| Literature DB >> 26236292 |
Fabian Cieplik1, Andreas Pummer1, Johannes Regensburger2, Karl-Anton Hiller1, Andreas Späth3, Laura Tabenski1, Wolfgang Buchalla1, Tim Maisch2.
Abstract
Due to increasing resistance of pathogens toward standard antimicrobial procedures, alternative approaches that are capable of inactivating pathogens are necessary in support of regular modalities. In this instance, the photodynamic inactivation of bacteria (PIB) may be a promising alternative. For clinical application of PIB it is essential to ensure appropriate comparison of given photosensitizer (PS)-light source systems, which is complicated by distinct absorption and emission characteristics of given PS and their corresponding light sources, respectively. Consequently, in the present study two strategies for adjustment of irradiation parameters were evaluated: (i) matching energy doses applied by respective light sources (common practice) and (ii) by development and application of a formula for adjusting the numbers of photons absorbed by PS upon irradiation by their corresponding light sources. Since according to the photodynamic principle one PS molecule is excited by the absorption of one photon, this formula allows comparison of photodynamic efficacy of distinct PS per excited molecule. In light of this, the antimicrobial photodynamic efficacy of recently developed PS SAPYR was compared to that of clinical standard PS Methylene Blue (MB) regarding inactivation of monospecies biofilms formed by Enterococcus faecalis and Actinomyces naeslundii whereby evaluating both adjustment strategies. PIB with SAPYR exhibited CFU-reductions of 5.1 log10 and 6.5 log10 against E. faecalis and A. naeslundii, respectively, which is declared as a disinfectant efficacy. In contrast, the effect of PIB with MB was smaller when the applied energy dose was adjusted compared to SAPYR (CFU-reductions of 3.4 log10 and 4.2 log10 against E. faecalis and A. naeslundii), or there was even no effect at all when the number of absorbed photons was adjusted compared to SAPYR. Since adjusting the numbers of absorbed photons is the more precise and adequate method from a photophysical point of view, this strategy should be considered in further studies when antimicrobial efficacy rates of distinct PS-light source systems are compared.Entities:
Keywords: Methylene Blue; SAPYR; absorbed photons; antimicrobial resistance; biofilm; photodynamic
Year: 2015 PMID: 26236292 PMCID: PMC4502582 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Chemical structures of SAPYR and Methylene Blue. Chemical structures of phenalen-1-one PS SAPYR (A) and phenothiazinium PS Methylene Blue (B).
Figure 2Characteristic absorption spectra of both PS and emission spectra of corresponding light sources. The abscissa shows the wavelength in nm, the left ordinate the spectral radiant power of the light source and the right ordinate the extinction coefficient of the PS. (A) Characteristic absorption spectrum of SAPYR (solid line) and emission spectrum of Waldmann PIB 3000 (dotted line). (B) Characteristic absorption spectrum of MB (solid line) and emission spectrum of Waldmann PDT 1200L (dotted line).
Figure 3Enzyme-linked lectinsorbent assay (ELLA). ELLA applied on 72 h E. faecalis and A. naeslundii monospecies biofilms for confirmation of EPS. Blue dots represent original measured values, red solid line represents the fit of the sigmoideal curve and red dashed lines depict 95% confidence intervals. r2 denotes the correlation coefficient. (A) ELLA on E. faecalis monospecies biofilm. (B) ELLA on A. naeslundii monospecies biofilm.
Figure 4Photodynamic inactivation of AN and EF monospecies biofilms. All PIB results are shown as CFU medians with 25 and 75% quantiles depicted on a log10 scaled ordinate. Medians on or below the solid and dashed lines represent CFU reductions of ≥ 3 log10 and ≥ 5 log10 steps, respectively, compared to untreated control groups PS-L-. (A) PIB against E. faecalis monospecies biofilm using SAPYR (number of absorbed photons: 6.78 × 1018; energy dose: 30 J/cm2): PIB group PS+L+ (yellow) shows a reduction by 5.1 log10 steps CFU. (B) PIB against A. naeslundii monospecies biofilm using SAPYR (number of absorbed photons: 6.78 × 1018; energy dose: 30 J/cm2): PIB group PS+L+ (yellow) shows a reduction by 6.5 log10 steps CFU. PS-L+ group shows a reduction by 0.5 log10 steps CFU. (C) PIB against E. faecalis monospecies biofilm using MB (adjusted energy dose: 30 J/cm2; corresponding number of absorbed photons: 56.5 × 1018): PIB group PS+L+ (blue) shows a reduction by 3.4 log10 steps CFU. (D) PIB against A. naeslundii monospecies biofilm using MB (adjusted energy dose: 30 J/cm2; corresponding number of absorbed photons: 56.5 × 1018): PIB group PS+L+ (blue) shows a reduction by 4.2 log10 steps CFU. PS-L+ group shows a reduction by 1.2 log10 steps CFU. (E) PIB against E. faecalis monospecies biofilm using MB (adjusted number of absorbed photons: 6.78 × 1018; corresponding energy dose: 3.6 J/cm2): PIB group PS+L+ (blue) shows no reduction of CFU. (F) PIB against A. naeslundii monospecies biofilm using MB (adjusted number of absorbed photons: 6.78 × 1018; corresponding energy dose: 3.6 J/cm2): PIB group PS+L+ (blue) shows no reduction of CFU.
| ε (λ) | Extinction coefficient [(mol×cm)−1] | Measured spectrally resolved by a photospectrometer |
| Pem(λ) | Spectral radiant power of the respective light source [mW/nm] | Measured spectrally resolved by a CCD detector system |
| c | Concentration of the PS [μM] | Here: 100 μM |
| d | Thickness of the solution [mm] | Here: 1.3 mm |
| c0 | Velocity of light [m/s] | 299,792,458 m/s |
| h | Planck constant [J×s] | 6.62606957×10−34 Js |
| λ | Wavelength [nm] |