4.3 Article

Increased protein synthesis by cells exposed to a 1,800-MHz radio-frequency mobile phone electromagnetic field, detected by proteome profiling

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-010-0513-7

关键词

GSM mobile phone; Protein synthesis; Stress proteins; Toxicology

资金

  1. Austrian workers compensation board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate whether or not low intensity radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure (RF-EME) associated with mobile phone use can affect human cells, we used a sensitive proteome analysis method to study changes in protein synthesis in cultured human cells. Four different cell kinds were exposed to 2 W/kg specific absorption rate in medium containing S-35-methionine/cysteine, and autoradiography of 2D gel spots was used to measure the increased synthesis of individual proteins. While short-term RF-EME did not significantly alter the proteome, an 8-h exposure caused a significant increase in protein synthesis in Jurkat T-cells and human fibroblasts, and to a lesser extent in activated primary human mononuclear cells. Quiescent (metabolically inactive) mononuclear cells, did not detectably respond to RF-EME. Since RF exposure induced a temperature increase of less than 0.15A degrees C, we suggest that the observed cellular response is a so called athermal effect of RF-EME. Our finding of an association between metabolic activity and the observed cellular reaction to low intensity RF-EME may reconcile conflicting results of previous studies. We further postulate that the observed increased protein synthesis reflects an increased rate of protein turnover stemming from protein folding problems caused by the interference of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields with hydrogen bonds. Our observations do not directly imply a health risk. However, vis-a-vis a synopsis of reports on cells stress and DNA breaks, after short and longer exposure, on active and inactive cells, our findings may contribute to the re-evaluation of previous reports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据