The effects of photodynamic action on in vitro herpes simplex virus infections of CV‐1 monkey kidney fibroblasts or human skin fibroblasts were determined using proflavine sulfate and white fluorescent lamps. Photodynamic treatment of confluent cell monolayers prior to virus infection inactivated cell capacity, i.e. the capacity of the treated cells to support subsequent virus growth as measured by plaque formation. The capacity of human cells was more sensitive to inactivation than the capacity of monkey cells when 6 μM proflavine was used. Treated cell monolayers recovered the capacity to support virus plaque formation when virus infection was delayed four days after the treatment. Experiments in which the photodynamically treated monolayers were infected with UV‐irradiated virus demonstrated that this treatment induced Weigle reactivation in both types of cells. This reactivation occurred for virus infection just after treatment or 4 days later. A Luria‐Latarjet‐type experiment was also performed in which cultures infected with unirradiated virus were photodynamically treated at different times after the start of infection. The results showed that for the first several hours of the virus infection the infected cultures were more sensitive to inactivation by photodynamic treatment than cell capacity. By the end of the eclipse period the infected cultures were less sensitive to inactivation than cell capacity. Results from extracellular inactivation of virus grown in monkey cells at 6 μM proflavine indicated that at physiological pH the virus has a sensitivity to photodynamic inactivation similar to that for inactivation of cell capacity. The combined data indicated that photodynamic treatment of the cell before or after virus infection could prevent virus growth. Thus, photodynamic inactivation of infected and uninfected cells may be as important as inactivation of virus particles when considering possible mechanisms in clinical photodynamic therapy for herpes simplex.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lytle et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: