DNA damage in frog erythrocytes after in vitro exposure to a high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic field.

Mutation research · 2004 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 5234

Exposure to high peak-power pulsed EMF (8.8 GHz) increased DNA damage in frog erythrocytes, but the increase was attributed to heating (temperature rise) rather than an athermal effect. Under corresponding temperature incubation conditions, similar DNA damage…

Study snapshot

PublicationMutation research · 2004

Study typein_vitro

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Till the present time, the genotoxic effects of high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic fields (HPPP EMF) on cultured cells have not been studied. We investigated possible genotoxic effects of HPPP EMF (8.8 GHz, 180 ns pulse width, peak power 65 kW, repetition rate 50 Hz) on erythrocytes of the frog Xenopus laevis. We used the alkaline comet assay, which is a highly sensitive method to assess DNA single-strand breaks and alkali-labile lesions. Blood samples were exposed to HPPP EMF for 40 min in rectangular wave guide. The specific absorption rate (SAR) calculated from temperature kinetics was about 1.6 kW/kg (peak SAR was about 300 MW/kg). The temperature rise in the blood samples at steady state was 3.5 +/- 0.1 degrees C. The data show that the increase in DNA damage after exposure of erythrocytes to HPPP EMF was induced by the rise in temperature in the exposed cell suspension. This was confirmed in experiments in which cells were incubated for 40 min under the corresponding temperature conditions. The results allow us to conclude that HPPP EMF-exposure at the given modality did not cause any a-thermal genotoxic effect on frog erythrocytes in vitro.

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

PopulationFrog (Xenopus laevis) erythrocytes (blood samples)

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposuremicrowave · 8800 MHz · 1600 W/kg · 40 min

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

DNA single-strand breaks
Alkali-labile lesions
DNA damage (alkaline comet assay)
Temperature rise in samples

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
In vitro study on frog erythrocytes; limited generalizability to other cell types or in vivo conditions
Exposure produced measurable heating (3.5 ± 0.1 °C), complicating separation of thermal vs non-thermal effects

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "microwave",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": 8800,
    "sar_wkg": 1600,
    "duration": "40 min"
  },
  "population": "Frog (Xenopus laevis) erythrocytes (blood samples)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "DNA single-strand breaks",
    "Alkali-labile lesions",
    "DNA damage (alkaline comet assay)",
    "Temperature rise in samples"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Exposure to high peak-power pulsed EMF (8.8 GHz) increased DNA damage in frog erythrocytes, but the increase was attributed to heating (temperature rise) rather than an athermal effect. Under corresponding temperature incubation conditions, similar DNA damage was observed, leading the authors to conclude no athermal genotoxic effect at the tested exposure modality.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "In vitro study on frog erythrocytes; limited generalizability to other cell types or in vivo conditions",
    "Exposure produced measurable heating (3.5 ± 0.1 °C), complicating separation of thermal vs non-thermal effects"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "high peak-power pulsed electromagnetic field",
    "HPPP EMF",
    "8.8 GHz",
    "microwave",
    "pulsed exposure",
    "frog",
    "Xenopus laevis",
    "erythrocytes",
    "alkaline comet assay",
    "DNA damage",
    "genotoxicity",
    "thermal effect",
    "specific absorption rate"
  ],
  "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.2003.10.017
PubMed: 15036116

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library