Deep proteome profiling of SW837 cells treated by photodynamic therapy (PDT) reveals the underlying mechanisms of metronomic and acute PDTs

Microneedle Device Delivering Aggregation-Induced Emission Photosensitizers for Enhanced Metronomic Photodynamic Therapy of Cancer

Metronomic photodynamic therapy (mPDT), which induces cancer cell death by prolonged intermittent continuous irradiation at lower light power, has profoundly promising applications. However, the photobleaching sensitivity of the photosensitizer (PS) and the difficulty of delivery pose barriers to the clinical application of mPDT. Here, we constructed a microneedle-based device (Microneedles@AIE PSs) that combined with aggregation-induced emission (AIE) PSs to achieve enhanced mPDT for cancer. Due to the strong anti-photobleaching property of the AIE PS, it can maintain superior photosensitivity even after long-time light exposure. The delivery of the AIE PS to the tumor through a microneedle device allows for greater uniformity and depth. This Microneedles@AIE PSs-based mPDT (M-mPDT) offers better treatment outcomes and easier access, and combining M-mPDT with surgery or immunotherapy can also significantly improve the effectiveness of these clinical therapies. In conclusion, M-mPDT offers a promising strategy for the clinical application of PDT due to its better efficacy and convenience.

Photodynamic therapy with light-emitting diode arrays producing different light fields induces apoptosis and necrosis in gastrointestinal cancer

Introduction

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have become a new light source for photodynamic therapy (PDT) because of their excellent optical properties, small size, and low cost. LED arrays have so far been designed to meet the need for accurate illumination of irregular lesions. However, LED arrays determine not only the shape of the illuminated spot but also the light field, which has a significant impact on the efficacy of PDT.

Methods

We designed three types of LED arrays producing different light fields, namely an intensive LED array for a uniform light field, a sparse LED array for a non-uniform light field, and a point LED array for a Gaussian-like light field, and investigated the effect and mechanism of these light fields on PDT for gastrointestinal cancer both in vitro and in vivo.

Results

We found that intensive LED-PDT induced earlier and more serious cell death, including apoptosis and necrosis, than sparse LED-PDT and point LED-PDT. Among the three LED arrays, the intensive LED array induced cells to produce more differential proteins (DEPs), mainly related to mitochondria, ribosomes, and nucleic acids. DEPs in cells subjected to sparse LED- and point LED-PDT were mainly involved in extracellular activities. For MGC-803 tumor-bearing mice, intensive LED-PDT and point LED-PDT had better tumor ablation effect than sparse LED-PDT. Notably, recurrence was observed on day 7 after sparse LED-PDT. VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 were highly expressed in sparse LEDs-PDT treated tumor tissues and were associated tumor angiogenesis, which in turn lead to poor tumor suppression.

Conclusions

Therefore, the type of LED array significantly affected the performance of PDT for gastrointestinal cancer. Uniform light field with low power densities work better than non-uniform and Gaussian-like light fields.

Ru(II) CONTAINING PHOTOSENSITIZERS FOR PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY: A CRITIQUE ON REPORTING AND AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE EFFICACY

Ruthenium(II)-based coordination complexes have emerged as photosensitizers (PSs) for photodynamic therapy (PDT) in oncology as well as antimicrobial indications and have great potential. Their modular architectures that integrate multiple ligands can be exploited to tune cellular uptake and subcellular targeting, solubility, light absorption, and other photophysical properties. A wide range of Ru(II) containing compounds have been reported as PSs for PDT or as photochemotherapy (PCT) agents. Many studies employ a common scaffold that is subject to systematic variation in one or two ligands to elucidate the impact of these modifications on the photophysical and photobiological performance. Studies that probe the excited state energies and dynamics within these molecules are of fundamental interest and are used to design next-generation systems. However, a comparison of the PDT efficacy between Ru(II) containing PSs and 1st or 2nd generation PSs, already in clinical use or preclinical/clinical studies, is rare. Even comparisons between Ru(II) containing molecular structures are difficult, given the wide range of excitation wavelengths, power densities, and cell lines utilized. Despite this gap, PDT dose metrics quantifying a PS's efficacy are available to perform qualitative comparisons. Such models are independent of excitation wavelength and are based on common outcome parameters, such as the photon density absorbed by the Ru(II) compound to cause 50% cell kill (LD50) based on the previously established threshold model. In this focused photophysical review, we identified all published studies on Ru(II) containing PSs since 2005 that reported the required photophysical, light treatment, and in vitro outcome data to permit the application of the Photodynamic Threshold Model to quantify their potential efficacy. The resulting LD50 values range from less than 1013 to above 1020 [hν cm-3], indicating a wide range in PDT efficacy and required optical energy density for ultimate clinical translation.