Immunity and electromagnetic fields

Environmental research · 2021 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 1110

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental research · 2021

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Immunity and electromagnetic fields Piotr Piszczek, Karolina Wójcik-Piotrowicz, Krzysztof Gil, Jolanta Kaszuba-Zwoińska. Immunity and electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2021 Jun 11;111505. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111505. Abstract Despite many studies, the question about the positive or negative influence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on living organisms still remains an unresolved issue. To date, the results are inconsistent and hardly comparable between different laboratories. The observed bio-effects are dependent not only on the applied EMF itself, but on many other factors such as the model system tested or environmental ones. In an organism, the role of the defense system against external stressors is played by the immune system consisting of various cell types. The immune cells are engaged in many physiological processes and responsible for the proper functioning of the whole organism. Any factor with an ability to cause immunomodulatory effects may weaken or enhance the response of the immune system. This review is focused on a wide range electromagnetic fields as a possible external factor which may modulate the innate and/or adaptive immunity. Considering the existing databases, we have compiled the bio-effects evoked by EMF in particular immune cell types involved in different types of immune response, with the common mechanistic models and mostly activated intracellular signaling cascade pathways. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Highlights • Immune system cells are influenced by exposure to EMFs. • EMFs might modulate effector activities of immune response. • Bio-effectiveness is related to the frequency range of EMFs and cell types. • Cellular changes might be enhanced by synergic effects of EMFs and other stressors. Conclusions Currently it is extremely difficult to select an intracellular mechanism that could play a dominant role in viability and/or effector activities modulation of various types of immune cells under EMF exposure in a wide range of parameters. The large number of results obtained for various EMF parameters and experimental conditions do not allow for a simple comparison of findings across different laboratories. Nevertheless, most of the studies are in agreement that: (i) there is no generally accepted physical and/or biological mechanism of EMF action independently on type of the studies (i.e., in vivo/in vitro); (ii) there is lack of conclusive evidence of EMF genotoxic effects; (iii) findings concerning intracellular effects such as EMF-induced modulation of: gene expression, heat-shock proteins level, surface of cell membrane and cell morphology, signal transduction pathways, ions homeostasis and level of ROS cannot be excluded; (iv) significant bio-effects are noticed for simultaneous EMF exposure with other cell stimuli (synergic effects); (v) the response of various immune cells differs in an EMF type-dependent manner; (vi) multidirectional research on immune cell cultures are certainly needed to be continued to understand potential risk of EMF exposure; (vii) the influence of EMF on the innate immunity seems to be interesting issue in the context of aging process (Pawelec et al., 2020). In summary, EMF seem to be a promising tool for modulation of various immune cell signaling pathways and immune system responses. Moreover, the studies concerning the action of electromagnetic fields alone or combined with medicaments are embedded in the mainstream of interests of EMF-related research in medicine and health care.

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 typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This review summarizes reported bio-effects of electromagnetic fields across a wide range of parameters on different immune cell types and immune responses, noting that results are inconsistent and difficult to compare across laboratories. The authors conclude there is no generally accepted physical/biological mechanism of EMF action and no conclusive evidence of EMF genotoxic effects, while intracellular effects (e.g., modulation of gene expression, heat-shock proteins, morphology, signaling pathways, ion homeostasis, ROS) cannot be excluded and may be more evident with simultaneous exposure to other stimuli (synergistic effects).

Outcomes measured

Innate immunity modulation
Adaptive immunity modulation
Immune cell viability
Immune cell effector activities
Gene expression changes
Heat-shock protein level changes
Cell membrane surface changes
Cell morphology changes
Signal transduction pathway modulation
Ion homeostasis changes
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) level changes
Genotoxic effects (lack of conclusive evidence)
Synergistic effects with other stressors/stimuli

Limitations

Results across studies are described as inconsistent and hardly comparable between laboratories.
Bio-effects depend on EMF parameters and other factors (model system, environmental factors).
No generally accepted physical and/or biological mechanism of EMF action is identified.
Large heterogeneity of EMF parameters and experimental conditions prevents simple comparison across studies.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Innate immunity modulation",
    "Adaptive immunity modulation",
    "Immune cell viability",
    "Immune cell effector activities",
    "Gene expression changes",
    "Heat-shock protein level changes",
    "Cell membrane surface changes",
    "Cell morphology changes",
    "Signal transduction pathway modulation",
    "Ion homeostasis changes",
    "Reactive oxygen species (ROS) level changes",
    "Genotoxic effects (lack of conclusive evidence)",
    "Synergistic effects with other stressors/stimuli"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This review summarizes reported bio-effects of electromagnetic fields across a wide range of parameters on different immune cell types and immune responses, noting that results are inconsistent and difficult to compare across laboratories. The authors conclude there is no generally accepted physical/biological mechanism of EMF action and no conclusive evidence of EMF genotoxic effects, while intracellular effects (e.g., modulation of gene expression, heat-shock proteins, morphology, signaling pathways, ion homeostasis, ROS) cannot be excluded and may be more evident with simultaneous exposure to other stimuli (synergistic effects).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Results across studies are described as inconsistent and hardly comparable between laboratories.",
    "Bio-effects depend on EMF parameters and other factors (model system, environmental factors).",
    "No generally accepted physical and/or biological mechanism of EMF action is identified.",
    "Large heterogeneity of EMF parameters and experimental conditions prevents simple comparison across studies."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "immunity",
    "immune system",
    "innate immunity",
    "adaptive immunity",
    "immunomodulation",
    "immune cells",
    "signal transduction",
    "reactive oxygen species",
    "ROS",
    "genotoxicity",
    "synergistic effects"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111505
PubMed: 34126050

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library