Detrimental effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone on embryo morphokinetics

Zygote · 2024 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 244

Study snapshot

PublicationZygote · 2024

Study typeanimal

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Detrimental effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone on embryo morphokinetics and blastocyst viability in mice Seify M, Khalili MA, Anbari F, Koohestanidehaghi Y. Detrimental effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone on embryo morphokinetics and blastocyst viability in mice. Zygote. Published online 2024:1-5. doi:10.1017/S0967199424000042 Abstract Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has deleterious effects on sperm motility and viability, as well as oocyte membrane and organelle structure. The aim was to assess the effects of cell phone radiation on preimplantation embryo morphokinetics and blastocyst viability in mice. For superovulation, 20 female mice were treated with intraperitoneal (IP) injections of 10 IU pregnant mare’s serum gonadotropin (Folligon® PMSG), followed by 10 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) after 48 h. The zygotes (n = 150) from the control group were incubated for 4 days. The experimental zygotes (n = 150) were exposed to a cell phone emitting EMR with a frequency range 900–1800 MHz for 30 min on day 1. Then, all embryos were cultured in the time-lapse system and annotated based on time points from the 2-cell stage (t2) to hatched blastocyst (tHDyz), as well as abnormal cleavage patterns. Blastocyst viability was assessed using Hoechst and propidium iodide staining. Significant increases (P < 0.05) were observed in the cleavage division time points of t2, t8, t10, and t12 of the experimental group compared with the controls. In terms of blastocyst formation parameters, a delay in embryo development was observed in the experimental group compared with the controls. Data analysis of the time intervals between the two groups showed a significant difference in the s3 time interval (P < 0.05). Also, the rates of fragmentation, reverse cleavage, vacuole formation, and embryo arrest were significantly higher in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the cell survival rate in the experimental group was lower than the control group (P < 0.05). Exposure to EMR has detrimental consequences for preimplantation embryo development in mice. These effects can manifest as defects in the cleavage stage and impaired blastocyst formation, leading to lower cell viability. cambridge.org radiation-emitted-from-cell-phone-on-embryo-morphokinetics-and-blastocyst-viability-in- mice/BC3E03A74EC2E5E9C97D6CF6E22253A3

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeanimal

Effect directionharm

PopulationMice (preimplantation embryos/zygotes from superovulated female mice)

Sample size300

ExposureRF · 30 min on day 1 (preimplantation embryos/zygotes)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Experimental zygotes exposed to cell phone EMR (900–1800 MHz) for 30 min showed significant increases in several cleavage division time points (t2, t8, t10, t12) and delayed embryo development compared with controls. Fragmentation, reverse cleavage, vacuole formation, and embryo arrest rates were significantly higher, and cell survival rate was significantly lower in the exposed group.

Outcomes measured

Embryo morphokinetics (time-lapse cleavage time points t2–tHDyz; abnormal cleavage patterns)
Blastocyst formation/developmental timing parameters
Fragmentation rate
Reverse cleavage rate
Vacuole formation rate
Embryo arrest rate
Blastocyst/embryo cell viability (Hoechst/propidium iodide staining; cell survival rate)

Limitations

SAR or exposure intensity not reported in abstract
Exposure described as frequency range (900–1800 MHz) without more detailed dosimetry
Animal model (mice); generalizability to humans not addressed in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "30 min on day 1 (preimplantation embryos/zygotes)"
  },
  "population": "Mice (preimplantation embryos/zygotes from superovulated female mice)",
  "sample_size": 300,
  "outcomes": [
    "Embryo morphokinetics (time-lapse cleavage time points t2–tHDyz; abnormal cleavage patterns)",
    "Blastocyst formation/developmental timing parameters",
    "Fragmentation rate",
    "Reverse cleavage rate",
    "Vacuole formation rate",
    "Embryo arrest rate",
    "Blastocyst/embryo cell viability (Hoechst/propidium iodide staining; cell survival rate)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Experimental zygotes exposed to cell phone EMR (900–1800 MHz) for 30 min showed significant increases in several cleavage division time points (t2, t8, t10, t12) and delayed embryo development compared with controls. Fragmentation, reverse cleavage, vacuole formation, and embryo arrest rates were significantly higher, and cell survival rate was significantly lower in the exposed group.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "SAR or exposure intensity not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure described as frequency range (900–1800 MHz) without more detailed dosimetry",
    "Animal model (mice); generalizability to humans not addressed in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic radiation",
    "cell phone",
    "RF",
    "900–1800 MHz",
    "mouse",
    "preimplantation embryo",
    "morphokinetics",
    "time-lapse",
    "blastocyst viability",
    "fragmentation",
    "embryo arrest"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "rf-mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Exposure source is a cell phone emitting 900–1800 MHz EMR."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1017/s0967199424000042
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library