Effects of a continuous electromagnetic field on wound healing in human airway.

The Laryngoscope · 2015 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 4639

In a scratch wound-healing assay, cell migration was decreased after 1.8-GHz EMF exposure compared with controls. The exposure was not cytotoxic and did not inhibit proliferation, and no changes were observed in cell-cycle distribution or apoptosis by FACS.

Study snapshot

PublicationThe Laryngoscope · 2015

Study typein_vitro

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a 1.8-GHz continuous electromagnetic field (EMF) on wound healing in a human airway cell-culture system. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro study using a cell line. METHODS: Immortalized human bronchial epithelial cells (a BEAS-2B cell line) were exposed to a 1.8-GHz EMF (specific absorption rate = 1.0 W/kg). We evaluated the effect of EMF on the cells using an 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) viability assay, by cell counting, and by using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis of cell cycle dynamics and apoptosis. Inhibition of migration was tested by a wound-healing assay on scratched cell cultures. RESULTS: Cell migration in the wound-healing assay was decreased by the EMF treatment compared with controls. The MTT assay and cell counting consistently showed that the EMF used was not cytotoxic and did not inhibit cell proliferation. FACS analysis showed no alterations in the cell-cycle phase distribution or in apoptosis after EMF exposure. CONCLUSION: EMF can inhibit wound healing in vitro by inhibiting cell migration.

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 directionharm

PopulationImmortalized human bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B cell line)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 1800 MHz · 1 W/kg

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 86% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Cell migration (wound-healing/scratch assay)
Cell viability (MTT assay)
Cell proliferation (cell counting)
Cell cycle phase distribution (FACS)
Apoptosis (FACS)

Limitations

In vitro cell line model; findings may not generalize to in vivo human airway wound healing
Exposure duration not reported in the abstract
Sample size not reported in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": 1800,
    "sar_wkg": 1,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Immortalized human bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B cell line)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cell migration (wound-healing/scratch assay)",
    "Cell viability (MTT assay)",
    "Cell proliferation (cell counting)",
    "Cell cycle phase distribution (FACS)",
    "Apoptosis (FACS)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a scratch wound-healing assay, cell migration was decreased after 1.8-GHz EMF exposure compared with controls. The exposure was not cytotoxic and did not inhibit proliferation, and no changes were observed in cell-cycle distribution or apoptosis by FACS.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "In vitro cell line model; findings may not generalize to in vivo human airway wound healing",
    "Exposure duration not reported in the abstract",
    "Sample size not reported in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.86,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "1.8 GHz",
    "electromagnetic field",
    "RF-EMF",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "SAR 1.0 W/kg",
    "wound healing",
    "cell migration",
    "scratch assay",
    "BEAS-2B",
    "bronchial epithelial cells",
    "MTT",
    "FACS",
    "apoptosis",
    "cell cycle"
  ],
  "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: 10.1002/lary.25109
PubMed: 25546313

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library