↓ Skip to main content

No evidence for toxicity after long-term photobiomodulation in normal non-human primates

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
No evidence for toxicity after long-term photobiomodulation in normal non-human primates
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00221-017-5048-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cécile Moro, Napoleon Torres, Katerina Arvanitakis, Karen Cullen, Claude Chabrol, Diane Agay, Fannie Darlot, Alim-Louis Benabid, John Mitrofanis

Abstract

In this study, we explored the effects of a longer term application, up to 12 weeks, of photobiomodulation in normal, naïve macaque monkeys. Monkeys (n = 5) were implanted intracranially with an optical fibre device delivering photobiomodulation (red light, 670 nm) to a midline midbrain region. Animals were then aldehyde-fixed and their brains were processed for immunohistochemistry. In general, our results showed that longer term intracranial application of photobiomodulation had no adverse effects on the surrounding brain parenchyma or on the nearby dopaminergic cell system. We found no evidence for photobiomodulation generating an inflammatory glial response or neuronal degeneration near the implant site; further, photobiomodulation did not induce an abnormal activation or mitochondrial stress in nearby cells, nor did it cause an abnormal arrangement of the surrounding vasculature (endothelial basement membrane). Finally, because of our interest in Parkinson's disease, we noted that photobiomodulation had no impact on the number of midbrain dopaminergic cells and the density of their terminations in the striatum. In summary, we found no histological basis for any major biosafety concerns associated with photobiomodulation delivered by our intracranial approach and our findings set a key template for progress onto clinical trial on patients with Parkinson's disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Engineering 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,566,650
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,485
of 3,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,998
of 316,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#48
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.