Impact of in vitro exposure to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz fields on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells

Sci Rep · 2025 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 2554

Study snapshot

PublicationSci Rep · 2025

Study typein_vitro

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Category: Cellular Biology, Electromagnetic Field Safety Tags: 5G, electromagnetic fields, skin cells, oxidative stress, DNA repair, RF-EMF, SAR DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-15090-w URL: nature.com Overview The rapid rollout of fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks has generated concerns regarding possible biological effects, particularly on human skin, due to the higher carrier frequencies used, which have shallower penetration into tissue. Whether 5G-modulated radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at 3.5 GHz impact oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells remains controversial. Methods Researchers used genetically encoded Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (BRET)-based biosensors located in the cytoplasm and mitochondria to assess if exposure of human fibroblasts to 5G RF-EMF at specific absorption rates (SAR) of 0.08 and 4 W/kg for 24 hours could alter baseline reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels or enhance the effects of known ROS inducers (H2O2, Kp372-1, and Antimycin A). The study also examined whether pre-exposure to 5G RF-EMF could induce an adaptive response upon subsequent challenge with arsenic trioxide (As2O3). Additionally, the investigators observed the impact of RF-EMF combined with ultraviolet-B (UV-B) exposure on the formation and repair of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) lesions in HaCaT keratinocytes. Findings - 5G RF-EMF exposure—alone or with chemical ROS inducers—did not significantly affect oxidative stress markers in either cellular compartment tested. - RF-EMF exposure also did not induce an adaptive response to additional oxidative challenge. - There was no alteration in the kinetics or efficiency of CPD repair by the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway. Conclusion Within the experimental conditions (acute in vitro exposure up to 24-48h), exposure to 5G RF-EMF at 3.5 GHz and up to 4 W/kg does not induce oxidative stress or impair DNA repair efficiency in human skin cells. These results align with current assessments by international experts and contribute valuable data for evidence-based risk assessments of RF-EMF exposure related to 5G networks. However, the study emphasizes that results from acute exposures cannot be directly generalized to chronic or long-term real-life exposures, highlighting the need for further research in long-term and more physiologically relevant models. Important Note: There is a known connection between electromagnetic field exposure and potential health risks, particularly regarding oxidative stress and DNA damage. Continuous assessment and further studies are advised to monitor the long-term effects of EMF exposure, especially with evolving wireless technologies like 5G.

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 typein_vitro

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationHuman skin cells in vitro (human fibroblasts; HaCaT keratinocytes)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 3500 MHz · 4 W/kg · 24 h

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 86% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Exposure of human fibroblasts to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz RF-EMF at SAR 0.08 or 4 W/kg for 24 h showed no significant effect on basal ROS levels in cytoplasm or mitochondria and did not potentiate effects of chemical ROS inducers. RF-EMF pre-exposure did not induce an adaptive response to arsenic trioxide challenge, and combined RF-EMF + UV-B exposure did not alter CPD repair kinetics/efficiency in HaCaT keratinocytes.

Outcomes measured

Basal reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels (cytoplasm and mitochondria)
ROS responses with chemical inducers (H2O2, Kp372-1, Antimycin A)
Adaptive response (ROS after arsenic trioxide challenge)
Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) formation and repair kinetics/efficiency via nucleotide excision repair (NER) after UV-B
Oxidative stress markers (BRET-based biosensors)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G-modulated RF-EMF",
    "frequency_mhz": 3500,
    "sar_wkg": 4,
    "duration": "24 h"
  },
  "population": "Human skin cells in vitro (human fibroblasts; HaCaT keratinocytes)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Basal reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels (cytoplasm and mitochondria)",
    "ROS responses with chemical inducers (H2O2, Kp372-1, Antimycin A)",
    "Adaptive response (ROS after arsenic trioxide challenge)",
    "Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) formation and repair kinetics/efficiency via nucleotide excision repair (NER) after UV-B",
    "Oxidative stress markers (BRET-based biosensors)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Exposure of human fibroblasts to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz RF-EMF at SAR 0.08 or 4 W/kg for 24 h showed no significant effect on basal ROS levels in cytoplasm or mitochondria and did not potentiate effects of chemical ROS inducers. RF-EMF pre-exposure did not induce an adaptive response to arsenic trioxide challenge, and combined RF-EMF + UV-B exposure did not alter CPD repair kinetics/efficiency in HaCaT keratinocytes.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.86,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "3.5 GHz",
    "RF-EMF",
    "SAR",
    "skin cells",
    "human fibroblasts",
    "HaCaT keratinocytes",
    "oxidative stress",
    "ROS",
    "BRET biosensors",
    "adaptive response",
    "UV-B",
    "CPD",
    "nucleotide excision repair"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Study directly tests 5G-modulated RF exposure at 3.5 GHz in biological models relevant to 5G deployment concerns."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1038/s41598-025-15090-w
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library