| Title |
Beneficial effects of Red Light-Emitting Diode treatment in experimental model of acute lung injury induced by sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-017-13117-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvia Goes Costa, Éric Diego Barioni, Aline Ignácio, Juliana Albuquerque, Niels Olsen Saraiva Câmara, Christiane Pavani, Luana Beatriz Vitoretti, Amílcar Sabino Damazo, Sandra Helena Poliselli Farsky, Adriana Lino-dos-Santos-Franco |
| Abstract |
Sepsis is a severe disease with a high mortality index and it is responsible for the development of acute lung injury (ALI). We evaluated the effects of light-emitting diode (LED) on ALI induced by sepsis. Balb-c mice were injected with lipopolysaccharide or saline and then irradiated or not with red LED on their tracheas and lungs for 150 s, 2 and 6 h after LPS injections. The parameters were investigated 24 h after the LPS injections. Red LED treatment reduced neutrophil influx and the levels of interleukins 1β, 17 A and, tumor necrosis factor-α; in addition to enhanced levels of interferon γ in the bronchoalveolar fluid. Moreover, red LED treatment enhanced the RNAm levels of IL-10 and IFN-γ. It also partially reduced the elevated oxidative burst and enhanced apoptosis, but it did not alter the translocation of nuclear factor κB, the expression of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), as well as, oedema or mucus production in their lung tissues. Together, our data has shown the beneficial effects of short treatment with LED on ALI that are caused by gram negative bacterial infections. It is suggested that LED applications are an inexpensive and non-invasive additional treatment for sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| Argentina | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,596,696
of 25,692,343 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#35,960
of 142,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,296
of 332,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,283
of 5,273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,692,343 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 332,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.