750nm & 950nm: The Worst Wavelengths for Red Light Therapy
Which wavelengths of Red or Near-Infrared light are the best? The debate may rage on for decades as the research continues, although we have some good evidence for wavelengths like 810nm, 830nm, and 1060nm so far.
Photobiomodulation has primarily focused on Red and Near-Infrared wavelengths between 600-1100nm due to their proven safety, efficacy, deep penetration, and beneficial mechanisms.
To help us determine the best wavelengths, perhaps we should use the process-of-elimination to consider the worst wavelengths.
Are there any wavelengths that should be avoided? Perhaps due to a lack of benefits, safety concerns, inconclusive evidence, or inhibitory cellular responses.
Summary:
While many near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths have been shown to be safe and beneficial, there are at least two regions of NIR that are clearly controversial.
The wavelengths around 750nm and 950nm are most often found to be less effective or even inhibitory.
The leading theory is that 750nm and 950nm are unnatural wavelengths, as they are filtered by earth's atmosphere and thus organisms were hardly ever exposed to them throughout evolution.
The inhibitory response can be used therapeutically for alternative purposes; such as destroying unwanted cells (i.e. bacteria or cancer cells), blunting nerve cells to reduce pain sensations, or arresting unwanted cellular functions.
However, care must be taken to avoid collateral damage to healthy cells when using these wavelengths.
The Forgotten NIR Wavelengths:
The consumer has undoubtedly noticed the "standard" wavelengths in commercial panels have been primarily weighted towards 660nm Red and 850nm Near-Infrared. Often leading to false assumptions that 660nm and 850nm are the best wavelengths due to the Ad populum fallacy.
More recently, the consumer has been introduced to wavelengths like 630nm, 650nm, 670nm, 810nm, 830nm in commercial devices - each of which are extremely well studied and often surpass the "standard" wavelengths in their clinically studied beneficial effects. Wavelengths in the 1060nm range are also becoming increasingly popular in recent years.
This means that many commercial devices will cover wavelengths in the 600's and 800's, and occasionally the 1000's.
Which wavelengths are missing? The 700's and 900's. It is quite rare to find a commercial LED panel that includes wavelengths starting in those ranges.
Why would wavelengths from these ranges be omitted from most devices? Isn't more wavelengths always better? Aren't we trying to mimic a full-spectrum light source to replace the sun?
Are manufacturers depriving consumers of the potential benefits from these wavelengths ranges? Or have they purposely excluded the 700's and 900's for a good reason?
So let's take a look at the science and see why these wavelengths are not being offered by most brands.
Mid 700's and 900's - The Worse Wavelengths
In a recent 2024 Photobiomodulation article for Alzheimer's Disease, they recommend avoiding the following wavelengths:
"It is notable that wavelengths of 750 nm and 950 nm have been found to inhibit CcO activity, advising against their use in PBM for effective AD treatment (217, 218)." [1]
This is quite remarkable that some specific Near-Infrared wavelengths are recommended to be avoided for certain diseases. Citing that these wavelengths may actually inhibit CcO (Cytochrome C Oxidase) activity. Which we know is the opposite effect we typically expect or want from Red Light Therapy.
One study tested different wavelengths for treating TBI in mice. They found that 730nm and 980nm were ineffective, while they confirmed 660nm and 810nm were effective.
"The effectiveness of 810 nm agrees with previous publications, and together with the effectiveness of 660 nm and non-effectiveness of 730 and 980 nm can be explained by the absorption spectrum of cytochrome oxidase, the candidate mitochondrial chromophore in transcranial LLLT." [2]
A review article on PBM for wound healing also notes that 730nm and 980nm were found to be ineffective.
"while treatment with 730 and 980 nm wave-lengths do not stimulate healing and control ulcers continue to deteriorate [9]." [3]
The same review article also notes that 780nm has some positive effects, but clearly not as effective as 660nm.
"Thus, daily use of a 660-nm laser at 20 J/cm2 is more effective than 780-nm irradiation for improving healing of third-degree burns in the diabetic rats [50]. " [3]
A review article on PBM for retinal (eye) health also notes that 730nm and 980nm failed to show positive effects, in contrast to the demonstrated effectiveness of 635nm and 810nm.
"In addition, Gupta et al. observed that irradiation with light with 635 and 810 nm wavelengths significantly promoted the healing process of dermal abrasions in mice, while 730 and 980 nm lights failed to show positive effects on healing [19]" [4]
A review article on various PBM wavelengths for stimulating stem cells reached this conclusion that 940nm was ineffective compared to 630nm-830nm range:
"Statistical analyses performed here indicated that the employment of a near-infrared (NIR) wavelength of 940 nm may not yield a significant favourable outcome, although those within the 630 - 830 nm range did so." [5]
What is wrong with these wavelengths in the 700's and 900's?
Stimulatory vs Inhibitory Wavelengths:
To get to that answer, we must review the biphasic nature of Red/NIR Light Therapy.
This phenomenon has been confirmed for many drugs and therapies under the Arndt-Shultz Law. As described in one PBM article as:
"The so-called Arndt–Schultz law was originally proposed near the end of the 19th century. It states in original form that “For every substance, small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, and large doses kill.”5" [6]
For the typical Red Light Therapy benefits we want to stimulate the cells for proliferative, protective, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms.
The inhibitory response is when cellular functions are slowed or hindered, and possibly even damaged.
This inhibitory response is typically associated with excessive intensity (mW/cm^2), fluence (J/cm^2), and/or exposure time. Thus, the "dose" was too high and crossed into the cellular inhibition range.
Similar to overdosing, certain wavelengths have been found to have more of a propensity towards inhibitory reactions.
Blue Light Inhibition:
For example, blue light is famously inhibitory on mitochondrial and cellular function.
Blue light has been shown to inhibit mitochondrial activity leading to an increase in blood sugar levels, in contrast to many recent articles confirming that Red light increases mitochondrial activity to lower blood sugar. This research comes from Glen Jeffrey's lab:
"In the second group, bees were additionally exposed to either 670 nm or 420 nm light and their blood glucose examined. Increasing mitochondrial activity with 670 nm light at the peak of circulating glucose, resulted in a significant 50% reduction in concentration measured. Exposure to 420nm light that retards mitochondrial respiration elevated systemic glucose levels by over 50%. " [7]
The eye's retina is the most mitochondrial dense cells in the body, and we know that relatively low doses of blue light to the eye can cause damage. [8]
The main mechanism for Blue light's potency to cause damage is relatively easily explained. Blue wavelengths are shorter, which also means they are higher frequency and higher energy per photon.
"Within the visible spectrum, short-wavelength light, such as blue light, carries higher energy, and thus the retinal injury, is more significant when exposed to these wavelengths. The damage mechanism triggered by different short-wavelength light varies due to photons carrying different energy and being absorbed by different photosensitive molecules in the retinal neurons. " [9]
As such, Blue light can cause more direct photochemical damage to the molecules in the cells. There are many downstream effects from this blue-light toxicity that includes increased ROS and loss of MMP.
"Blue light PBM-mediated toxicity involves multiple mechanisms, especially the production of excessive ROS and loss of MMP." [10]
Although sunlight contains a fair amount of blue wavelengths, blue light exposure in indoor lighting and screens is often considered to be "artificial" because it is in a disproportionate Blue-to-Red/NIR ratio and at the incorrect times of day compared to natural exposure.
Benefits of the Inhibitory Response:
Inhibitory reactions can be used therapeutically in different ways than conventional PBM benefits.
Blue light is often used to treat or prevent acne. Since blue light is good at damaging cells, it works to hinder those superficial bacteria on the skin that cause acne. [11]
Blue light has been used to inhibit cancer cell growth.
"Blue light photobiomodulation (PBM) has attracted great attention in diminishing proliferation and inducing death of cancer cells recently." [10]
"LED PBMT studies showed blue light inhibited melanoma and pancreatic cancer cell growth, potentially via ROS generation, while red light raised concerns about enhancing oral cancer invasiveness." [12]
High doses of Red or NIR may used inhibit nerve cells to temporarily block pain signals for analgesia. Since now they are using the inhibitory overdose to purposely shut down pain signals. [13][14]
Thus, inhibitory mechanisms may be beneficial for arresting unwanted cellular functions or damaging malevolent cell types.
This is to say that inhibitory mechanisms may have alternative therapeutic applications. It would be incorrect to perceive parameters as "good" or "bad", but instead to consider the effects and context.
However, for the context of this blog, it is counter-productive to the types of benefits we typically want from Red/NIR Light Therapy for the stimulatory response.
750nm Range: The Exiled Wavelength
Typically articles will reference a range of 600-1100nm as the "optical window" of wavelengths with good penetration for the benefits of Photobiomodulation.
However, many articles will make an additional clarification that at least 1 range of wavelengths should be excluded.
Notice how the following quote purposely excludes the 700's from the effective PBM ranges:
"PBM, used to be called as low-level light therapy (LLLT), involves the utilization of light in the red (600–670 nm) and near-infrared light spectrum (800–1100 nm) at a relatively low power density (Hamblin, 2016). " [15]
Another review article specifically cites an exception that the range of 700nm to 780nm has reduced effectiveness, so it subtracted from the recommended PBM wavelength range.
"This range is between 600 and 1,200 nanometers, except between 700 and 780 nm where there is a potential for reduced efficacy (de Freitas and Hamblin, 2016; Henderson and Morries, 2017; Carroll, 2019)." [16]
750nm Range: Reduced CCO
One of the most prominently accepted mechanisms for Photobiomodulation has been the absorption and action spectrum of Cytochrome C Oxidase (CCO) in the mitochondria.
Indeed, there is not only a peak at 760nm, but it may be the most prominent peak that can be found for CCO! So occasionally misguided manufacturers will include 760nm in their devices, citing this theory as the motivation.
Several articles like the below will describe the ranges of the CCO action spectra.
"These action spectra demonstrate peak positions in the red range (between 613.5 and 623.5 nm), the far-red range (between 667.5 and 683.7 nm), and two peak positions in the infrared range (750.7–772.3 nm and 812.5–846.0 nm)." [17]
However, the mechanisms only provide the theory, but the wavelengths should be tested empirically to prove the theory. Often, the result is that experimentation may contradict the theory and requiring it to be updated, amended, or discarded. Thus, real science is a cycle of creating theories, testing them, updating the theory, testing again, and so on.
Each of the peaks correspond to a specific oxidized or reduced state of the copper in the CCO. The "beneficial" wavelength ranges in the 600's and 800's correspond to oxidized CCO, while the "inhibitory" range of 750-770nm range corresponds to the reduced form of CCO.
"Similar to this view, studies have shown that light in the spectral bands of 650–680 and 800–870 nm match the absorption of relatively oxidized CCO, while the band at 750–770 nm matches reduced CCO (Karu et al., 2005). " [16]
So, it may be possible that the activity caused by 760nm absorption is inhibitory, whereas all of the other peaks corresponds to more positive effects.
"Remarkably, among all the applied wavelengths, 730 nm was the only one that exhibited either no effect or a slightly negative effect" [18]
Another article notes:
"however there is a region in between (700–770 nm) where
broadly speaking, the results are likely to be disappointing" [19]
Yet another article states that 728nm was the worst at protecting CCO and ATP production from toxins, as opposed to 670nm and 830nm were clearly the most effective.
"Previously, we found that 670 nm and 830 nm were the most effective, while 728 nm was the least effective wavelength in reversing the down-regulation of cytochrome oxidase activity and cellular ATP content induced by toxins (Wong-Riley et al., 2005)." [20]
Another article comparing several wavelengths, with 728nm being the least effective.
"In contrast, LED was able to completely reverse the detrimental effect of tetrodotoxin, which only indirectly down-regulated enzyme levels. Among the wavelengths tested (670, 728, 770, 830, and 880 nm), the most effective ones (830 nm, 670 nm) paralleled the NIR absorption spectrum of oxidized cytochrome c oxidase, whereas the least effective wavelength, 728 nm, did not." [21]
As we can see in the quotes above, the results from wavelengths in the 700nm range are often found to be disappointing. So even though it may have an absorption peak for CCO, the activity it causes seems to be ineffective or even inhibitory.
Unnatural Infrared Wavelengths:
One article by Dr. Sommer titled "Mitochondrial solar sensitivity: evolutionary and biomedical implications" describes an interesting theory as to why 750nm and 950nm produce such poor results. [22]
750nm and 950nm are unnatural wavelengths, so the cells may identify them as a foreign frequency with no natural mechanism to cope with them.
How can these wavelengths be unnatural? Sunlight certainly emits these wavelengths being an incandescent emitter following Plank's Laws.
Sunlight is a broad-spectrum emitter that follow's the same laws of light emissions as incandescent. Thus, a significant portion of Sunlight and incandescent lighting is spanning the entire Infrared region of NIR, MIR, and FIR. (Near-Infrared, Mid-Infrared, Far-Infrared)
However, the Sunlight spectrum that reaches earth's surface is different than the Sunlight spectrum in outer space. This is because sunlight is filtered by Earth's atmosphere.
In the graph above, the black line is the Extraterrestrial sunlight spectrum, you can see it is quite smooth in the slope down through the infrared range (including 750 and 950nm). Extraterrestrial meaning "outside-earth", the spectrum of the sun in space.
The Terrestrial Sunlight Spectrum is the sunlight wavelengths that actually reaches the surface of the earth.
In the graph above, the Red and Blue lines for Terrestrial Sunlight show many dips and jagged lines particularly in the infrared regions.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2808/figures/1948
What causes these dips? Earth's Atmosphere. The dips correspond to absorption peaks of molecules in the atmosphere like water (H2O) and oxygen (O2).
Around 760nm is a peak of oxygen absorption in the atmosphere.
The other absorption peaks around 950nm, 1135nm, and 1350nm correspond to water absorption. This also means that these wavelengths will have poor penetration as they would be more superficially absorbed by the water in the skin.
For example 950-970nm has significantly lower penetration compared to the low-800's and mid-1000's due to the peak of water absorption causing superficial absorption. [23]
This means these Infrared wavelengths are mostly "unnatural" to organisms living on earth.
Mitochondrial Evolutionary Theory:
As the article describes, the mitochondria were likely a primordial bacteria before it joined forces with eukaryote (animal kingdom) cells. [22]
By Chiswick Chap.Redrawn from File:Symbiogenesis.svg to reflect more recent science. - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=130625415
Throughout the eons, the terrestrial solar spectrum has remained relatively constant. Meaning that the origins and evolution of life on earth were sheltered from exposure to wavelengths around 750nm and 950nm.
"wavelengths 750 and 950 nm were virtually absent or at least minimal. Since in nature mitochondria were never exposed to these two wavelengths, exposure to 750 and 950 nm artificial light could either result in an overreaction or no reaction, when compared to the rest of the R-NIR part of the solar spectrum." [22]
The mechanism is that these two wavelengths alter cell membrane potential and inhibit Cytochrome C and Cytochrome C Oxidase electronic communications. Thus, creating an opposite reaction than what we typically expect from Red/NIR Light Therapy. [22][24]
Special Treatments With Inhibitory Wavelengths:
As we introduced earlier, having control over inhibitory mechanisms may allow for more creative applications of Near-Infrared Light therapy.
It was formerly assumed that all Near-Infrared wavelengths stimulate mitochondrial activity.
"Finally, most studies have shown that NIR exclusively stimulates COX activity and mitochondrial respiration17,18,51,52,53." [24]
The quote below describes there may be medical conditions concerning hyperactive mitochondria, so these two wavelengths could be used to normalize that activity.
"These aspects make the response of mitochondria to 750 and 950 nm light appear in a special light. Exposure of mitochondria to these wavelengths, applied at biostimulatory intensities, suppressed COX activity and prevented ROS generation—a new tool for normalizing hyperactive mitochondria (4)." [22]
One study utilized 750nm and 950nm to inhibit overfiring neuronal activity and ROS production, thus offering a protective effect in this specific type of injury:
"With our identified inhibitory wavelengths, we have established a new tool for normalizing hyperactive mitochondrial function, such as during reperfusion following ischemia." [24]
In a recent discussion I had with researcher Scott Zimmerman, he noted an article where 734nm was used to arrest cancer cells, but it had little effect on normal cells.
The article titled "Selective induction of senescence in cancer cells through near-infrared light treatment via mitochondrial modulation" shows that the 734nm wavelength could be used to selectively hinder cancer growth, while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells. [25]
While 750nm and 950nm should be avoided for the typical benefits of PBM, the future will show these wavelengths being used therapeutic for different types of conditions. With a lot of promise towards targeting cancer cells.
Exceptions:
As always, Photbobiomodulation is filled with contradictions and paradoxes.
The worst thing we can do is dogmatically make assumptions about the "best" or "worst" parameters without testing them thoroughly.
For example, 1064nm was overlooked for decades since it was assumed that having no CCO absorption peaks would lead to it being ineffective for PBM. No stone must be left unturned when seeking the optimal parameters for Red Light Therapy.
One article chose to use 740nm to treat Dry Eye Disease in mice. They are seemingly aware and defiant to the dogma that this wavelength is considered to be ineffective.
"Frequently used wavelengths in LLLT are NIRs, but some studies have suggested that the wavelengths between 700 to 780 nm are not effective.38,23" [26]
Yet, their study showed that 740nm was indeed effective in treating Dry Eye Disease in this animal model.
Lasers in the 900's range are quite commonly used with success in LLLT/PBM studies. As can be confirmed by a quick filtration of Vladimir's PBM Database.
So while these wavelengths are currently controversial, it may take more time to find the ideal therapeutic applications for them.
Incandescesent Bulbs and Photobiomodulation:
Incandescent Heat Lamps can be employed as a crude form of Red Light Therapy and Heat Therapy. Heat Lamps are not technically Photobiomodulation Therapy. As PBMT excludes any form of heating by definition.
That hasn't stopped several Heat Lamp brands to falsely claim to be PBM products though the years.
Heat Lamps do not get filtered by enough air or atmosphere to absorb the inhibitory wavelengths of 750nm and 950nm. Thus, if they are being proposed as a PBM device, they must now reconcile exposing people to these unnatural inhibitory wavelengths.
Suddenly, incandescent bulbs are not so "natural" after all. With LEDs, the natural wavelengths in the 800's and 1000's can be selected while avoiding using the unnatural infrared wavelengths.
As is common, brands and influencers reach the correct answers but with incorrect equations. With heat lamps, the heat therapy benefits will dominate over the PBM effects, as well the inhibitory wavelengths will be superficially absorbed by non-contact treatment long before they can reach cells that would be sensitive to inhibitory actions.
Conclusions:
Natural parameters of light are associated with being extremely safe, and help regulate cellular functions in a subtle way. Terrestrial Red and NIR wavelengths offer a stimulatory response at proper intensities and doses.
Researchers have identified wavelengths around 750nm and 950nm having a much stronger disposition towards being less effective or even having inhibitory reactions. These wavelengths are unnatural as they have been filtered by our atmosphere throughout evolution.
As always, these nuances cannot be simply labeled as "good" or "bad".
Understanding these mechanisms opens up the usages of frequencies for novel forms of therapy. As well it helps us contextualize and optimize the therapies we are already doing.
References:
[1]
Lim L. Modifying Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology with photobiomodulation: model, evidence, and future with EEG-guided intervention. Front Neurol. 2024 Aug 23;15:1407785. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1407785. PMID: 39246604; PMCID: PMC11377238.
[2]
Wu Q, Xuan W, Ando T, Xu T, Huang L, Huang YY, Dai T, Dhital S, Sharma SK, Whalen MJ, Hamblin MR. Low-level laser therapy for closed-head traumatic brain injury in mice: effect of different wavelengths. Lasers Surg Med. 2012 Mar;44(3):218-26. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22003. Epub 2012 Jan 24. PMID: 22275301; PMCID: PMC3397203.
[3]
Kuffler DP. Photobiomodulation in promoting wound healing: a review. Regen Med. 2016 Jan;11(1):107-22. doi: 10.2217/rme.15.82. Epub 2015 Dec 18. PMID: 26681143.
[4]
Zhang CX, Lou Y, Chi J, Bao XL, Fan B, Li GY. Considerations for the Use of Photobiomodulation in the Treatment of Retinal Diseases. Biomolecules. 2022 Dec 3;12(12):1811. doi: 10.3390/biom12121811. PMID: 36551239; PMCID: PMC9775242.
[5]
Mylona V, Anagnostaki E, Chiniforush N, Barikani H, Lynch E, Grootveld M. Photobiomodulation Effects on Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2024;19(4):544-558. doi: 10.2174/1574888X17666220527090321. PMID: 35638280.
[6]
Zein R, Selting W, Hamblin MR. Review of light parameters and photobiomodulation efficacy: dive into complexity. J Biomed Opt. 2018 Dec;23(12):1-17. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.12.120901. PMID: 30550048; PMCID: PMC8355782.
[7]
Systemic glucose levels are modulated by specific wavelengths in the solar light spectrum that shift mitochondrial metabolism
PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0276937 - November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276937
Authors
- Michael B. Powner - University of London
Corresponding Author
- Glen Jeffery - University College London
[8]
Wan-Ju Yeh, Pin-Ting Chien, Yao-Tseng Wen, Chi-Hao Wu,
A comprehensive review of experimental models for investigating blue light-induced ocular damage: Insights into parameters, limitations, and new opportunities,
Experimental Eye Research,
Volume 249,
2024,
110142,
ISSN 0014-4835,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2024.110142.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014483524003646)
[9]
Fan B, Zhang C, Chi J, Liang Y, Bao X, Cong Y, Yu B, Li X, Li GY. The Molecular Mechanism of Retina Light Injury Focusing on Damage from Short Wavelength Light. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 19;2022:8482149. doi: 10.1155/2022/8482149. PMID: 35498134; PMCID: PMC9042598.
[10]
Jiali Yang, Hui Jiang, Qiqi Fu, Haokuan Qin, Yinghua Li, Muqing Liu,
Blue light photobiomodulation induced apoptosis by increasing ROS level and regulating SOCS3 and PTEN/PI3K/AKT pathway in osteosarcoma cells,
Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology,
Volume 249,
2023,
112814,
ISSN 1011-1344,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2023.112814.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1011134423001689)
[11]
Diogo MLG, Campos TM, Fonseca ESR, Pavani C, Horliana ACRT, Fernandes KPS, Bussadori SK, Fantin FGMM, Leite DPV, Yamamoto ÂTA, Navarro RS, Motta LJ. Effect of Blue Light on Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review. Sensors (Basel). 2021 Oct 19;21(20):6943. doi: 10.3390/s21206943. PMID: 34696155; PMCID: PMC8537635.
[12]
Luitel B, Duggisani T, Luitel A, LaRocco J. Reviewing the efficiency of photobiomodulation therapy in oncological treatment. Front Oncol. 2024 Oct 8;14:1447653. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1447653. PMID: 39439950; PMCID: PMC11493773.
[13]
Inhibitory Effects of Laser Irradiation on Peripheral Mammalian Nerves and Relevance to Analgesic Effects: A Systematic Review
Authors: Roberta Chow, Patricia Armati, E-Liisa Laakso, Jan M. Bjordal, and G. David BaxterAuthors Info & Affiliations
Publication: Photomedicine and Laser Surgery
https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2010.2928
[14]
Yan W, Chow R, Armati PJ. Inhibitory effects of visible 650-nm and infrared 808-nm laser irradiation on somatosensory and compound muscle action potentials in rat sciatic nerve: implications for laser-induced analgesia. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2011 Jun;16(2):130-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8027.2011.00337.x. PMID: 21692912.
[15]
Tsz-lok Lee, Zihan Ding, Agnes S. Chan,
Can transcranial photobiomodulation improve cognitive function? A systematic review of human studies,
Ageing Research Reviews,
Volume 83,
2023,
101786,
ISSN 1568-1637,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101786.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163722002288)
[16]
Zeng J, Wang C, Chai Y, Lei D, Wang Q. Can transcranial photobiomodulation improve cognitive function in TBI patients? A systematic review. Front Psychol. 2024 Jun 17;15:1378570. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1378570. PMID: 38952831; PMCID: PMC11215173.
[17]
Tafur J, Mills PJ. Low-intensity light therapy: exploring the role of redox mechanisms. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008 Aug;26(4):323-8. doi: 10.1089/pho.2007.2184. PMID: 18665762; PMCID: PMC2996814.
[18]
Jaroslava Joniová, Emmanuel Gerelli, Georges Wagnières,
Study and optimization of the photobiomodulation effects induced on mitochondrial metabolic activity of human cardiomyocytes for different radiometric and spectral conditions,
Life Sciences,
Volume 351,
2024,
122760,
ISSN 0024-3205,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2024.122760.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320524003503)
[19]
Hamblin MR. Mechanisms and applications of the anti-inflammatory effects of photobiomodulation. AIMS Biophys. 2017;4(3):337-361. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.3.337. Epub 2017 May 19. PMID: 28748217; PMCID: PMC5523874.
[20]
Liang HL, Whelan HT, Eells JT, Wong-Riley MT. Near-infrared light via light-emitting diode treatment is therapeutic against rotenone- and 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium ion-induced neurotoxicity. Neuroscience. 2008 Jun 2;153(4):963-74. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.03.042. Epub 2008 Mar 26. PMID: 18440709; PMCID: PMC2587428.
[21]
Wong-Riley MT, Liang HL, Eells JT, Chance B, Henry MM, Buchmann E, Kane M, Whelan HT. Photobiomodulation directly benefits primary neurons functionally inactivated by toxins: role of cytochrome c oxidase. J Biol Chem. 2005 Feb 11;280(6):4761-71. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M409650200. Epub 2004 Nov 22. PMID: 15557336.
[22]
Sommer AP. Mitochondrial solar sensitivity: evolutionary and biomedical implications. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Mar;8(5):161. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.11.100. PMID: 32310246; PMCID: PMC7154450.
[23]
Piazena, H., Müller, W., Vaupel, P. (2022). Physical and Photobiological Basics of wIRA-Hyperthermia. In: Vaupel, P. (eds) Water-filtered Infrared A (wIRA) Irradiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92880-3_3
[24]
Sanderson, T.H., Wider, J.M., Lee, I. et al. Inhibitory modulation of cytochrome c oxidase activity with specific near-infrared light wavelengths attenuates brain ischemia/reperfusion injury. Sci Rep 8, 3481 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21869-x
[25]
Kalampouka I, Mould RR, Botchway SW, Mackenzie AM, Nunn AV, Thomas EL, Bell JD. Selective induction of senescence in cancer cells through near-infrared light treatment via mitochondrial modulation. J Biophotonics. 2024 Aug;17(8):e202400046. doi: 10.1002/jbio.202400046. Epub 2024 Jun 21. PMID: 39155124.
[26]
Goo H, Kim H, Ahn J, Cho KJ. Effects of Low-level Light Therapy at 740 nm on Dry Eye Disease <i>In Vivo</i>. Medical Lasers 2019;8:50-58. https://doi.org/10.25289/ML.2019.8.2.50