Twice-daily red and blue light treatment for Candida albicans biofilm matrix development control
Phototherapy has been proposed as a direct means of affecting local bacterial infections. However, the use of phototherapy to prevent fungal biofilm development has received comparatively less attention. This study aimed to determine the effects of red light treatment and blue light treatment, without a photosensitizer, on the development of Candida albicans biofilm. During the development of 48-h biofilms of C. albicans SN 425 (n = 10), the biofilms were exposed twice-daily to noncoherent blue and red light (LumaCare; 420 nm and 635 nm). The energy density applied was 72 J cm−2 for blue light and 43.8 J cm2, 87.6 J cm2, and 175.5 J cm2 for red light. Positive control (PC) and negative control (NC) groups were treated twice-daily for 1 min with 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 0.89% NaCl respectively. Biofilms were analyzed for colony forming units (CFU), dry-weight, and exopolysaccharides (EPS-soluble and EPS-insoluble). Data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05). Dry-weight was lower than NC (p < 0.001) and approached PC levels with both red and blue light treatments. CFU were also lower in groups exposed to blue light and higher durations of red light (p < 0.05). EPS-soluble and EPS-insoluble measures were variably reduced by these light exposures. In conclusion, twice-daily exposure to both blue and red lights affect the biofilm development and physiology of polysaccharide production and are potential mechanisms for the control of C. albicans biofilm matrix development.
KeywordsCandida albicans Biofilm Red light Blue light Phototherapy
We thank Dr. Alexander D. Johnson, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, UCSF, for his generous donation of the strain used in this study.
This research was supported by CAPES Foundation from whom the first author received a scholarship (CAPES 88881.062159̷ 2014-01 PVE̷ CAPES). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The authors have attested that for this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.Sardi JCO, Scorzoni L, Bernardi T, Fusco-Almeida AM, Mendes Giannini MJ (2013) Candida species: current epidemiology, pathogenicity, biofilm formation, natural antifungal products and new therapeutic options. J Med Microbiol 62:10–24. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.045054-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Banting DW, Greenhorn PA, McMinn JG (1995) Effectiveness of a topical antifungal regimen for the treatment of oral candidiasis in older, chronically ill, institutionalized, adults. J Can Dent Assoc 61(199–200):203–205Google Scholar
- 32.Koban I, Holtfreter B, Hubner NO, Matthes R, Sietmann R, Kindel E, Weltmann KD, Welk A, Kramer A, Kocher T (2011) Antimicrobial efficacy of non-thermal plasma in comparison to chlorhexidine against dental biofilms on titanium discs in vitro - proof of principle experiment. J Clin Periodontol 38:956–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01740.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Balagopal S, Arjunkumar R (2013) Chlorhexidine: the gold-standard antiplaque agent. J Pharm Sci Res 5:270–274Google Scholar