top of page

Research 

Science is a process, not an event.

With more than three decades of ongoing research and refinement behind what we do, it’s clear that scientific curiosity, discovery, and continual evaluation remain central to how we look at chronic infections and dysfunction. 

​

This page provides a research-based overview of emerging biological mechanisms, theoretical applications, and supportive evidence related to chronic infection management. Our goal is to present relevant findings and thought-provoking scientific literature that may inform how we think about conditions like biofilm-associated Lyme disease both now and in the future.

 

It is important to note that the therapies and mechanisms discussed throughout this page are based on historical and emerging scientific research and many (if not all) of which are not approved by the FDA for the treatment of Lyme disease or other chronic infections. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always consult with a licensed healthcare provider for any health-related concerns.

​

 

The Focus

Lyme disease, primarily caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, presents significant treatment challenges due to the bacterium's capacity to form complex biofilms. These multicellular communities are encased in a self-produced extracellular matrix, providing a protective niche that enhances bacterial survival under adverse conditions, including antibiotic exposure and immune responses. The presence of biofilms is associated with persistent infections and may contribute to the phenomenon of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), also known as Chronic Lyme disease.1

Biofilm Formation

Significant Implications Might Means Lasting Infection

  • Enhanced Resistance: Biofilm-associated bacteria exhibit increased tolerance to antibiotics and immune system attacks. The extracellular matrix acts as a barrier, impeding the penetration of antimicrobial agents and antibodies. Additionally, the presence of eDNA within the matrix has been implicated in protecting the bacteria from host defenses.

  • Chronic Infection: The protective environment of the biofilm allows B. burgdorferi to persist in host deeper tissues, potentially leading to chronic manifestations of Lyme disease. Studies have detected B. burgdorferi  and biofilm-like aggregates of B. burgdorferi in numerous forms of tissues, suggesting a role in sustained infection and inflammation.3,4

  • Diagnostic Challenges: Biofilm formation can complicate the detection of B. burgdorferi, as the bacteria within biofilms may exhibit altered metabolic states and antigenic profiles, potentially evading standard diagnostic assays.

Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT)

Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT) is a modality that combines a photosensitizing agent with light of a specific wavelength in the presence of oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). These ROS can damage cellular components, leading to microbial cell death and biofilm disruption. 5,6

Blue Light (400–500 nm) in aPDT

Blue light, with wavelengths ranging from 400 to 500 nanometers, is a significant component in antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) due to its intrinsic antimicrobial properties and its ability to activate various photosensitizers. The efficacy of blue light in aPDT is attributed to its capacity to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), which induce oxidative stress, leading to the disruption of microbial cells and biofilms.

In aPDT, the selection of an effective and safe photosensitizer is crucial. One such compound is Berberine, an isoquinoline alkaloid extracted from plants such as Berberis vulgaris (barberry). Berberine has demonstrated significant potential as a photosensitizer in aPDT, especially when activated by blue light. When exposure to specific wavelengths of blue light, Berberine can effectively generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to the inactivation of various pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. This photodynamic action disrupts microbial cell walls and inhibits biofilm formation, enhancing its antimicrobial efficacy. 7

Blue light has also been shown to exert direct antimicrobial effects. A study demonstrated that blue laser light inhibited biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa both in vitro and in vivo, suggesting its potential applicability to other biofilm-forming bacteria. The mechanism involves the absorption of blue light by endogenous porphyrins within bacteria, leading to the production of ROS and subsequent bacterial cell death. 8

The application of blue light in aPDT requires careful consideration of various factors. The intensity and duration of light exposure, the type of photosensitizer used, and the specific tolerances of the host, all influence the treatment's effectiveness. Additionally, while blue light has demonstrated antimicrobial properties, its penetration depth is relatively shallow compared to longer wavelengths (red light), which emphasizes the need for applications involving multiple wavelengths when addressing deeper-seated infections.

Red Light (600–880 nm)

           in aPDT

Red and near-infrared, which typically encompass wavelengths from 600 to 880 nanometers, plays a pivotal role in aPDT due to its deeper tissue penetration and its ability to activate a variety of photosensitizers. This characteristic makes red light particularly effective in treating infections located in deeper tissues or within complex biofilm structures.

Upon exposure to specific wavelengths with the red light spectrum, photosensitizers such as berberine, baicalein, curcumin, and others, absorb photons, transitioning to an excited state. This excited state facilitates energy transfer to molecular oxygen, generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) including singlet oxygen and free radicals. These ROS inflict oxidative damage on vital microbial components - lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids - resulting in cell death. Additionally, ROS can degrade the extracellular matrix of biofilms, thereby compromising their structural integrity and enhancing the susceptibility of embedded bacteria to antimicrobial agents.

Natural Photosensitizers in Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT)

The effectiveness of aPDT is largely dependent on the photosensitizers used. Natural photosensitizers have gained interest due to their low toxicity, bioavailability, and potential ability to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) upon light activation, leading to bacterial inactivation and biofilm disruption. Below is a list of several, but not all natural photosensitizers recognized for their use in aPDT applications. These include......

Incorporation of Pulsed Laser Frequencies in Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT)

While continuous wave (CW) lasers have been traditionally used in aPDT, the application of pulsed laser irradiation, where light is delivered in short bursts or pulses, has presented an opportunity for enhancement of therapeutic outcomes via enhanced photochemical reactions, mechanical disruption of biofilms, improved light penetration, and reduced thermal damage.

1. Enhanced Photochemical Reactions

Pulsed laser irradiation can intensify photochemical reactions by delivering high peak power during each pulse. This approach can lead to increased excitation of the photosensitizer and, consequently, a higher yield of ROS. A study comparing pulsed and continuous wave laser diodes in aPDT found that pulsed irradiation could enhance the antimicrobial effect, suggesting that the pulsed mode may be more effective in certain contexts. 22

2. Mechanical Disruption of Biofilms

Biofilms present a significant barrier to effective antimicrobial treatment due to their protective extracellular matrix. Pulsed lasers have the capability to generate mechanical forces, in the form of shockwaves, that can disrupt these structures. Research utilizing Q-switched Nd:YAG pulsed lasers demonstrated that laser-generated shockwaves could effectively disrupt bacterial biofilms, thereby enhancing the penetration and efficacy of antimicrobial agents. 23

3. Improved Light Penetration and Reduced Thermal Damage

The pulsed delivery of laser light allows tissues to cool between pulses, reducing the risk of thermal damage to surrounding healthy tissue. This intermittent exposure can also improve light penetration, as it minimizes the scattering and absorption that occur with continuous exposure. By optimizing the pulse duration and frequency, this application can enhance the depth of treatment while preserving tissue integrity.

4. Synergistic Effects with Photosensitizers

Certain photosensitizers exhibit enhanced activation when exposed to pulsed laser light. For example, studies have shown that under femtosecond pulsed laser irradiation, melanin can absorb multiple photons and transfer energy to the photosensitizer, leading to increased ROS production. This highlights the increased antimicrobial effectiveness of aPDT when specific photosensitizers are combined with pulsed laser frequencies in a carefully managed application. 24

Key Considerations for Optimization of aPDT Parameters

Generated - Wavelength.png
Generated - Photosensitizer.png

Wavelength Selection

Choosing the appropriate wavelength within the red & blue spectrums is crucial for maximizing photosensitizer activation and tissue penetration.

Generated - Frequency.png

Photosensitizer Concentration

Adequate concentration ensures sufficient ROS generation upon light activation, emphasizing the necessity of enhancing bioavailability and mechanisms of nutrient transport throughout the body.

Generated - Light.png

Frequencies (Pulsing)

The application of pulsed laser frequencies in aPDT can enhance treatment efficacy by optimizing the delivery of light energy. The frequency, duration, and duty cycle of pulsed light must be carefully calibrated to balance microbial inactivation and tissue safety.

Light Dosimetry

Calibrating the light dose (irradiance and exposure time) is essential to achieve effective microbial and biofilm inactivation while being mindful of biphase dose response (Arndt-Schulz Curve).29, 30

​Integrative Supportive Therapies With Potential to Enhance Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT) Efficacy

Supplemental Oxygen Therapy​

Oxygen plays a potentially pivotal role in aPDT, serving as a substrate for the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) upon activation by the photosensitizer and light source. Adequate tissue oxygenation is essential for maximizing ROS production, which in turn enhances microbial eradication and biofilm disruption. Utilizing oxygen concentrators can elevate local oxygen levels, thereby potentiating the oxidative effects of aPDT. Studies have demonstrated that increased oxygen availability correlates with improved aPDT outcomes, as higher ROS concentrations lead to more effective microbial inactivation and biofilm degradation.

Microcurrent Therapy

Microcurrent therapy involves the application of low-intensity electrical currents (in the microampere range) to stimulate cellular activity and promote tissue healing. Research indicates that microcurrent therapy can enhance adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production by up to 500%, facilitating cellular repair processes and bolstering immune function. When combined with aPDT, microcurrent therapy may improve treatment efficacy by:

o    Enhancing Cellular Metabolism: Increased ATP levels support cellular functions, including those involved in immune responses against pathogens.
o    Reducing Inflammation: Microcurrent therapy has been shown to modulate inflammatory processes, potentially decreasing tissue swelling and allowing better light penetration dur-ing aPDT.
o    Promoting Tissue Repair: Accelerated healing of tissues damaged by infection or the aPDT process itself can be facilitated by microcurrent-induced cellular regeneration.

These combined effects may lead to a more hostile environment for pathogens and enhance the overall an-timicrobial efficacy of aPDT. 25,26,27 

Audio-Visual Entrainment/Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (AVE/CES)

AVE and CES are neuromodulation techniques that utilize auditory and visual stimuli or low-level electrical currents, respectively, to influence brain activity. While primarily employed for neurological and psychologi-cal conditions, these therapies can indirectly support aPDT by:

o    Reducing Stress: Lower stress levels can enhance immune system performance, aiding in the body's natural defense mechanisms.
o    Improving Sleep Quality: Adequate rest is crucial for immune function and tissue repair, both of which are essential during antimicrobial treatments.
 
By promoting a balanced autonomic nervous system, AVE/CES can help support physiological states condu-cive to more effective aPDT outcomes. 28
 

Oscillation Therapies

Oscillation therapies, such as whole-body vibration, involve the application of mechanical vibrations to the body. These therapies can enhance aPDT efficacy through:

o    Improved Circulation: Enhanced blood flow increases the delivery of oxygen and photosensitizers to target tissues, optimizing ROS production during aPDT.
o    Lymphatic Drainage: Facilitated removal of metabolic waste and toxins can reduce tissue burden and support immune function.

The mechanical stimulation provided by oscillation therapies may also disrupt biofilm structures, rendering them more susceptible to aPDT.

Additional Mechanisms of Action In Need of Further Research & Discussion

Beyond the mechanism of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, recent research has uncovered additional biological pathways through which photobiomodulation (PBM) and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) may exert antimicrobial and biofilm-disrupting effects. These supplementary mechanisms may provide a more comprehensive understanding of how these therapies have the potential of supporting immune resilience and microbial eradication. Considerations for further research and discussion include:

​

• Immune System Modulation: Potential for PBM enhancement of innate and adaptive immunity by stimulating macrophages, T-cell activity, and nitric oxide (NO) production. It may shift immune response toward Th1/Th17, which may be particularly helpful in chronic infections.

• Nitric Oxide (NO) Release: Potential for Red and near-infrared light to release NO from cellular stores, promoting antimicrobial activity, vasodilation, and immune surveillance.

• Mechanical Biofilm Disruption: The Potential of pulsed laser delivery to induce shockwaves or cavitation at microscopic levels, mechanically disrupting biofilm matrices and increasing the vulnerability of embedded bacteria.

• Quorum Sensing Interference: The potential of certain light wavelengths to degrade or interfere with bacterial quorum-sensing molecules, impeding microbial communication and biofilm stability.

• Oxygenation and Microenvironment Shifts: PBM's potential to improve microcirculation and oxygen delivery to infected tissues, creating less favorable conditions for anaerobic pathogens such as Borrelia.

• Induction of Bacterial Stress Pathways: exploring high-intensity PBM exposure as a means to trigger heat shock protein expression or metabolic disruption in pathogens, weakening their resistance mechanisms.

• Degradation of Extracellular DNA (eDNA): The potential use of ROS and light-based stimulation to degrade eDNA, a key structural component of mature biofilms, reducing biofilm integrity.

​

 

 

 

Science is a continual pursuit, not because the foundation is uncertain, but because every new insight deepens our understanding and strengthens the tools available to address chronic illness. Research and collaboration help reinforce what works, reveal new innovations, and refine how chronic conditions like Lyme disease are addressed. If you're passionate about positively contributing to the ever-evolving body of information, your perspective matters and is welcome. Reach out if you'd like to share thoughtful insights, relevant scientific works, or have feedback that can enrich the conversation.  

​

​

​

​

​

References 

​

  1. Sapi, E., Kasliwala, R. S., Ismail, H., Torres, J. P., Oldakowski, M., Markland, S., Gaur, G., Melillo, A., Eisendle, K., Liegner, K. B., Libien, J., & Goldman, J. E. (2019). The Long-Term Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi Antigens and DNA in the Tissues of a Patient with Lyme Disease. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 8(4), 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8040183

  2. Sapi, E., Bastian, S. L., Mpoy, C. M., Scott, S., Rattelle, A., Pabbati, N., Poruri, A., Burugu, D., Theophilus, P. A., Pham, T. V., Datar, A., Dhaliwal, N. K., MacDonald, A., Rossi, M. J., Sinha, S. K., & Luecke, D. F. (2012). Characterization of biofilm formation by Borrelia burgdorferi in vitro. PloS one, 7(10), e48277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048277

  3. Tang TT, Zhang LBansal A, Grynpas M, Moriarty TJ2017.The Lyme Disease Pathogen Borrelia burgdorferi Infects Murine Bone and Induces Trabecular Bone Loss. Infect Immun85:10.1128/iai.00781-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00781-16

  4. Thippani, S., Patel, N. J., Jathan, J., Filush, K., Socarras, K. M., DiLorenzo, J., Balasubramanian, K., Gupta, K., Ortiz Aleman, G., Pandya, J. M., Kavitapu, V. V., Zeng, D., Miller, J. C., & Sapi, E. (2024). Evidence for the Presence of Borrelia burgdorferi Biofilm in Infected Mouse Heart Tissues. Microorganisms, 12(9), 1766. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12091766

  5. Hu, X., Huang, Y.-Y., Wang, Y., Wang, X., & Hamblin, M. R. (2018). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy to control clinically relevant biofilm infections. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, 1299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01299

  6. Orlandi, V. T., Rybtke, M., Caruso, E., Banfi, S., Tolker-Nielsen, T., & Barbieri, P. (2014). Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm effect of a novel BODIPY photosensitizer against Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Biofouling, 30(8), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2014.940921

  7. Wimmer, A., Glueck, M., Liu, J., Fefer, M., & Plaetzer, K. (2024). With Blue Light against Biofilms: Berberine as Natural Photosensitizer for Photodynamic Inactivation of Human Pathogens. Photonics, 11(7), 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11070647

  8. Rupel, K., Zupin, L., Ottaviani, G. et al. Blue laser light inhibits biofilm formation in vitro and in vivo by inducing oxidative stress. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 5, 29 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-019-0102-9

  9. Polat, E., & Kang, K. (2021). Natural Photosensitizers in Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy. Biomedicines, 9(6), 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9060584

  10. Wang, X., Wang, L., Fekrazad, R., Zhang, L., Jiang, X., He, G., & Wen, X. (2023). Polyphenolic natural products as photosensitizers for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy: Recent advances and future prospects. Frontiers in Immunology, 14, 1275859. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1275859

  11. Ghorbani, J., Rahban, D., Aghamiri, S., Teymouri, A., & Bahador, A. (2018). Photosensitizers in antibacterial photodynamic therapy: An overview. Laser Therapy, 27(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.27_18-RA-01

  12. Zhou, W., Jiang, X., & Zhen, X. (2023). Development of organic photosensitizers for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Biomaterials Science, 11(15), 5108–5128. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3BM00730H

  13. Afrasiabi, S., Partoazar, A., Chiniforush, N., & Goudarzi, R. (2022). The Potential Application of Natural Photosensitizers Used in Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy against Oral Infections. Pharmaceuticals, 15(6), 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15060767

  14. Astuty, S. D., Suhariningsih, Baktir, A., & Astuti, S. D. (2019). The Efficacy of Photodynamic Inactivation of the Diode Laser in Inactivation of the Candida albicans Biofilms With Exogenous Photosensitizer of Papaya Leaf Chlorophyll. Journal of lasers in medical sciences, 10(3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2019.35

  15. Aebisher, D., Przygórzewska, A., & Bartusik-Aebisher, D. (2024). Natural Photosensitizers in Clinical Trials. Applied Sciences, 14(18), 8436. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188436

  16. Mikulich, A. V., Plavskii, V. Y., Tretyakova, A. I., Nahorny, R. K., Sobchuk, A. N., Dudchik, N. V., Emeliyanova, O. A., Zhabrouskaya, A. I., Plavskaya, L. G., Ananich, T. S., Dudinova, O. N., Leusenka, I. A., Yakimchuk, S. V., Svechko, A. D., Tien, T. Q., Tong, Q. C., & Nguyen, T. P. (2024). Potential of using medicinal plant extracts as photosensitizers for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 100(6), 1833–1847. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13935

  17. Ghorbani, J., Rahban, D., Aghamiri, S., Teymouri, A., & Bahador, A. (2018). Photosensitizers in antibacterial photodynamic therapy: An overview. Laser Therapy, 27(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.27_18-RA-01

  18. Mahmoud, M., Richter, P., Lebert, M., & Burkovski, A. (2023). Photodynamic Activity of Chlorophyllin and Polyethylenimine on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Planktonic, Biofilm and Persister Cells. International journal of molecular sciences, 24(15), 12098. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241512098

  19. Ludačka, P., Kubát, P., Bosáková, Z., & Mosinger, J. (2021). Antibacterial nanoparticles with natural photosensitizers extracted from spinach leaves. ACS Omega, 7(1), 1505–1513. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06229

  20. Youf, R., Müller, M., Balasini, A., Thétiot, F., Müller, M., Hascoët, A., Jonas, U., Schönherr, H., Lemercier, G., Montier, T., & Le Gall, T. (2021). Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: Latest Developments with a Focus on Combinatory Strategies. Pharmaceutics, 13(12), 1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13121995

  21. Morikawa, M., Uehara, S., Yoshida, A., Sakagami, H., & Masuda, Y. (2024). Photodynamic Therapy With Resveratrol and an Nd:YAG Laser for Enterococcus faecalis Elimination. In vivo (Athens, Greece), 38(2), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13474

  22. Sueoka, K., Chikama, T., Shinji, K., & Kiuchi, Y. (2024). Effectiveness of laser pulsed irradiation for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Lasers in medical science, 39(1), 151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04103-1

  23. Taylor, Z. D., Navarro, A., Kealey, C. P., Beenhouwer, D., Haake, D. A., Grundfest, W. S., & Gupta, V. (2010). Bacterial biofilm disruption using laser generated shockwaves. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference, 2010, 1028–1032. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627726

  24. Pires, L., Khattak, S., Pratavieira, S., Calcada, C., Romano, R., Yucel, Y., Bagnato, V. S., Kurachi, C., & Wilson, B. C. (2024). Femtosecond pulsed laser photodynamic therapy activates melanin and eradicates malignant melanoma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(14), e2316303121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316303121

  25. Cheng, N., Van Hoof, H., Bockx, E., Hoogmartens, M. J., Mulier, J. C., De Dijcker, F. J., Sansen, W. M., & De Loecker, W. (1982). The effects of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport of rat skin. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (171), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198211000-00034

  26. Kolimechkov, S., Seijo, M., Swaine, I., Thirkell, J., Colado, J. C., & Naclerio, F. (2023). Physiological effects of microcurrent and its application for maximising acute responses and chronic adaptations to exercise. European journal of applied physiology, 123(3), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-05097-w

  27. Nair H. K. R. (2018). Microcurrent as an adjunct therapy to accelerate chronic wound healing and reduce patient pain. Journal of wound care, 27(5), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2018.27.5.296

  28. Chang, W. D., Tsou, Y. A., Chen, Y. Y., & Hung, B. L. (2022). Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation to Improve the Physiology and Psychology Response, Response-Ability, and Sleep Efficiency in Athletes with Poor Sleep Quality. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(4), 1946. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041946

  29. Huang, Y. Y., Sharma, S. K., Carroll, J., & Hamblin, M. R. (2011). Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy - an update. Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 9(4), 602–618. https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.11-009.Hamblin

  30. Hamblin, M. R. (2017). Mechanisms and applications of the anti-inflammatory effects of photobiomodulation. AIMS Biophysics, 4(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.3934/biophy.2017.3.337​

  31. Abrahamse, H., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). New photosensitizers for photodynamic therapy. The Biochemical journal, 473(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20150942

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
IMG_4184.jpg

​*The Lyme Laser Protocol™ and all variants of the Lyme Laser Protocol™ are a Complementary and Integrative Health Protocol as defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Lyme Laser Protocol™ is designed to address and alleviate the symptoms of Lyme disease and other chronic illnesses.

​7 Scott Rd, Hampton, NH 03842

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • Youtube

833.ZAP.LYME (927.5963)

Privacy policy

Terms of use

bottom of page