Preclinical study demonstrates that 630-nm LED light suppresses sepsis-induced acute lung injury in mice, indicating therapeutic benefit via blocked M1 macrophage polarization.
Background: Sepsis-induced acute lung injury (ALI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by excessive uncontrolled inflammation. Photobiomodulation such as light-emitting diode (LED) irradiation has been used to attenuate inflammatory disease. Objective: The protective effect of 630 nm LED irradiation on sepsis-induced ALI remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of 630 nm LED irradiation in sepsis-induced ALI and its underlying mechanism. Methods and results: C57BL/6 mice were performed cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) for 12 h to generate experimental sepsis models. Histopathology analysis showed that alveolar injury, inflammatory cells infiltration, and hemorrhage were suppressed in CLP mice after 630 nm LED irradiation. The ratio of wet/dry weigh of lung tissue was significantly inhibited by irradiation. The number of leukocytes was reduced in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed that 630 nm LED irradiation significantly inhibited the mRNA and protein levels of M1 macrophage-related genes in the lung of CLP-induced septic mice. Meanwhile, LED irradiation significantly inhibited signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) phosphorylation in the lung of septic mice. In vitro experiments showed that 630 nm LED irradiation significantly inhibited M1 genes mRNA and protein expression in THP-1-derived M1 macrophages without affecting the cell viability. LED irradiation also significantly inhibited the level of STAT1 phosphorylation in THP-1-derived M1 macrophages. Conclusions: We concluded that 630 nm LED is promising as a treatment against ALI through inhibiting M1 macrophage polarization, which is associated with the downregulation of STAT1 phosphorylation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: