Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29882348›Full record

ReviewPhotochemistry and photobiology2019

Non-mammalian Hosts and Photobiomodulation: Do All Life-forms Respond to Light?

Michael R Hamblin, Ying-Ying Huang, Vladimir Heiskanen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Photochemistry and photobiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Near-Infrared 810 nm Light Affects PoriferaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. Photobiomodulation in 3D tissue engineering.Journal of biomedical optics · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. "Photobiomics": Can Light, Including Photobiomodulation, Alter the Microbiome?Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael R HamblinWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-6431-4605
Ying-Ying HuangWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Vladimir HeiskanenOral and Maxillofacial Diseases, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Harvard University · USUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

Photodynamic Therapy of Localized InfectionsR01AI050875 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HAMBLIN, MICHAEL R · 2003 to 2017
$4.8M
Synergistic Photodynamic Therapy for Catherer-Associated Urinary Tract InfectionsR21AI121700 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HAMBLIN, MICHAEL R · 2016 to 2017
$462k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI050875NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI121700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photobiomodulation (PBM), also known as low-level laser (light) therapy, was discovered over 50 years ago, but only recently has it been making progress toward wide acceptance. PBM originally used red and near-infrared (NIR) lasers, but now other wavelengths and non-coherent light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are being explored. The almost complete lack of side effects makes the conduction of controlled clinical trials relatively easy. Laboratory research has mainly concentrated on mammalian cells (normal or cancer) in culture, and small rodents (mice and rats) as models of different diseases. A sizeable body of work was carried out in the 1970s and 1980s in Russia looking at various bacterial and fungal cells. The present review covers some of these studies and a recent number of papers that have applied PBM to so-called "model organisms." These models include flies (Drosophila), worms (Caenorhabditis elegans), fish (zebrafish) and caterpillars (Galleria). Much knowledge about the genomics and proteomics, and many reagents for these organisms already exist. They are inexpensive to work with and have lower regulatory barriers compared to vertebrate animals. Other researchers have studied different models (snails, sea urchins, Paramecium, toads, frogs and chickens). Plants may respond to NIR light differently from visible light (photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis) but PBM in plants has not been much studied. Veterinarians routinely use PBM to treat non-mammalian patients. The conclusion is that red or NIR light does indeed have significant biologic effects conserved over many different kingdoms, and perhaps it is true that "all life-forms respond to light."

Indexed as

LightLow-Level Light TherapyAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDrosophilaPlantsZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID29882348
PMCPMC6286699
OpenAlexW2805432941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.