RF radiation induced genotoxic & carcinogenic effects on chickpea root tip cells

2017 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 2286

Dry chickpea seeds exposed to RF sources (GSM cell phone at 900 MHz and laptop at 3.31 GHz) for 24 or 48 h showed inhibited seed germination, decreased mitotic index, and increased abnormality index with increasing exposure duration and frequency. The authors…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017
Study typeanimal
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

RF radiation induced genotoxic & carcinogenic effects on chickpea root tip cells Qureshi ST , Memon SA, Abassi AR, Sial MA, Bughio FA. Radiofrequency radiations induced genotoxic and carcinogenic effects on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) root tip cells. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 24(4):883- 391. May 2017. Abstract Present study was under taken to predict the possible DNA damages (genotoxicity) and carcinogenicity caused by radiofrequency radiations (RF) to living tissue. Dry seeds of chickpea were treated with GSM cell phone (900 MHz) and laptop (3.31 GHz) as RF source for 24 and 48 h. Untreated seeds were used as (0 h) negative control and Gamma rays (250 Gray) as positive control. Plant chromosomal aberration assay was used as genotoxicity marker. All the treatment of RF inhibits seed germination percentage. 48 h laptop treatment has the most negative effect as compared to untreated control. A decrease was observed in mitotic index (M.I) and increase in abnormality index (A.I) with the increase in exposure duration and frequency in (Hz). Cell membrane damages were also observed only in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop (RF). Maximum nuclear membrane damages and ghost cells were again recorded in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop. The radiofrequency radiations (900 MHz and 3.31 GHz) are only genotoxic as they induce micronuclei, bi-nuclei, multi-nuclei and scattered nuclei but could be carcinogenic as 48 h incubation of RF induced fragmentation and ghost cells. Therefore cell phones and laptop should not be used unnecessarily to avoid possible genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. bit.ly

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
PopulationChickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) root tip cells (dry seeds)
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureRF · 24 and 48 h
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Dry chickpea seeds exposed to RF sources (GSM cell phone at 900 MHz and laptop at 3.31 GHz) for 24 or 48 h showed inhibited seed germination, decreased mitotic index, and increased abnormality index with increasing exposure duration and frequency. The authors report chromosomal/nuclear abnormalities (e.g., micronuclei, bi-/multi-nuclei, scattered nuclei) and membrane damage, with the most pronounced effects at 48 h exposures; they interpret fragmentation and ghost cells after 48 h as potentially carcinogenic.

Outcomes measured

  • Seed germination percentage
  • Mitotic index (M.I.)
  • Abnormality index (A.I.)
  • Chromosomal aberrations (plant chromosomal aberration assay)
  • Micronuclei
  • Bi-nuclei
  • Multi-nuclei
  • Scattered nuclei
  • Cell membrane damage
  • Nuclear membrane damage
  • Ghost cells
  • Fragmentation

Limitations

  • No sample size reported in abstract
  • Exposure metrics beyond frequency (e.g., power density/SAR, distance) not reported
  • Plant model; relevance to human health not established in abstract
  • Carcinogenicity inferred from cellular morphology markers rather than tumor outcomes
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone, laptop",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "24 and 48 h"
  },
  "population": "Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) root tip cells (dry seeds)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Seed germination percentage",
    "Mitotic index (M.I.)",
    "Abnormality index (A.I.)",
    "Chromosomal aberrations (plant chromosomal aberration assay)",
    "Micronuclei",
    "Bi-nuclei",
    "Multi-nuclei",
    "Scattered nuclei",
    "Cell membrane damage",
    "Nuclear membrane damage",
    "Ghost cells",
    "Fragmentation"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Dry chickpea seeds exposed to RF sources (GSM cell phone at 900 MHz and laptop at 3.31 GHz) for 24 or 48 h showed inhibited seed germination, decreased mitotic index, and increased abnormality index with increasing exposure duration and frequency. The authors report chromosomal/nuclear abnormalities (e.g., micronuclei, bi-/multi-nuclei, scattered nuclei) and membrane damage, with the most pronounced effects at 48 h exposures; they interpret fragmentation and ghost cells after 48 h as potentially carcinogenic.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "No sample size reported in abstract",
    "Exposure metrics beyond frequency (e.g., power density/SAR, distance) not reported",
    "Plant model; relevance to human health not established in abstract",
    "Carcinogenicity inferred from cellular morphology markers rather than tumor outcomes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "GSM",
    "900 MHz",
    "3.31 GHz",
    "laptop",
    "cell phone",
    "chickpea",
    "Cicer arietinum",
    "genotoxicity",
    "chromosomal aberrations",
    "micronuclei",
    "mitotic index",
    "abnormality index",
    "ghost cells",
    "fragmentation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "rf-genotoxicity",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Assesses DNA/chromosomal damage markers after RF exposure (micronuclei, chromosomal aberrations)."
    },
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Uses GSM cell phone (900 MHz) as an RF source."
    }
  ]
}
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: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library