB 1 J/cm2, LDPDT–5-ALA 4 J/cm2, and LDPDT–MB 4 J/cm2. LDPDT procedure was repeated once immediately after wound formation.

2.3. Optical Coherence Tomography Protocol

The experiments were carried out using optical coherence tomography (OCT) on the GANYMEDE−II system (Thorlabs, USA) with the basic scanning module OCTG-900. It is possible to obtain information on the optical characteristics, morphology, and elastic properties of biological tissues using OCT. The GANYMEDE-II system uses a superluminescent diode with an operating wavelength of 930 ± 50 nm. The superluminescent diode allows one to reach a signal penetration depth up to 2.9 mm with an axial resolution of up to 6.0 microns (air/tissue). The width of the spectral band was 100 nm. Figure 2 shows an example of placing a mouse on the substrate of OCT. As a result, B-scans were obtained—two-dimensional images. Data processing was carried out using ThorImageOCT 5.0.1., with the following parameters: size 2469 × 675 pixel, FOV 4.66 × 1.94 mm, and pixel size 1.89 × 2.88 µm, with 20 frames. The experiment was repeated with a 30° rotation around the previous position.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The OCT data were exported using the ThorImageOCT 5.0.1 program to files. txt. Statistical analysis and data processing were carried out in Python 3.6 using libraries (numpy, scipy, matplotlib). All calculated parameters were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. The Pearson test was applied to assess the level of statistically significant differences among groups under study. Statistical power was used at 0.95 and 0.99. The p-values were calculated for all groups on all days.

3. Results

3.1. OCT Imaging

Figure 3a shows a photo of healthy skin, and an OCT B-scan for the area, marked with a red arrow, is shown in Figure 3b. The B-scan data were normalized so that the stratum corneum, corresponding to the region with the highest pixel intensity, was located at the top of the image. After normalization, the signal intensity was calculated at different tissue depths from 0 to 0.8 mm (A-scan) and visualized as shown in Figure 4. The maximum intensity values were at a depth of 0 to 2–4 µm, which corresponded to the stratum corneum, and then the signal intensity gradually decreased to ~20 µm, which corresponded to the epidermis. The dermis starts from 30–40 µm, which was accompanied by a decrease in intensity to the minimum values at a depth of 0.8 mm.
Photos of the observation area and B-scans of the wound at different time points on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 for the control (without LDPDT) are shown in Figure 5.
The wound healed typically without pathologies, and the injury was close to healing on day 14. The difference in signal intensities at different stages of wound healing on different days is shown in Figure 6. On day 1 after the wound forming procedure, the signal had a low intensity, while the signal of the dermis started decreasing from 0.3 µm, so the signal from 0 to 0.3 corresponded to the formed wound scab. The signal intensity increased on days 3 and 7. On day 14, the signal intensity values were close to healthy skin.
OCT images for the LDPDT-5-ALA groups are shown for a laser dose of 1 J/cm2 in Figure 7 and 4 J/cm2 in Figure 8. The intensity signal for LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2 had the same behavior as the control. On day 1 for LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2, the attenuation signal corresponding to the dermis started from ~0.3 mm. Similar to the control, the signal intensity increased on days 3 and 7, and on day 14, the signal intensity values were close to healthy skin, as shown in Figure 9a. In the same way for LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2, the intensity signal started decreasing from ~0.2 mm on day 1. On days 3 and 7, the signal intensity values increased to close to the value of healthy skin on day 14 more than the LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2 group, as shown in Figure 9b.
Measurements were similarly carried out for the MB photosensitizer with two laser doses of 1 J/cm2 (Figure 10) and 4 J/cm2 (Figure 11). The intensity signal for LDPDT-MB on day 14 was close to the values for healthy skin for different exposure doses, as shown in Figure 12.

3.2. Quantitative Comparison of the Spatial Proximity of the OCT Signal Intensity

For a quantitative comparison of spatial profiles, we used the curve proximity factor (CPF) S, similar to the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, to compare healthy skin and wound curves in all days to all groups [47]:
S = ∑ i X i − Y i 1 2 ∑ i X i + Y i ,
where Xi, Yi is the intensity of the OCT signal for a definite depth from the wound and healthy skin, respectively. The higher the CPF value, the closer the wound state to healthy skin. The 0.01 and 0.05 significance levels were used to assess the statistical differences between the wound and healthy skin groups. The CPF values for all groups are shown in Table 1.
The CPF (1) was also used to estimate the effectiveness of different laser doses for each photosensitizer on day 14. The CPF values calculated for the OCT signal intensity curves corresponding to 4 J/cm2 and 1 J/cm2 for 5-ALA (Figure 9) and MB (Figure 12) are shown in Table 2. These quantitative estimations demonstrated a “proximity” between the curves corresponding to 4 J/cm2 laser dose and the curves corresponding to the 1 J/cm2 laser dose for the same photosensitizer.

4. Discussion

The proposed method of wound state quantitative evaluation is based on the OCT visualization of tissue structure transformation. The averaged scatter A-line intensity profile obtained from the horizontal rectangle in the OCT B-scan image of healthy skin is shown in Figure 4. Three areas are highlighted in the figure, representing changes in the attenuation coefficient. The red (S1), green (S2), and blue (S3) lines correspond to the beginning of the stratum corneum, the end of the epidermis, and the beginning of the dermis, respectively. After inflicting a wound in the first days, there are no surface layers of the skin (horny, epidermis); instead, a scab forms on the surface. These changes in the skin are visible on A-scans. Over time, the skin recovers, and on A-scans, we can see the appearance of areas characteristic of the epidermis’s end and the dermis’s beginning. These changes are reflected in the OCT signal attenuation curve (see Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 12).
For wound state quantitative estimation, we used the curve proximity factor, introduced by us earlier [47]. According to Table 1, in the control group, the CPF mean value on day 1 was about 0.053, and decreased to 0.021 on day 14, while in the LDPDT groups, the mean values of this coefficient on day 14 ranged from 0.017 to 0.021. The Pearson test demonstrated that for LDPDT groups on day 14, p-value did not exceed 0.01, while for the control group, this value was equal to 0.03. Therefore, for all LPDT groups, the wound state had no statistically significant difference compared to healthy skin for the used statistical power levels.
The CPF value for LDPDT groups for the 4 J/cm2 laser dose was smaller than the LDPDT groups for 1 J/cm2. We also calculated the CPF values for the OCT signal intensity curves corresponding to 4 J/cm2 and 1 J/cm2 for 5-ALA (the first column in Table 1) and MB (the second column in Table 2) and conducted a Pearson test to check the statistical significance of these differences. p-value was shown to be larger for 5-ALA.
Therefore, after comparing the CPF parameter for five groups: control, LDPDT 5-ALA 4 J/cm2, LDPDT 5-ALA 1 J/cm2, LDPDT-MB 4 J/cm2, and LDPDT-MB 1 J/cm2, it was concluded that the laser dose of 4 J/cm2 for LDPDT 5-ALA was definitely better compared to 1 J/cm2 and probably better for LDPDT MB. It should be noted that the conclusion depends on the volume and quality of the dataset.
A possible reason for the 4 J/cm2 dose preference relative to the 1 J/cm2 dose is as follows. According to previous works [33,34,35], when low-level laser light is applied and a dose is too low, no tissue response will occur. If too a high dose is applied, it can inhibit a tissue response. It has been seen in studies of wound healing where too low a dose did not have an impact, and too high a dose (above 5 J/cm2) prolonged wound healing while the optimal dose resulted in faster healing. In this interval, according to the Arndt–Schultz curve, the larger dose causes a stronger biological effect.
In any case, LDPDT allows for accelerating of the wound healing process, which is consistent with the literature data [32,33,34,48,49].

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a study of quantitative in vivo evaluation of wounds using OCT during the wound healing process was carried out. 5-ALA and MB were used as photosensitizers for LDPDT, with two laser doses of 1 and 4 J/cm2.
An approach to quantitative estimation of wound state based on the CPF, Equation (1) [47] was proposed. The method was used to quantify the effectiveness of LDPDT to accelerate the wound healing process. CPF parameter estimation allowed us to compare LDPDT regimes quantitatively and to obtain objective arguments about the superiority of one regime over another.
Therefore, the proposed CPF parameter, estimated from OCT data, has demonstrated its feasibility for the quantitative estimation of the human wound state during healing. This approach is noninvasive, simple in implementation, and suitable for continuous monitoring throughout the wound healing process and sufficient resolution to assess both anatomy and pathology. It makes it a promising technique for applications in wound healing and the evaluation of novel therapeutics.
Another approach, which was proven to be effective in monitoring wound healing is two-photon microscopy. Previously, our group analyzed the two-photon microscopy images of the wound healing process and succeeded in quantitatively assessing the state of the wound and studying the effect of low-dose photodynamic therapy using the techniques of two-photon microscopy. The results of this study are completely consistent with the results obtained earlier [50].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.V.K.; Methodology, H.Z. and E.A.S.; Software, V.V.N.; Validation, H.Z. and V.V.N.; Investigation, H.Z., V.V.N., T.B.L. and N.A.K.; Writing—original draft preparation, E.A.S.; Writing—review and editing, Y.V.K.; Visualization, H.Z.; Supervision, Y.V.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant under the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 220 of 9 April 2010 (Agreement No. 075-15-2021-615 of 4 June 2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tomsk State University (Protocol No.4, 10.02.2021), registration No. 6.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Burns. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/burns (accessed on 15 December 2021).
  2. Nussbaum, S.R.; Carter, M.J.; Fife, C.E.; DaVanzo, J.; Haught, R.; Nusgart, M.; Cartwright, D. An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds. Value Health 2018, 21, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. De Gonzalez, A.C.O.; Costa, T.F.; de Andrade, Z.A.; Medrado, A.R.A.P. Wound Healing—A Literature Review. An. Bras. Dermatol. 2016, 91, 614–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Sorg, H.; Tilkorn, D.J.; Hager, S.; Hauser, J.; Mirastschijski, U. Skin Wound Healing: An Update on the Current Knowledge and Concepts. Eur. Surg. Res. 2017, 58, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liu, H.; Liu, H.; Deng, X.; Chen, M.; Han, X.; Yan, W.; Wang, N. Raman Spectroscopy Combined with SHG Gives a New Perspective for Rapid Assessment of the Collagen Status in the Healing of Cutaneous Wounds. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 3503–3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mickelson, M.A.; Mans, C.; Colopy, S.A. Principles of Wound Management and Wound Healing in Exotic Pets. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Exot. Anim. Pract. 2016, 19, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Deka, G.; Wu, W.-W.; Kao, F.-J. In Vivo Wound Healing Diagnosis with Second Harmonic and Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging. J. Biomed. Opt. 2012, 18, 061222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Zuhayri, H.; Knyazkova, A.I.; Nikolaev, V.V.; Borisov, A.V.; Kistenev, Y.V.; Zakharova, O.A.; Dyachenko, P.A.; Tuchin, V.V. Study of Wound Healing by Terahertz Spectroscopy. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Terahertz and Microwave Radiation: Generation, Detection, and Applications; Romanovskii, Tomsk, Russia, 24–26 August 2020; Zakharova, O.A., Kistenev, Y.V., Eds.; SPIE: Tomsk, Russia, 2020; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolton, L. Peripheral Arterial Disease: Scoping Review of Patient-centred Outcomes. Int. Wound J. 2019, 16, 1521–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Baltzis, D.; Eleftheriadou, I.; Veves, A. Pathogenesis and Treatment of Impaired Wound Healing in Diabetes Mellitus: New Insights. Adv. Ther. 2014, 31, 817–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mazumder, N.; Ball, K.N.; Zhuo, K.-Q.; Kistenev, Y.V.; Kumar, R.; Kao, F.-J.; Brasselet, S.; Nikolaev, V.V.; Krivova, N.A. Label-Free Multimodal Nonlinear Optical Microscopy for Biomedical Applications. J. Appl. Phys. 2021, 129, 214901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Phillips, C.J.; Humphreys, I.; Fletcher, J.; Harding, K.; Chamberlain, G.; Macey, S. Estimating the Costs Associated with the Management of Patients with Chronic Wounds Using Linked Routine Data: Costs of Wounds Using Routine Data. Int. Wound J. 2016, 13, 1193–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guest, J.F.; Ayoub, N.; McIlwraith, T.; Uchegbu, I.; Gerrish, A.; Weidlich, D.; Vowden, K.; Vowden, P. Health Economic Burden That Wounds Impose on the National Health Service in the UK. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e009283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Heyer, K.; Herberger, K.; Protz, K.; Glaeske, G.; Augustin, M. Epidemiology of Chronic Wounds in Germany: Analysis of Statutory Health Insurance Data: Epidemiology of Chronic Wounds in Germany. Wound Rep. Reg. 2016, 24, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tedesco, A.; Jesus, P. Low Level Energy Photodynamic Therapy for Skin Processes and Regeneration. In Photomedicine—Advances in Clinical Practice; Tanaka, Y., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-953-51-3155-7. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shaw, T.J.; Martin, P. Wound Repair at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2009, 122, 3209–3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Yang, T.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yang, W.; Luo, J.; Chen, L.; Liu, H.; Yang, G.; Lei, X. Effects of ALA-PDT on the Healing of Mouse Skin Wounds Infected With Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and Its Related Mechanisms. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 585132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Algorri, J.F.; Ochoa, M.; Roldán-Varona, P.; Rodríguez-Cobo, L.; López-Higuera, J.M. Photodynamic Therapy: A Compendium of Latest Reviews. Cancers 2021, 13, 4447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kwiatkowski, S.; Knap, B.; Przystupski, D.; Saczko, J.; Kędzierska, E.; Knap-Czop, K.; Kotlińska, J.; Michel, O.; Kotowski, K.; Kulbacka, J. Photodynamic Therapy—Mechanisms, Photosensitizers and Combinations. Biomed. PharmacoTher. 2018, 106, 1098–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Peplow, P.V.; Chung, T.-Y.; Baxter, G.D. Photodynamic Modulation of Wound Healing: A Review of Human and Animal Studies. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2012, 30, 118–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vallejo, M.C.S.; Moura, N.M.M.; Ferreira Faustino, M.A.; Almeida, A.; Gonçalves, I.; Serra, V.V.; Neves, M.G.P.M.S. An Insight into the Role of Non-Porphyrinoid Photosensitizers for Skin Wound Healing. IJMS 2020, 22, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Morimoto, K.; Ozawa, T.; Awazu, K.; Ito, N.; Honda, N.; Matsumoto, S.; Tsuruta, D. Photodynamic Therapy Using Systemic Administration of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid and a 410-Nm Wavelength Light-Emitting Diode for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus-Infected Ulcers in Mice. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yin, R.; Lin, L.; Xiao, Y.; Hao, F.; Hamblin, M.R. Combination ALA-PDT and Ablative Fractional Er:YAG Laser (2,940 Nm) on the Treatment of Severe Acne: Combination ala-pdt and ablative fractional er:yag laser. Lasers Surg. Med. 2014, 46, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Jiang, C.; Yang, W.; Wang, C.; Qin, W.; Ming, J.; Zhang, M.; Qian, H.; Jiao, T. Methylene Blue-Mediated Photodynamic Therapy Induces Macrophage Apoptosis via ROS and Reduces Bone Resorption in Periodontitis. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2019, 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Sperandio, F.F.; Simões, A.; Aranha, A.C.C.; Corrêa, L.; Orsini Machado de Sousa, S.C. Photodynamic Therapy Mediated by Methylene Blue Dye in Wound Healing. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2010, 28, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pérez, M.; Robres, P.; Moreno, B.; Bolea, R.; Verde, M.T.; Pérez-Laguna, V.; Aspiroz, C.; Gilaberte, Y.; Rezusta, A. Comparison of Antibacterial Activity and Wound Healing in a Superficial Abrasion Mouse Model of Staphylococcus Aureus Skin Infection Using Photodynamic Therapy Based on Methylene Blue or Mupirocin or Both. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 673408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Carneiro, V.S.M.; de Catao, M.H.C.V.; Menezes, R.F.; Araújo, N.C.; Gerbi, M.E.M. Methylene Blue Photodynamic Therapy in Rats’ Wound Healing: 21 Days Follow-Up; Kurachi, C., Svanberg, K., Tromberg, B.J., Bagnato, V.S., Eds.; SPIE Proceedings: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2015; p. 95311S. [Google Scholar]
  28. Xiong, Z.-M.; O’Donovan, M.; Sun, L.; Choi, J.Y.; Ren, M.; Cao, K. Anti-Aging Potentials of Methylene Blue for Human Skin Longevity. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, Z.; Hu, X.; Zhou, L.; He, Y.; Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Ju, Z.; Liou, Y.-C.; Shen, H.-M.; Luo, G.; et al. Photodynamic Therapy Accelerates Skin Wound Healing through Promoting Re-Epithelialization. Burn. Trauma 2021, 9, tkab008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Huang, Y.-Y.; Chen, A.C.-H.; Carroll, J.D.; Hamblin, M.R. Biphasic Dose Response in Low Level Light Therapy. Dose-Resp. 2009, 7, 358–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Huang, Y.-Y.; Sharma, S.K.; Carroll, J.; Hamblin, M.R. Biphasic Dose Response in Low Level Light Therapy—an Update. Dose-Resp. 2011, 9, 602–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hawkins, D.H.; Abrahamse, H. The Role of Laser Fluence in Cell Viability, Proliferation, and Membrane Integrity of Wounded Human Skin Fibroblasts Following Helium-Neon Laser Irradiation. Lasers Surg. Med. 2006, 38, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Byrnes, K.R.; Barna, L.; Chenault, V.M.; Waynant, R.W.; Ilev, I.K.; Longo, L.; Miracco, C.; Johnson, B.; Anders, J.J. Photobiomodulation Improves Cutaneous Wound Healing in an Animal Model of Type II Diabetes. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2004, 22, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Prabhu, V.; Rao, S.B.S.; Chandra, S.; Kumar, P.; Rao, L.; Guddattu, V.; Satyamoorthy, K.; Mahato, K.K. Spectroscopic and Histological Evaluation of Wound Healing Progression Following Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT). J. Biophoton. 2012, 5, 168–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Basso, F.G.; Pansani, T.N.; Turrioni, A.P.S.; Bagnato, V.S.; Hebling, J.; de Souza Costa, C.A. In Vitro Wound Healing Improvement by Low-Level Laser Therapy Application in Cultured Gingival Fibroblasts. Int. J. Dent. 2012, 2012, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. De Chaves, M.E.A.; de Araújo, A.R.; Piancastelli, A.C.C.; Pinotti, M. Effects of Low-Power Light Therapy on Wound Healing: LASER x LED. An. Bras. Dermatol. 2014, 89, 616–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Monstrey, S.; Hoeksema, H.; Verbelen, J.; Pirayesh, A.; Blondeel, P. Assessment of Burn Depth and Burn Wound Healing Potential. Burns 2008, 34, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Huang, D.; Swanson, E.A.; Lin, C.P.; Schuman, J.S.; Stinson, W.G.; Chang, W.; Hee, M.R.; Flotte, T.; Gregory, K.; Puliafito, C.A.; et al. Optical Coherence Tomography. Science 1991, 254, 1178–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Almasian, M.; Bosschaart, N.; van Leeuwen, T.G.; Faber, D.J. Validation of Quantitative Attenuation and Backscattering Coefficient Measurements by Optical Coherence Tomography in the Concentration-Dependent and Multiple Scattering Regime. J. Biomed. Opt. 2015, 20, 121314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Evans, N.D.; Oreffo, R.O.C.; Healy, E.; Thurner, P.J.; Man, Y.H. Epithelial Mechanobiology, Skin Wound Healing, and the Stem Cell Niche. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2013, 28, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Tan, S.T.; Dosan, R. Lessons From Epithelialization: The Reason Behind Moist Wound Environment. TODJ 2019, 13, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yuan, Z.; Zakhaleva, J.; Ren, H.; Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Pan, Y. Noninvasive and High-Resolution Optical Monitoring of Healing of Diabetic Dermal Excisional Wounds Implanted with Biodegradable In Situ Gelable Hydrogels. Tissue Eng. Part C: Methods 2010, 16, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Bulygin, A.D.; Vrazhnov, D.A.; Sim, E.S.; Meglinski, I.; Kistenev, Y.V. Imitation of Optical Coherence Tomography Images by Wave Monte Carlo-Based Approach Implemented with the Leontovich–Fock Equation. Opt. Eng. 2020, 59, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kistenev, Y.; Buligin, A.D.; Sandykova, E.; Sim, E.; Vrazhnov, D. Optical Coherence Tomography Modeling Method Based on Leontovich—Fock Equation. Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Atmospheric and Ocean Optics: Atmospheric Physics; Matvienko, G.G., Romanovskii, O.A., Eds.; SPIE: Novosibirsk, Russia, 2019; p. 130. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jaspers, M.E.H.; Feroldi, F.; Vlig, M.; de Boer, J.F.; van Zuijlen, P.P.M. In Vivo Polarization-Sensitive Optical Coherence Tomography of Human Burn Scars: Birefringence Quantification and Correspondence with Histologically Determined Collagen Density. J. Biomed. Opt. 2017, 22, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, C.-L.; Wang, R.K. Optical Coherence Tomography Based Angiography [Invited]. Biomed. Opt. Expr. 2017, 8, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Kistenev, Y.V.; Kuzmin, D.A.; Sandykova, E.A.; Shapovalov, A.V. Quantitative Comparison of the Absorption Spectra of the Gas Mixtures in Analogy to the Criterion of Pearson; Romanovskii, O.A., Ed.; SPIE Proceedings: Tomsk, Russia, 2015; p. 96803S. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zein, R.; Selting, W.; Hamblin, M.R. Review of Light Parameters and Photobiomodulation Efficacy: Dive into Complexity. J. Biomed. Opt. 2018, 23, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Kilík, R.; Lakyová, L.; Sabo, J.; Kruzliak, P.; Lacjaková, K.; Vasilenko, T.; Vidová, M.; Longauer, F.; Radoňak, J. Effect of Equal Daily Doses Achieved by Different Power Densities of Low-Level Laser Therapy at 635 Nm on Open Skin Wound Healing in Normal and Diabetic Rats. BioMed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Zuhayri, H.; Nikolaev, V.V.; Knyazkova, A.I.; Lepekhina, T.B.; Krivova, N.A.; Tuchin, V.V.; Kistenev, Y.V. In Vivo Quantification of the Effectiveness of Topical Low-Dose Photodynamic Therapy in Wound Healing Using Two-Photon Microscopy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g001 550
Figure 1. Anesthetized mice by isoflurane using the Ugo Basile gas anesthesia system.
Figure 1. Anesthetized mice by isoflurane using the Ugo Basile gas anesthesia system.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g001
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g002 550
Figure 2. The mouse positioning during OCT imaging.
Figure 2. The mouse positioning during OCT imaging.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g002
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Visual observation for healthy skin, (b) OCT imaging.
Figure 3. (a) Visual observation for healthy skin, (b) OCT imaging.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g003
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g004 550
Figure 4. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for healthy skin: S1 start point of the stratum corneum; S2—the endpoint of epidermis; S3—start point of the dermis.
Figure 4. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for healthy skin: S1 start point of the stratum corneum; S2—the endpoint of epidermis; S3—start point of the dermis.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g004
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the control group.
Figure 5. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the control group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g005
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g006 550
Figure 6. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the control group during wound healing.
Figure 6. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the control group during wound healing.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g006
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2 group.
Figure 7. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g007
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g008 550
Figure 8. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2 group.
Figure 8. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g008
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g009 550
Figure 9. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the (a) LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2 group and (b) LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2 group.
Figure 9. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the (a) LDPDT-5-ALA 1 J/cm2 group and (b) LDPDT-5-ALA 4 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g009
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g010 550
Figure 10. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-MB 1 J/cm2 group.
Figure 10. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-MB 1 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g010
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g011 550
Figure 11. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-MB 4 J/cm2 group.
Figure 11. (a) Visual observation and (b) the corresponding B-scans for the LDPDT-MB 4 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g011
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g012 550
Figure 12. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the (a) LDPDT-MB 1 J/cm2 group and (b) LDPDT-MB 4 J/cm2 group.
Figure 12. Dependence of signal intensity on depth for the (a) LDPDT-MB 1 J/cm2 group and (b) LDPDT-MB 4 J/cm2 group.
Pharmaceutics 14 00399 g012
Table
Table 1. CPF values for the studied groups (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 1. CPF values for the studied groups (mean ± standard deviation).
n = 5ControlLDPDT–5-ALA
1 J/cm2		LDPDT–5-ALA
4 J/cm2		LDPDT–MB
1 J/cm2		LDPDT–MB
4 J/cm2
Day 1(0.0528 ± 0.0084) **(0.0516 ± 0.0072) **(0.0517 ± 0.0045) **(0.0494 ± 0.0083) **(0.0539 ± 0.0064) **
Day 3(0.0404 ± 0.0141) **(0.0504 ± 0.0106) *(0.0480 ± 0.0087) **(0.0456 ± 0.0169) *(0.0423 ± 0.0134) *
Day 7(0.0316 ± 0.0089) *(0.0379 ± 0.0124) *(0.0315 ± 0.0111) *(0.0361 ± 0.0084) *(0.0305 ± 0.0073) *
Day 14(0.0214 ± 0.0076) *(0.0213 ± 0.0075)(0.0187 ± 0.0213)(0.0201 ± 0.0054)(0.0174 ± 0.0051)
* p > 0.01,** p > 0.05.
Table
Table 2. CPF values for the studied groups (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 2. CPF values for the studied groups (mean ± standard deviation).
n = 5LDPDT–5-ALALDPDT–MB
Day 14(0.0115 ± 0.0019) **(0.0142 ± 0.0011) *
* p > 0.005, ** p > 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zuhayri, H.; Nikolaev, V.V.; Lepekhina, T.B.; Sandykova, E.A.; Krivova, N.A.; Kistenev, Y.V. The In Vivo Quantitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Low-Dose Photodynamic Therapy on Wound Healing Using Optical Coherence Tomography. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14020399

AMA Style

Zuhayri H, Nikolaev VV, Lepekhina TB, Sandykova EA, Krivova NA, Kistenev YV. The In Vivo Quantitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Low-Dose Photodynamic Therapy on Wound Healing Using Optical Coherence Tomography. Pharmaceutics. 2022; 14(2):399. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14020399

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zuhayri, Hala, Viktor V. Nikolaev, Tatiana B. Lepekhina, Ekaterina A. Sandykova, Natalya A. Krivova, and Yury V. Kistenev. 2022. "The In Vivo Quantitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Low-Dose Photodynamic Therapy on Wound Healing Using Optical Coherence Tomography" Pharmaceutics 14, no. 2: 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14020399

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop