logo

BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY AN UPDATE

PDF Publication Title:

BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY AN UPDATE ( biphasic-dose-response-in-low-level-light-therapy-an-update )

Previous Page View | Next Page View | Return to Search List

Text from PDF Page: 012

Biphasic Dose Response in LLLT – An Update produce a neurological severity score (NSS based on a panel of standard- ized behavioral tests) of 7-8 on a scale of 0 (normal mice) to 10 (severe brain injury that causes death). The basic finding was that delivering a single dose of 36 J/cm2 810-nm laser delivered at 50 mW/cm2 (12 min- utes illumination time) in a spot of 1-cm diameter centered on the top of the mouse head at a time point of 4 hours post-TBI was highly effective in ameliorating the neurological symptoms suffered by the mice (Figure 9A). When we delivered 10 times as much 810-nm laser (360 J/cm2 at 500 mW/cm2) also taking 12 minutes the beneficial effect total- ly disappeared, and at early time points (1-6 days) the high fluence appeared to be worse than no treatment (Figure 9B). When we repeated the effective laser treatments 14 times (36 J/cm2 delivered at 50-mW/cm2 once a day for 14 days starting 4 hours post-TB) we found a very interesting result (Figure 9C). For the first 4 days the improvement in NSS in the repeated laser group was marginally better than the single treatment. However on day 5 the gradual improvement ceased and as the laser was repeated the NSS got closer to that of untreat- ed TBI mice until at day 14 it actually crossed over. Although the differ- ences were not statistically significant it appeared that from day 16 until day 28 the mice that received 14 laser treatments did worse than those that received no treatment at all. POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LLLT The triphasic dose response we have observed for ROS production in cultured cortical neurons (see Fig 7) suggests an explanation for the biphasic dose response. The hypothesis is that there are two kinds of ROS. Good ROS are produced at fairly low fluences of light. The reason for the production of good ROS is likely to be connected with stimulation of mitochondrial electron transport as shown by increases in MMP and increases in ATP production. These good ROS can initiate beneficial cell signaling pathwas leading to activation of redox sensitive transcription factors such as NF-κB (Chandel et al. 2000; Groeger et al. 2009). NF-κB activation induces expression of a large number of gene products related to cell proliferation and survival (Karin and Lin 2002; Brea-Calvo et al. 2009). As the fluence of light is increased the beneficial ROS production in the mitochondria decreases in tandem with reductions in MMP and a drop-off in ATP production. Then when even more light is delivered there is a second peak in ROS production, which we will call bad ROS. Bad ROS can damage the mitochondria leading to a drop in MMP below baseline levels and presumably can lead to initiation of apoptosis by the mitochondrial pathway including cytochrome c release. It remains to be seen whether the good and bad ROS are identical species and just differ in amount, or whether they are chemically different species. For instance it may be hypothesized that the good ROS consists mainly of superoxide 613

PDF Image | BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY AN UPDATE

biphasic-dose-response-in-low-level-light-therapy-an-update-012

PDF Search Title:

BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY AN UPDATE

Original File Name Searched:

biphasic-dose-response-low-level-light-therapy.pdf

DIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing

Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info

Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info

Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info

The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info

Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info

The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info

CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com | RSS | AMP