4.5 Article

GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation can either stimulate or depress early embryogenesis in Japanese quails depending on the duration of exposure

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 9, 页码 756-763

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2013.791408

关键词

Electromagnetic field; microwave radiation; embryo; somitogenesis; DNA damage

资金

  1. National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [2.2.5.349]
  2. European Community [229603]
  3. South Moravian Region via South Moravian Programme (SoMoPro)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Our study was designed to assess the effects of low intensity radiation of a GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) 900 MHz cellular phone on early embryogenesis in dependence on the duration of exposure. Materials and methods: Embryos of Japanese Quails were exposed in ovo to GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation during initial 38 h of brooding or alternatively during 158 h (120 h before brooding plus initial 38 h of brooding) discontinuously with 48 sec ON (average power density 0.25 mu W/cm(2), specific absorption rate 3 mu W/kg) followed by 12 sec OFF intervals. A number of differentiated somites were assessed microscopically. Possible DNA damage evoked by irradiation was assessed by an alkaline comet assay. Results: Exposure to radiation from a GSM 900 MHz cellular phone led to a significantly altered number of differentiated somites. In embryos irradiated during 38 h the number of differentiated somites increased (p < 0.001), while in embryos irradiated during 158 h this number decreased (p < 0.05). The lower duration of exposure led to a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in a level of DNA strand breaks in cells of 38-h embryos, while the higher duration of exposure resulted in a signifi cant (p < 0.001) increase in DNA damage as compared to the control. Conclusion: Effects of GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation on early embryogenesis can be either stimulating or deleterious depending on the duration of exposure.

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

4.5
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