Modification of S. cerevisiae Growth Dynamics Using Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in the 1-2 kHz Range.

BioMed research international · 2015 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 4756

Two wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains exposed continuously for 66 hours to low-frequency EMF at 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 kHz (average magnetic flux density 2.43 mT) showed a frequency-dependent proliferative response under identical ambient condit…

Study snapshot

PublicationBioMed research international · 2015
Study typein_vitro
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

This paper details our further experiments pertaining to the influence of low frequency electromagnetic fields (LF EMF) on the growth dynamics of two wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strands. We opted to explore frequencies beyond the usual 50-60 Hz range, motivated by the ion parametric resonance theory and several studies which discovered and recorded endogenous biosignals in various Saccharomyces cerevisiae strands in the 0.4-2.0 kHz frequency range, most probably stemming from microtubules. Both yeast strands used in our experiments have been subjected to continuous 66-hour session of LF EMF exposure (frequencies 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 kHz; average magnetic flux density 2.43 mT) under identical ambient conditions. Experiment results indicate a frequency-dependent proliferative response of both yeast strands.

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 directionmixed
PopulationTwo wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureELF · continuous 66-hour session
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Two wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains exposed continuously for 66 hours to low-frequency EMF at 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 kHz (average magnetic flux density 2.43 mT) showed a frequency-dependent proliferative response under identical ambient conditions.

Outcomes measured

  • Yeast growth dynamics / proliferation

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in abstract
  • Exposure metric limited to average magnetic flux density; other exposure parameters not described in abstract
  • Details of growth measurement methods and statistical analysis not provided in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "continuous 66-hour session"
  },
  "population": "Two wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Yeast growth dynamics / proliferation"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Two wild-type Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains exposed continuously for 66 hours to low-frequency EMF at 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 kHz (average magnetic flux density 2.43 mT) showed a frequency-dependent proliferative response under identical ambient conditions.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure metric limited to average magnetic flux density; other exposure parameters not described in abstract",
    "Details of growth measurement methods and statistical analysis not provided in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "low frequency electromagnetic fields",
    "LF EMF",
    "1-2 kHz",
    "Saccharomyces cerevisiae",
    "yeast",
    "growth dynamics",
    "proliferation",
    "magnetic flux density",
    "ion parametric resonance"
  ],
  "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: 10.1155/2015/694713
PubMed: 26290871

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library