The aim of this review is to discuss and compare the extensive range of biomedical applications of photo- and sono-activated Rose Bengal (RB).
Background data:
RB is a xanthene dye that due to its interesting photo- and sono-sensitive properties is gaining attention in the scientific field.
Methods:
This study is a literature review using the database PubMed.
Results:
As a photosensitizer, RB converts the triplet oxygen molecule into reactive oxygen species after irradiation with green light (532 nm). This mechanism allows for the use of photo-activated RB in photochemical tissue bonding, photodynamic therapy, antimicrobial therapy and cancer treatment, photothrombotic animal models, and other applications, including tissue engineering and treatment of tauopathies. As a sono-sensitive compound, RB is applied for sonodynamic therapy, cancer treatment, and antimicrobial therapy.
Conclusions:
This review outlines the versatility and effectiveness of photo- and sono-activated RB in numerous biomedical applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeRosaMC, CrutchleyRJ. Photosensitized singlet oxygen and its applications. Coord Chem Rev, 2002; 233–234:351–371.
2.
CroninL, MoffittM, MawadD, MortonOC, LautoA, StackC. An in vitro study of the photodynamic effect of rose bengal on Trichophyton rubrum. J Biophotonics, 2014; 7:410–417.
3.
SpagnulC, TurnerLC, BoyleRW. Immobilized photosensitizers for antimicrobial applications. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol, 2015; 150:11–30.
4.
DoughtyMJ. Rose bengal staining as an assessment of ocular surface damage and recovery in dry eye disease—a review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye, 2013; 36:272–280.
5.
MousaviSH, Tavakkol-AfshariJ, BrookA, Jafari-AnarkooliI. Direct toxicity of Rose Bengal in MCF-7 cell line: role of apoptosis. Food Chem Toxicol, 2009; 47:855–859.
6.
FreireF, CostaAC, PereiraCA, BeltrameM, JunqueiraJC, JorgeAOC. Comparison of the effect of rose bengal- and eosin Y-mediated photodynamic inactivation on planktonic cells and biofilms of Candida albicans. Lasers Med Sci, 2014; 29:949–955.
7.
WachterE, DeesC, HarkinsJ, et al.Topical rose bengal: pre-clinical evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety. Lasers Surg Med, 2003; 32:101–110.
LautoA, MawadD, BartonM, GuptaA, PillerSC, HookJ. Photochemical tissue bonding with chitosan adhesive films. Biomed Eng Online, 2010; 9:47.
10.
ChanBP, KochevarIE, RedmondRW. Enhancement of porcine skin graft adherence using a light-activated process. J Surg Res, 2002; 108:77–84.
11.
JohnsonTS, O'NeillAC, MotarjemPM, et al.Photochemical tissue bonding: a promising technique for peripheral nerve repair. J Surg Res, 2007; 143:224–229.
12.
FrancoRA, DowdallJR, BujoldKE, et al.Photochemical repair of vocal fold microflap defects. Laryngoscope, 2011; 121:1244–1251.
13.
Senthil-KumarP, Ng-GlazierJH, RandolphMA, et al.An intraluminal stent facilitates light-activated vascular anastomosis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2017; 83:S43–S49.
14.
KamegayaY, FarinelliWA, Vila EchagueAV, et al.Evaluation of photochemical tissue bonding for closure of skin incisions and excisions. Lasers Surg Med, 2005; 37:264–270.
15.
YangP, YaoM, DeMartelaereSL, RedmondRW, KochevarIE. Light-activated sutureless closure of wounds in thin skin. Lasers Surg Med, 2012; 44:163–167.
16.
TsaoS, YaoM, TsaoH, et al.Light-activated tissue bonding for excisional wound closure: a split-lesion clinical trial. Br J Dermatol, 2012; 166:555–563.
17.
XuN, YaoM, FarinelliWA, et al.Light-activated sealing of skin wounds. Lasers Surg Med, 2015; 47:17–29.
18.
ArkM, TranGT, ChenYJ, BoughtonP, CosmanPH, DunstanCR. Characterisation of a novel light activated adhesive scaffold: potential for device attachment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2016; 62:433–445.
19.
O'NeillAC, WinogradJM, ZeballosJL, et al.Microvascular anastomosis using a photochemical tissue bonding technique. Lasers Surg Med, 2007; 39:716–722.
20.
O'NeillAC, RandolphMA, BujoldKE, KochevarIE, RedmondRW, WinogradJM. Preparation and integration of human amnion nerve conduits using a light-activated technique. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2009; 124:428–437.
21.
ChanBP, AmannC, YaroslavskyAN, et al.Photochemical repair of Achilles tendon rupture in a rat model. J Surg Res, 2005; 124:274–279.
22.
NiT, Senthil-KumarP, DubbinK, et al.A photoactivated nanofiber graft material for augmented Achilles tendon repair. Lasers Surg Med, 2012; 44:645–652.
23.
MulroyL, KimJ, WuI, et al.Photochemical keratodesmos for repair of lamellar corneal incisions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000; 41:3335–3340.
24.
Eri VerterE, GiselTE, YangP, JohnsonAJ, RedmondRW, KochevarIE. Light-initiated bonding of amniotic membrane to cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011; 52:9470–9477.
25.
CherfanD, VerterEE, MelkiS, et al.Collagen cross-linking using rose bengal and green light to increase corneal stiffness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2013; 54:3426–3433.
WangT, PengY, ShenN, YuY, YaoM, ZhuJ. Photochemical activation increases the porcine corneal stiffness and resistance to collagenase digestion. Exp Eye Res, 2014; 123:97–104.
28.
ZhuH, AltC, WebbR, MelkiS, KochevarIE. Corneal crosslinking with rose bengal and green light: efficacy and safety evaluation. Cornea, 2016; 35:1234–1241.
29.
BekesiN, Gallego-MuñozP, Ibarés-FríasL, et al.Biomechanical changes after in vivo collagen cross-linking with rose bengal–green light and riboflavin-UVA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2017; 58:1612–1620.
30.
Gallego-MuñozP, Ibarés-FríasL, LorenzoE, et al.Corneal wound repair after rose bengal and green light crosslinking: clinical and histologic study. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci, 2017; 58:3471–3480.
31.
FadlallahA, ZhuH, ArafatS, KochevarIE, MelkiS, CiolinoJB. Corneal resistance to keratolysis after collagen crosslinking with rose bengal and green light. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2016; 57:6610–6614.
32.
Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Closing wounds with light. Published. 2018. Available at: http://wellman.massgeneral.org/impact-case4.htm (Last accessed October10, 2018).
33.
ArboledaA, MillerD, CabotF, et al.Assessment of rose bengal vs. riboflavin photodynamic therapy for inhibition of fungal keratitis isolates. Am J Ophthalmol, 2014; 158:64–70.
34.
CostaACBP, RasteiroVMC, PereiraCA, RossoniRD, JunqueiraJC, JorgeAOC. The effects of rose bengal- and erythrosine-mediated photodynamic therapy on Candida albicans. Mycoses, 2012; 55:56–63.
35.
Soria-LozanoP, GilaberteY, Paz-CristobalM, et al.In vitro effect photodynamic therapy with differents photosensitizers on cariogenic microorganisms. BMC Microbiol, 2015; 15:1–8.
36.
RolimJPML, De-MeloMAS, GuedesSF, et al.The antimicrobial activity of photodynamic therapy against Streptococcus mutans using different photosensitizers. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol, 2012; 106:40–46.
37.
PereiraCA, CostaACBP, CarreiraCM, JunqueiraJC, JorgeAOC. Photodynamic inactivation of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis biofilms in vitro. Lasers Med Sci, 2013; 28:859–864.
38.
DemidovaTN, HamblinMR. Effect of cell-photosensitizer binding and cell density on microbial photoinactivation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2005; 49:2329–2335.
39.
WenX, ZhangX, SzewczykG, et al.Potassium iodide potentiates antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation mediated by rose bengal in in vitro and in vivo studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2017; 61:e00467-17.
40.
GuoY, RogeljS, ZhangP. Rose Bengal-decorated silica nanoparticles as photosensitizers for inactivation of gram-positive bacteria. Nanotechnology, 2010; 21:1–16.
41.
AmescuaG, ArboledaA, NikpoorN, et al.Rose bengal photodynamic antimicrobial therapy: a novel treatment for resistant fusarium keratitis. Cornea, 2017; 36:1141–1144.
42.
MortonOC, ChauM, StackC. In vitro combination therapy using low dose clotrimazole and photodynamic therapy leads to enhanced killing of the dermatophyte Trichophyton rubrum. BMC Microbiol, 2014; 14:1–9.
43.
ManoilD, LangeN, BouillaguetS. Enzyme-mediated photoinactivation of Enterococcus faecalis using Rose Bengal-acetate. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol, 2018; 179:84–90.
44.
DecraeneV, PrattenJ, WilsonM, PrattenJ, WilsonM. Assessment of the activity of a novel light-activated antimicrobial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2008; 29:1181–1184.
45.
ChaudhuriS, SardarS, BagchiD, et al.Photoinduced dynamics and toxicity of a cancer drug in proximity of inorganic nanoparticles under visible light. Chemphyschem, 2016; 17:270–277.
46.
FadelM, KassabK. Evaluation of the photostability and photodynamic efficacy of Rose Bengal loaded in multivesicular liposomes. Trop J Pharm Res, 2011; 10:289–297.
47.
KautzkaZ, ClementS, GoldysEM, DengW. Light-triggered liposomal cargo delivery platform incorporating photosensitizers and gold nanoparticles for enhanced singlet oxygen generation and increased cytotoxicity. Int J Nanomed, 2017; 12:969–977.
48.
WangB, WangJH, LiuQ, et al.Rose-bengal-conjugated gold nanorods for invivo photodynamic and photothermal oral cancer therapies. Biomaterials, 2014; 35:1954–1966.
49.
HanR, ShiJ, LiuZ, WangH, WangY. Fabrication of mesoporous-silica-coated upconverting nanoparticles with ultrafast photosensitizer loading and 808 nm NIR-light-triggering capability for photodynamic therapy. Chem Asian J, 2017; 12:2197–2201.
50.
ZhouF, ZhengB, ZhangY, WuY, WangH, ChangJ. Construction of near-infrared light-triggered reactive oxygen species-sensitive (UCN/SiO2-RB + DOX)@PPADT nanoparticles for simultaneous chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy. Nanotechnology, 2016; 27:235601.
51.
LiangL, CareA, ZhangR, et al.Facile assembly of functional upconversion nanoparticles for targeted cancer imaging and photodynamic therapy. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016; 8:11945–11953.
52.
GianottiE, Martins EstevãoB, CucinottaF, et al.An efficient rose bengal based nanoplatform for photodynamic therapy. Chemistry, 2014; 20:10921–10925.
53.
UppalA, JainB, GuptaPK, DasK. Photodynamic action of rose bengal silica nanoparticle complex on breast and oral cancer cell lines. Photochem Photobiol, 2011; 87:1146–1151.
YehHP, Del ValleAC, SyuMC, QianY, ChangYC, HuangYF. A new photosensitized oxidation-responsive nanoplatform for controlled drug release and photodynamic cancer therapy. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2018; 10:21160–21172.
56.
KarthikeyanK, BabuA, KimSJ, MurugesanR, JeyasubramanianK. Enhanced photodynamic efficacy and efficient delivery of Rose Bengal using nanostructured poly(amidoamine) dendrimers: potential application in photodynamic therapy of cancer. Cancer Nanotechnol, 2011; 2:95–103.
57.
PanzariniE, InguscioV, FimiaGM, DiniL. Rose bengal acetate photodynamic therapy (RBAc-PDT) induces exposure and release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) in human HeLa cells. PLoS One, 2014; 9:20–22.
58.
HiraoA, KondoK, TakeuchiK, et al.Cyclooxygenase-dependent vasoconstricting factor(s) in remodelled rat femoral arteries. Cardiovasc Res, 2008; 79:161–168.
59.
LindnerV, FingerleJ, ReidyMA. Mouse model of arterial injury. Circ Res, 1993; 73:792–796.
60.
WatsonBD, DietrichWD, BustoR, WachtelMS, GinsbergMD. Induction of reproducible brain infarction by photochemically initiated thrombosis. Ann Neurol, 1985; 17:497–504.
UmemuraK, KohnoY, MatsunoH, UematsuT, NakashimaM. A new model for photochemically induced thrombosis in the inner ear microcirculation and the use of hearing loss as a measure for microcirculatory disorders. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 1990; 248:105–108.
63.
MatsunoH, UematsuT, NagashimaS, NakashimaM. Photochemically induced thrombosis model in rat femoral artery and evaluation of effects of heparin and tissue-type plasminogen activator with use of this model. J Pharmacol Methods, 1991; 25:303–317.
64.
HirataY, UmemuraK, KondohK, UematsuT, NakashimaM. Experimental intimal thickening studies using the photochemically induced thrombosis model in the guinea-pig femoral artery. Atherosclerosis, 1994; 107:117–124.
65.
KikuchiS, UmemuraK, KondoK, SaniabadiAR, NakashimaM. Photochemically induced endothelial injury in the mouse as a screening model for inhibitors of vascular intimal thickening. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 1998; 18:1069–1078.
66.
MatsudaA, SuzukiY, KondoK, IkedaY, UmemuraK. Hypercholesterolemia induces regression in neointimal thickening due to apoptosis of vascular smooth muscle cells in the hamster endothelial injury model. Cardiovasc Res, 2002; 53:512–523.
67.
MaedaM, TakamatsuH, FuruichiY, et al.Characterization of a novel thrombotic middle cerebral artery occlusion model in monkeys that exhibits progressive hypoperfusion and robust cortical infarction. J Neurosci Methods, 2005; 146:106–115.
68.
IkedaS, HaradaK, OhwatashiA, KamikawaY. Effects of edaravone, a free radical scavenger, on photochemically induced cerebral infarction in a rat hemiplegic model. Sci World J, 2013; 2013:1–5.
69.
IkedaS, HaradaK, OhwatashiA, KamikawaY, YoshidaA, KawahiraK. A new non-human primate model of photochemically induced cerebral infarction. PLoS One, 2013; 8:1–6.
70.
ChangCH, ChenKT, LeeTH, et al.Effects of natto extract on endothelial injury in a rat model. Acta Med Okayama, 2010; 64:399–406.
71.
ChangCH, ChenKT, WuCJ, et al.Laser-induced carotid artery injury model in the rat for therapeutic agent screening. Lasers Med Sci, 2012; 27:593–598.
72.
LiH, Roy ChoudhuryG, ZhangN, DingS. Photothrombosis-induced focal ischemia as a model of spinal cord injury in mice. J Vis Exp, 2015; 101:1–9.
73.
MinolJP, ReinschI, LuikM, et al.Focal induction of ROS-release to trigger local vascular degeneration. PLoS One, 2017; 12:1–13.
74.
MazakiT, ShiozakiY, YamaneK, et al.A novel, visible light-induced, rapidly cross-linkable gelatin scaffold for osteochondral tissue engineering. Sci Rep, 2014; 4:1–10.
75.
IbusukiS, HalbesmaGJ, RandolphMA, RedmondRW, KochevarIE, GillTJ. Photochemically cross-linked collagen gels as three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering. Tissue Eng, 2007; 13:1995–2001.
76.
OmobonoMA, ZhaoX, FurlongMA, et al.Enhancing the stiffness of collagen hydrogels for delivery of encapsulated chondrocytes to articular lesions for cartilage regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2015; 103:1332–1338.
77.
LeeJS, Lee BIl, ParkCB. Photo-induced inhibition of Alzheimer's β-amyloid aggregation invitro by rose Bengal. Biomaterials, 2015; 38:43–49.
78.
MohideenSS, YamasakiY, OmataY, TsudaL, YoshiikeY. Nontoxic singlet oxygen generator as a therapeutic candidate for treating tauopathies. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:1–14.
79.
SalinasHM, KhanSI, McCormackMC, et al.Prevention of vein graft intimal hyperplasia with photochemical tissue passivation. J Vasc Surg, 2017; 65:190–196.
80.
UmemuraSI, YumitaN, UmemuraK, NishigakiR. Sonodynamically induced effect of rose bengal on isolated sarcoma 180 cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, 1999; 43:389–393.
81.
NonakaM, YamamotoM, YoshinoSI, UmemuraSI, SasakiK, FukushimaT. Sonodynamic therapy consisting of focused ultrasound and a photosensitizer causes a selective antitumor effect in a rat intracranial glioma model. Anticancer Res, 2009; 29:943–950.
82.
LejbkowiczF, ZwiranM, SalzbergS. The response of normal and malignant cells to ultrasound in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1993; 19:75–82.
83.
SugitaN, KawabataKI, SasakiK, SakataI, UmemuraSI. Synthesis of amphiphilic derivatives of rose bengal and their tumor accumulation. Bioconjug Chem, 2007; 18:866–873.
84.
SugitaN, IwaseY, YumitaN, IkedaT, UmemuraSI. Sonodynamically induced cell damage using rose bengal derivative. Anticancer Res, 2010; 30:3361–3366.
85.
YoshinoSI, FukushimaT, HayashiS, et al.Effects of focused ultrasound sonodynamic treatment on the rat blood-brain barrier. Anticancer Res, 2009; 29:889–896.
86.
McEwanC, FowleyC, NomikouN, McCaughanB, McHaleAP, CallanJF. Polymeric microbubbles as delivery vehicles for sensitizers in sonodynamic therapy. Langmuir, 2014; 30:14926–14930.
87.
McEwanC, OwenJ, StrideE, et al.Oxygen carrying microbubbles for enhanced sonodynamic therapy of hypoxic tumours. J Control Release, 2015; 203:51–56.
88.
McEwanC, KamilaS, OwenJ, et al.Combined sonodynamic and antimetabolite therapy for the improved treatment of pancreatic cancer using oxygen loaded microbubbles as a delivery vehicle. Biomaterials, 2016; 80:20–32.
89.
ChenYW, LiuTY, ChangPH, et al.A theranostic nrGO@MSN-ION nanocarrier developed to enhance the combination effect of sonodynamic therapy and ultrasound hyperthermia for treating tumor. Nanoscale, 2016; 8:12648–12657.
90.
NakonechnyF, NisnevitchM, NitzanY, NisnevitchM. Sonodynamic excitation of rose bengal for eradication of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria sonodynamic excitation of rose bengal for eradication of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Biomed Res Int, 2013; 2013:684930.
91.
HiraokaW, HondaH, FerilLB, KudoN, KondoT. Comparison between sonodynamic effect and photodynamic effect with photosensitizers on free radical formation and cell killing. Ultrason Sonochem, 2006; 13535–542.
92.
McCaughanB, RouanetC, FowleyC, et al.Enhanced ROS production and cell death through combined photo- and sono-activation of conventional photosensitising drugs. Bioorganic Med Chem Lett, 2011; 21:5750–5752.
93.
McEwanC, NesbittH, NicholasD, et al.Comparing the efficacy of photodynamic and sonodynamic therapy in non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancer. Bioorganic Med Chem, 2016; 24:3023–3028.
