Effect of low frequency magnetic field on efficiency of chromosome break repair

2019 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitLow evidencePaper 1683

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeanimal

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effect of low frequency magnetic field on efficiency of chromosome break repair Burgos-Molina AM, Mercado-Sáenz S, Sendra-Portero F, Ruiz-Gómez MJ. Effect of low frequency magnetic field on efficiency of chromosome break repair. Electromagn Biol Med. 2019 Oct 28:1-8. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1685541. Abstract DNA repair is essential to maintain genome integrity. There is scientific evidence that exposure to magnetic fields (MF) can produce alterations in DNA repair without clear conclusions. This work aims to study the cellular response to and repair of a very deleterious type of DNA damage, the DNA double strand break (DSB), in S. cerevisiae, under MF exposure. In S. cerevisiae cells, pairs of DSB were induced enzymatically by HO endonuclease by plating the cells on Galactose-containing media. The repair processes took place under exposure to a 50Hz, 2.45mT sinusoidal MF during 21 days. MF was generated by a pair of Helmholtz coils. MF induced 1.29- and 1.5-fold increase in the number of colonies grown at day 21 of exposure in relation to untreated controls for Pho91 and Rmd5 strain, respectively. In relation to the kinetics of DSB repair during MF exposure, a higher increase (55.56-fold) in DNA reparation was observed at day 15 for Rmd5 strain in relation to the slight increment (1.18-fold) found for Pho91 strain. The results suggest that long-term MF exposure could increase the DNA repair activity and there may be a relationship between the position of the DSB and the distance to the centromere. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 directionbenefit

PopulationS. cerevisiae (yeast) strains Pho91 and Rmd5

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 0.05 MHz · 21 days

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In S. cerevisiae with enzymatically induced DSBs, repair under a 50 Hz, 2.45 mT sinusoidal magnetic field for 21 days was associated with increased colony numbers at day 21 versus untreated controls (1.29-fold for Pho91; 1.5-fold for Rmd5). DSB repair kinetics during exposure showed a large increase at day 15 for Rmd5 (55.56-fold) compared with a slight increase for Pho91 (1.18-fold).

Outcomes measured

DNA double strand break (DSB) repair kinetics/efficiency
Number of colonies grown (survival/growth after DSB induction)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Only two yeast strains studied; generalizability to other organisms/cell types unclear
Mechanistic interpretation (e.g., centromere distance) is suggested but not established in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": 0.05,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "21 days"
  },
  "population": "S. cerevisiae (yeast) strains Pho91 and Rmd5",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "DNA double strand break (DSB) repair kinetics/efficiency",
    "Number of colonies grown (survival/growth after DSB induction)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In S. cerevisiae with enzymatically induced DSBs, repair under a 50 Hz, 2.45 mT sinusoidal magnetic field for 21 days was associated with increased colony numbers at day 21 versus untreated controls (1.29-fold for Pho91; 1.5-fold for Rmd5). DSB repair kinetics during exposure showed a large increase at day 15 for Rmd5 (55.56-fold) compared with a slight increase for Pho91 (1.18-fold).",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Only two yeast strains studied; generalizability to other organisms/cell types unclear",
    "Mechanistic interpretation (e.g., centromere distance) is suggested but not established in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low frequency",
    "magnetic field",
    "50 Hz",
    "2.45 mT",
    "DNA repair",
    "double strand breaks",
    "S. cerevisiae",
    "Helmholtz coils",
    "HO endonuclease"
  ],
  "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: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1685541
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library