Usage Information
Abstract
With the effectiveness of antimicrobials declining as antimicrobial resistance continues to threaten public health, we must look to alternative strategies for the treatment of infections. In this study, we investigated an innovative, drug-free, dual-wavelength irradiation approach that combines 2 wavelengths of light, 460 nm and 405 nm, against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). MRSA was initially irradiated with 460-nm light (90–360 J/cm2) and subsequently irradiated with aliquots of 405-nm light (54–324 J/cm2). For in vivo studies, mouse skin was abraded and infected with approximately 107 CFUs of MRSA and incubated for 3 hours before irradiating with 460 nm (360 J/cm2) and 405 nm (342 J/cm2). Naive mouse skin was also irradiated to investigate apoptosis. We found that staphyloxanthin, the carotenoid pigment in MRSA cells, promoted resistance to the antimicrobial effects of 405-nm light. In addition, we found that the photolytic effect of 460-nm light on staphyloxanthin attenuated resistance of MRSA to 405-nm light killing. Irradiation of 460 nm alone did not elicit any antimicrobial effect on MRSA. In a proof-of-principle mouse skin abrasion infection model, we observed significant killing of MRSA using the dual-wavelength irradiation approach. However, when either wavelength of light was administered alone, no significant decrease in bacterial viability was observed. Moreover, exposure of the dual-wavelength irradiation to naive mouse skin did not result in any visible apoptosis. In conclusion, a dual-wavelength irradiation strategy may offer an innovative, effective, and safe approach for the treatment of skin infections caused by MRSA.
Authors
Leon G. Leanse, Xueping Sharon Goh, Ji-Xin Cheng, David C. Hooper, Tianhong Dai
Usage data is cumulative from January 2025 through January 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 611 | 73 |
| 142 | 29 | |
| Figure | 288 | 13 |
| Supplemental data | 57 | 1 |
| Citation downloads | 122 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,220 | 116 |
| Total Views | 1,336 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
