Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34496717›Full record

ReviewVirulence2021

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for biofilm treatments. Possible synergy between aPDT and pulsed electric fields.

Wanessa de Cassia Martins Antunes de Melo, Raimonda Celiešiūtė-Germanienė, Povilas Šimonis, Arūnas Stirkė

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virulence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring New Horizons in Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Analysis.Recent advances in inflammation & allergy drug discovery · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wanessa de Cassia Martins Antunes de MeloDepartment of Functional Materials and Electronics, Laboratory of Bioelectric, State Research Institute, Department of Functional Materials and Electronics, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Raimonda Celiešiūtė-GermanienėDepartment of Functional Materials and Electronics, Laboratory of Bioelectric, State Research Institute, Department of Functional Materials and Electronics, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Povilas ŠimonisDepartment of Functional Materials and Electronics, Laboratory of Bioelectric, State Research Institute, Department of Functional Materials and Electronics, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Arūnas StirkėDepartment of Functional Materials and Electronics, Laboratory of Bioelectric, State Research Institute, Department of Functional Materials and Electronics, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Center for Physical Sciences and Technology · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, microbial biofilms have been the cause of a wide variety of infections in the human body, reaching 80% of all bacterial and fungal infections. The biofilms present specific properties that increase the resistance to antimicrobial treatments. Thus, the development of new approaches is urgent, and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been shown as a promising candidate. aPDT involves a synergic association of a photosensitizer (PS), molecular oxygen and visible light, producing highly reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause the oxidation of several cellular components. This therapy attacks many components of the biofilm, including proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids present within the biofilm matrix; causing inhibition even in the cells that are inside the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). Recent advances in designing new PSs to increase the production of ROS and the combination of aPDT with other therapies, especially pulsed electric fields (PEF), have contributed to enhanced biofilm inhibition. The PEF has proven to have antimicrobial effect once it is known that extensive chemical reactions occur when electric fields are applied. This type of treatment kills microorganisms not only due to membrane rupture but also due to the formation of reactive compounds including free oxygen, hydrogen, hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals. So, this review aims to show the progress of aPDT and PEF against the biofilms, suggesting that the association of both methods can potentiate their effects and overcome biofilm infections.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsBiofilmsPhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsElectricityExtracellular Polymeric Substance MatrixHumansOxygenReactive Oxygen SpeciesAnti-Infective AgentsOxygenPhotosensitizing AgentsReactive Oxygen SpeciesAntimicrobial resistance1aPDT5biofilms2EPS3PEF6photosensitizer7 and electroporation8ROS4

Identifiers

PMID34496717
PMCPMC8437467
OpenAlexW3198652133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.