Investigations on Biological Effect of Polarized Light

Kubasova, Tamara; Fenyő, Márta; Somosy, Z.; Gazsó, L.G.; Kertész, I.

doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.1988.tb02853.x

Cited by 39 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An experiment on human embryo fibroblast cultures provided evidence in support of the model. This investigation demonstrated essential structural changes in the plasma membrane after LPL treatment, while after treatment with diffuse light (DL) and in the untreated controls no changes were observed (Kubasova et al 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

“…These experiments have unambiguously demonstrated that LPL stimulates the natural defences of the body and boosts cellular and humoral immune mechanisms against bacterial infections, even against those caused by highly resistant bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Fenyő 1984;Kubasova et al 1988). The effect of LPL and DL on the blast transformation of purified human T lymphocytes was investigated in vitro.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Polarized Light Treatment on Milk Production and Milk Somatic Cell Count of Cows

Fenyő¹,

Szita

Bartyik³

et al. 2008

Acta Vet. Brno

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fenyő M., G. Szita, J. Bartyik, J. Dóra, S. Bernáth: Effect of Polarized Light Treatment on Milk Production and Milk Somatic Cell Count of Cows. Acta Vet. Brno 2007, 77: 225-229. Treatment with linearly polarized light (LPL) is a widely used and recognized therapeutic method in human medicine for healing wounds, ulcers and a variety of other dermatological problems. Polarized light mobilizes the inadequately functioning defence mechanisms of the human body. The aim of the present experiment was to investigate the effect of LPL treatment on the udder of milking cows.Before the start of treatment, there was no significant difference between cows to be treated with LPL and the control cows in mean somatic cell counts (SCC) of milk samples taken separately by udder quarter and in the mean milk yield. The LPL treatment lasted for 20 min and was performed twice a day over a period of one month. Before treatment, the mean SCC of milk was 3.47 × 10 5

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Polarized Light Treatment on Milk Production and Milk Somatic Cell Count of Cows

Fenyő¹,

Szita

Bartyik³

et al. 2008

Acta Vet. Brno

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These aspects interfere with all membrane-regulated processes. 16,26 The protocol used on the present investigation is based upon previous study carried out by our group which showed promising results. 27 The use of different doses was due to the fact that up to now no definite treatment parameter for laser therapy has been defined and there is still need for further investigations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarized Light (400–2000 nm) and Non-ablative Laser (685 nm): A Description of the Wound Healing Process Using Immunohistochemical Analysis

Pinheiro

Pozza

Oliveira

et al. 2005

Photomedicine and Laser Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to describe, through morphologic and cytochemical analysis, the healing process of wounds submitted (or not) to laser therapy (λ685 nm) or polarized light (λ400-2000 nm). Background Data: There are many reports on different effects of several types of phototherapies on the treatment of distinct conditions, amongst them, on wound healing. Laser therapy and the use of polarized light are still controversial despite successive reports on their positive effects on several biological processes. Methods: Thirty male Wistar rats, approximately 4 months old, were used, and standardized excisional wounds were created on their dorsum. The wounds were irradiated in four equidistant points with laser light or illuminated with polarized light, both with doses of 20 or 40 J/cm2. Group 1 acted as untreated controls. Animals were irradiated every 48 h during 7 days, starting immediately after surgery, and were humanely killed on the 8th post-operative day. Specimens were taken and routinely processed and stained with H&E, and for descriptive analysis of myofibroblasts and collagen fibers, the specimens were imunnomarked by smooth muscle α-actin and picrosirius stain. Results: Control specimens showed the presence of ulceration, hyperemia, discrete edema, intense, and diffuse inflammation, collagen deposition was irregular, and myofibroblasts were seen parallel to the wound margins. Wounds treated by laser therapy with a dose of 20 J/cm2 showed mild hyperemia, inflammation varied from moderate to intense, the number of fibroblasts was large, and the distribution of collagen fibers was more regular. Increasing the dose to 40 J/cm2 evidenced exuberant neovascularization, severe hyperemia, moderate to severe inflammation, large collagen deposition, and fewer myofibroblasts. On subjects illuminated with polarized light with a dose of 20 J/cm2, mild to moderate hyperemia was detectable, and collagen matrix was expressive and unevenly distributed; a larger number of myofibroblasts was present and no re-epithelialization was seen. Increasing the dose resulted in mild to moderate hyperemia, no reepithelialization was seen, edema was discrete, and inflammation was moderate. Conclusion: The use of 685-nm laser light or polarized light with a dose of 20 J/cm2 resulted in increased collagen deposition and better organization on healing wounds, and the number of myofibroblast was increased when polarized light is used.

show abstract

“…The favourable effects of polarized light rays were discovered during studies on laser light rays, and in 1981 a group of physicists from Hungary proved that polarized light has a stimulating effect on the natural defence and repair functions of organisms and cells (Kertesz et al, 1982;Fenyo, 1984;Kubasova et al, 1988). These cells include endothelial cells (Moore et al, 2005), keratinocytes (Yu et al, 2003), macrophages (Fujimaki et al, 2003), and several classes of leukocytes such as neutrophils (Young et al, 1989).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival of Escherichia coli upon exposure to irradiation with non-coherent polychromatic polarized light

Djurdjevic-Milosevic¹,

Solaja²,

Topalić-Trivunović³

et al. 2011

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this work was to examine the influence of non-coherent polarized light upon the growth of Escherichia coli. Experiments were designed to test the main hypothesis that this kind of polychromatic light can produce decimal reductions in numbers of E. coli bacteria. Two strains of E. coli -isolated from ground pork and commercial culture E. coli ATCC 25922, were both exposed to light for 20, 30, 40 and 60 minutes. The source of non-coherent polarized light was a Bioptron-1 lamp (Zepter, Swiss) with the following technical characteristics: wavelength 400-2000 nm, polarization > 95%, and constant radiation dose 2.4 J/cm 2 per minute. The result for both strains showed a slight increase in bacterial count in response to an irradiation time of 20 min and decreases in bacterial counts for irradiation times of 30, 40 and 60 min without characteristics of a decimal reduction. Bacterial counts after treatments displayed a linear relationship with the total count of bacteria before treatments as well as the percentage surviving bacteria and irradiation time. Data analysis (ANOVA two factors with replication) showed that the survival of bacteria was influenced significantly by duration time (P < 0.01), bacterial culture (p<0.05), and interaction between duration time and bacterial culture (P < 0.01). Neither E. coli ATCC 25922 nor E. coli isolated from ground pork showed a decimal reduction after irradiation with non-coherent polychromatic polarized light.Keywords: bacteria; growth; light; plate count List of abbreviations ANOVA = analysis of variance; BGLB = brilliant green lactose bile broth; CFU = colony forming units; I = energy impute; IMViC = indole, methyl red, Voges-Proskauer, and citrate; N 0 = plate count before treatments; N = plate count after treatments; R 2 = coefficient of determination; S = survival; SD = standard deviation; VRBA = violet red bile agar; VTEC = verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli

show abstract

Investigations on Biological Effect of Polarized Light

Cited by 39 publications

References 8 publications

Effect of Polarized Light Treatment on Milk Production and Milk Somatic Cell Count of Cows

Effect of Polarized Light Treatment on Milk Production and Milk Somatic Cell Count of Cows

Polarized Light (400–2000 nm) and Non-ablative Laser (685 nm): A Description of the Wound Healing Process Using Immunohistochemical Analysis

The survival of Escherichia coli upon exposure to irradiation with non-coherent polychromatic polarized light

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About