You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 127 No. 5, May 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  STUDIES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

In Vitro Photodynamic Treatment of Normal and Human Papilloma Virus-Transfected Keratinocytes With Photofrin II and Red Light

Eric F. Bernstein, MD; Joseph M. Glass; William G. DeGraff; Richard Schlegel, MD; Christopher Black, PhD; Joyce M. Fisher; Susan N. Cook; Eli Glatstein, MD; Angelo Russo, PhD, MD; James B. Mitchell, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 1991;127(5):683-687.


Abstract

• Photodynamic therapy involves the use of light of appropriate wavelength to excite a photosensitizer to result in tissue destruction. The photosensitizer dihematoporphyrin ether and red light were used to treat normal and human papilloma virus type 18—transfected keratinocytes in vitro. Although both cell lines were sensitive to treatment, normal keratinocytes retained more dihematoporphyrin ether and were more sensitive to photodynamic therapy than were transfected cells. In vitro data fail to show the selective retention of dihematoporphyrin ether reported elsewhere in the literature in papillomas and tumors. We did not find selective uptake or retention of dihematoporphyrin ether by human papilloma virus-transfected cells, despite previously published in vivo data to the contrary. Dihematoporphyrin ether retention and thus selective photosensitivity of papillomas in vivo is not caused by individual cellular differences in the processing of dihematoporphyrin ether. In addition, because in vitro results may not parallel in vivo results, both in vivo and in vitro models must be investigated in the study of phototherapeutic agents.

(Arch Dermatol. 1991;127:683-687)



Author Affiliations

From the Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Drs Bernstein, Black, Glatstein, Russo and Mitchell; Messrs Glass and DeGraff; and Mss Fisher and Cook); the Division of Dermatology, Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Bernstein); and the Department of Pathology, Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, DC (Dr Schlegel).


Footnotes

Accepted for publication January 8, 1991.

Reprint requests to the Division of Dermatology, Mail Stop 401, Hahnemann University, Broad and Vine streets, Philadelphia, PA 19102 (Dr Bernstein).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1991 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.