Is mobile phone radiation genotoxic? An analysis of micronucleus frequency in exfoliated buccal cells.

Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis · 2017 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 4906

Study snapshot

PublicationMutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis · 2017

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are classified as "possibly carcinogenic" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Some publications have reported associations between EMF exposure and DNA damage, but many other studies contradict such findings. Cytomorphological changes, such as micronuclei (MN), indicative of genomic damage, are biomarkers of genotoxicity. To test whether mobile phone-associated EMF exposure affects the MN frequency in exfoliated buccal cells, we obtained cells smears from the left and right inner cheeks of healthy mobile phone users, aged 18-30 (n=86), who also completed a characterization survey. MN frequencies were tested for potential confounding factors and for duration of phone use and preferential side of mobile phone use. No relationship was observed between MN frequency and duration of mobile phone use in daily calls. Cells ipsilateral to mobile phone use did not present a statistically significantly higher MN frequency, compared to cells contralateral to exposure. A highly statistically significant (p<0.0001) increase in MN frequency was found in subjects reporting regular exposure to genotoxic agents. Therefore, our results suggest that mobile phone-associated EMF do not to induce MN formation in buccal cells at the observed exposure levels.

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 typecross_sectional

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationHealthy mobile phone users aged 18–30

Sample size86

ExposureRF · duration of phone use in daily calls; preferential side of use

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 86 healthy mobile phone users (18–30 years), MN frequency in buccal cells was not related to duration of mobile phone use in daily calls, and ipsilateral cheek cells did not show a statistically significantly higher MN frequency than contralateral cells. A highly statistically significant increase in MN frequency (p<0.0001) was observed among subjects reporting regular exposure to genotoxic agents.

Outcomes measured

Micronucleus (MN) frequency in exfoliated buccal cells

Limitations

Exposure metrics were based on self-reported phone use (duration of daily calls and preferential side).
Specific RF exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, SAR) were not reported in the abstract.
Cross-sectional design limits causal inference.
Potential confounding addressed for some factors, but details are not provided in the abstract.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "duration of phone use in daily calls; preferential side of use"
  },
  "population": "Healthy mobile phone users aged 18–30",
  "sample_size": 86,
  "outcomes": [
    "Micronucleus (MN) frequency in exfoliated buccal cells"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 86 healthy mobile phone users (18–30 years), MN frequency in buccal cells was not related to duration of mobile phone use in daily calls, and ipsilateral cheek cells did not show a statistically significantly higher MN frequency than contralateral cells. A highly statistically significant increase in MN frequency (p<0.0001) was observed among subjects reporting regular exposure to genotoxic agents.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure metrics were based on self-reported phone use (duration of daily calls and preferential side).",
    "Specific RF exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, SAR) were not reported in the abstract.",
    "Cross-sectional design limits causal inference.",
    "Potential confounding addressed for some factors, but details are not provided in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "mobile phone",
    "radiofrequency",
    "genotoxicity",
    "micronucleus",
    "buccal cells",
    "IARC",
    "DNA damage"
  ],
  "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: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2017.08.001
PubMed: 28844241

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library