“…[9][10][11] However,t he same modes of action of PDT and aPDT raise a great challenge in selectively inactivating bacterialc ells but leavingm ammalian cells unaffected.U nlike mammalian cells, in whicha cidic phospholipidsa re mainly located in the inner leafleto fp lasma membranes, acidic phospholipids andn egatively chargedc omponents, such as teichuronic acid (for Gram positive bacteria, for example, S. aureus)a nd lipopolysaccharide (for Gram negative bacteria, for example, E. coli)a re mainly locatedi nt he outer edges of cell walls or outer membranes, making the bacterial surface highly negatively charged. [12,13] This disparity has been leveraged to develop cationic aPDT agents, such as triarylmethanes [14,15] and borondipyrromethene (BODIPY)d yes bearing two positive charges, [16] peryleneb earing four positive charges, [17] porphyrins, [18][19][20][21][22][23] phthalocyanines [24] and bacteriochlorin [25,26] bearing three, four, or eight positive charges, with the aim to achieve higher binding affinity toward bacteria.T hough these photosensitizers showed remarkable inactivation capability against bacterial cells, in several cases, phototoxicity towardm ammalianc ells was observed, [14,23] suggestingl imited selectivity of the aPDT agents. For example,atriarylmethane dye reduced CFU of E. coli by 5log units at 1 mm upon irradiation, but only 60 %A 549 cells were alive undert he same conditions.…”