No influence of magnetic fields on cell cycle progression using conditions relevant for patients during MRI

The purpose of this study was to examine whether exposure to magnetic fields (MFs) relevant for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical routine influences cell cycle progression in two tumor cell lines in vitro. HL60 and EA2 cells were exposed to four types of MFs: (i) static MF of 1.5 and 7.05...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bioelectromagnetics 2003-05, Vol.24 (4), p.241-250
Main Authors: Schiffer, Ilka B., Schreiber, Wolfgang G., Graf, Robert, Schreiber, Elke M., Jung, Detlev, Rose, Dirk M., Hehn, Manfred, Gebhard, Susanne, Sagemüller, Jens, Spieß, Hans W., Oesch, Franz, Thelen, Manfred, Hengstler, Jan G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
cell cycle
Cell Cycle - radiation effects
Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation
Electromagnetic Fields - adverse effects
ELF gradient magnetic field
Environmental Exposure - adverse effects
Environmental Exposure - analysis
FACS
HL-60 Cells
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - adverse effects
pulsed bipolar magnetic gradient
pulsed high frequency electromagnetic field
Radiation Dosage
Radiometry - methods
static magnetic field
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this study was to examine whether exposure to magnetic fields (MFs) relevant for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical routine influences cell cycle progression in two tumor cell lines in vitro. HL60 and EA2 cells were exposed to four types of MFs: (i) static MF of 1.5 and 7.05 T, (ii) extremely low frequency magnetic gradient fields (ELFMGFs) with ± 10 mT/m and 100 Hz, as well as ± 100 mT/m and 100 Hz, (iii) pulsed high frequency MF in the radiofrequency (RF) range (63.6 MHz, 5.8 μT), and (iv) a combination of (i–iii). Exposure periods ranged from 1 to 24 h. Cell cycle distribution (G0/G1, S, and G2/M phases) was analyzed by flow cytometry. Cell cycle analysis did not reveal differences between the exposed and the control cells. As expected, positive controls with irradiated (8 Gy) HL60 and EA2 cells showed a strong G2/M arrest. Using conditions that are relevant for patients during MRI, no influence of MFs on cell cycle progression was observed in these cell lines. Care was taken to control secondary parameters of influence, such as vibration by the MR scanner or temperature to avoid false positive results. Bioelectromagnetics 24:241‐250, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
ISSN:0197-8462
1521-186X
DOI:10.1002/bem.10097