No Increased DNA Damage Observed in the Brain, Liver, and Lung of Fetal Mice Treated With Ethylnitrosourea and Exposed to UMTS Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
DAPI
DNA
UMTS
adenylation
genotoxic effects
tumor
Journal
Bioelectromagnetics
ISSN: 1521-186X
Titre abrégé: Bioelectromagnetics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8008281
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
18
06
2020
revised:
18
09
2020
accepted:
27
09
2020
pubmed:
9
10
2020
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
8
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The widespread use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi-based communication devices makes exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) unavoidable. Previous experiments have revealed the tumor-promoting effects of non-ionizing RF-EMF in adult carcinogen-treated mice in utero. To extend these investigations, we tested whether these effects are due to the co-carcinogenicity of RF-EMF which would manifest as elevated DNA damage. Similar to previous experiments, pregnant mice were exposed to RF-EMF (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System [UMTS] standard, approximately 1,960 MHz) from day 7 post-conception (p.c.) at 0 (sham), 0.04, and 0.4 W/kg SAR. At day 14 p.c., the mice were injected with the carcinogen ethylnitrosourea (ENU, 40 mg/kg). At three time-points specifically 24, 36, and 72 h later, the pregnant females were sacrificed and the fetuses (n = 24-57) were removed. A dye (cy3) specific for adenyl adducts was used to detect DNA damage by fluorescence microscopy in the brain, liver, and lung of each fetus. Compared to control (0 W/kg SAR), exposure to RF-EMF had no effect on the formation of DNA adducts in the inspected tissues. We conclude that increased adenyl formation of DNA by RF-EMF exposure is not a valid explanation for the previously reported tumor-promoting effects of RF-RMF. Our findings may help to gain a deeper insight into the biological effects of RF-EMF exposure in the context of malignancy. © 2020 The Authors. Bioelectromagnetics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Bioelectromagnetics Society.
Substances chimiques
Ethylnitrosourea
P8M1T4190R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
611-616Subventions
Organisme : Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
ID : 3615S82431
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Bioelectromagnetics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Bioelectromagnetics Society.
Références
Al-Serori H, Ferk F, Kundi M, Bileck A, Gerner C, Misik M, Nersesyan A, Waldherr M, Murbach M, Lah TT, Herold-Mende C, Collins AR, Knasmuller S. 2018. Mobile phone specific electromagnetic fields induce transient DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair in serum-deprived human glioblastoma cells. PLoS One 13:e0193677.
Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. 2011. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 12:624-626.
Chan CL, Wu Z, Eastman A, Bresnick E. 1992. Irradiation-induced expression of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in mammalian cells. Cancer Res 52:1804-1809.
Interphone Study Group. 2010. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 39:675-694.
Ji Y, He Q, Sun Y, Tong J, Cao Y. 2016. Adaptive response in mouse bone-marrow stromal cells exposed to 900-MHz radiofrequency fields: Gamma-radiation-induced DNA strand breaks and repair. J Toxicol Environ Health A 79:419-426.
Lerchl A, Klose M, Grote K, Wilhelm AF, Spathmann O, Fiedler T, Streckert J, Hansen V, Clemens M. 2015. Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 459:585-590.
Lerchl A, Kruger H, Niehaus M, Streckert JR, Bitz AK, Hansen V. 2008. Effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields at nonthermal SAR values on melatonin and body weight of Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus). J Pineal Res 44:267-272.
Li Z, Wang W, Cai Z, Han S, Lin S, He L, Chen M, Pan D, Deng G, Duan S, Xin SX. 2017. Variation in the dielectric properties of freshly excised colorectal cancerous tissues at different tumor stages. Bioelectromagnetics 38:522-532.
Markova E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY. 2010. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53bp1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect 118:394-399.
Morales-Ramirez P, Vallarino-Kelly T. 1998. Pharmacokinetic parameters determined from the clastogenic activity of ethylnitrosourea and dimethylnitrosamine in mice in vivo. Mutat Res 412:315-322.
Moulder JE, Erdreich LS, Malyapa RS, Merritt J, Pickard WF, Vijayalaxmi. 1999. Cell phones and cancer: What is the evidence for a connection? Radiat Res 151:513-531.
Ndoumbe Mbonjo Mbonjo H, Streckert J, Bitz A, Hansen V, Glasmachers A, Gencol S, Rozic D, German Research Foundation for Radio Waves. 2004. Generic UMTS test signal for RF bioelectromagnetic studies. Bioelectromagnetics 25:415-425.
Oftedal G, Straume A, Johnsson A, Stovner LJ. 2007. Mobile phone headache: A double blind, sham-controlled provocation study. Cephalalgia 27:447-455.
Reinhardt T, Bitz A, El Ouardi A, Streckert J, Sommer A, Lerchl A, Hansen V. 2007. Exposure set-ups for in vivo experiments using radial waveguides. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 124:21-26.
Repacholi MH, Lerchl A, Roosli M, Sienkiewicz Z, Auvinen A, Breckenkamp J, D'Inzeo G, Elliott P, Frei P, Heinrich S, Lagroye I, Lahkola A, McCormick DL, Thomas S, Vecchia P. 2012. Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors. Bioelectromagnetics 33:187-206.
Sandstrom M, Wilen J, Oftedal G, Hansson, Mild K. 2001. Mobile phone use and subjective symptoms. Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Occup Med (Lond) 51:25-35.
Sasaki YF, Sekihashi K, Izumiyama F, Nishidate E, Saga A, Ishida K, Tsuda S. 2000. The comet assay with multiple mouse organs: Comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database. Crit Rev Toxicol 30:629-799.
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez JY, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A. 2010. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676-682.
Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671-675.
Shibuya T, Morimoto K. 1993. A review of the genotoxicity of 1-ethyl-1-nitrosourea. Mutat Res 297:3-38.
Taberski K, Klose M, Grote K, El Ouardi A, Streckert J, Hansen VW, Lerchl A. 2014. Noninvasive assessment of metabolic effects of exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic fields on Djungarian Hamsters (Phodopus sungorus). Radiat Res 181:617-622.
Tillmann T, Ernst H, Streckert J, Zhou Y, Taugner F, Hansen V, Dasenbrock C. 2010. Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. Int J Radiat Biol 86:529-541.
Vijayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. 2019. Comprehensive review of quality of publications and meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res 191:20-30.