4.2 Article

Genome-wide transcription analysis of Escherichia coli in response to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields

Journal

BIOELECTROMAGNETICS
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 488-496

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bem.21709

Keywords

bacteria; chemostat; extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF); gene expression; microarray

Funding

  1. OPO Foundation
  2. Hamasil Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The widespread use of electricity raises the question of whether or not 50?Hz (power line frequency in Europe) magnetic fields (MFs) affect organisms. We investigated the transcription of Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655 in response to extremely low-frequency (ELF) MFs. Fields generated by three signal types (sinusoidal continuous, sinusoidal intermittent, and power line intermittent; all at 50?Hz, 1?mT) were applied and gene expression was monitored at the transcript level using an Affymetrix whole-genome microarray. Bacterial cells were grown continuously in a chemostat (dilution rate D?=?0.4?h-1) fed with glucose-limited minimal medium and exposed to 50?Hz MFs with a homogenous flux density of 1?mT. For all three types of MFs investigated, neither bacterial growth (determined using optical density) nor culturable counts were affected. Likewise, no statistically significant change (fold-change?>?2, P?=?0.01) in the expression of 4,358 genes and 714 intergenic regions represented on the gene chip was detected after MF exposure for 2.5?h (1.4 generations) or 15?h (8.7 generations). Moreover, short-term exposure (8?min) to the sinusoidal continuous and power line intermittent signal neither affected bacterial growth nor showed evidence for reliable changes in transcription. In conclusion, our experiments did not indicate that the different tested MFs (50?Hz, 1?mT) affected the transcription of E. coli. Bioelectromagnetics 33:488496, 2012. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available