4.1 Article

Comparison of biological effects between continuous and intermittent exposure to GSM-900-MHz mobile phone radiation: Detection of apoptotic cell-death features

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.05.008

关键词

DNA fragmentation; Actin disorganization; Apoptosis; Drosophila

资金

  1. Hellenic State Scholarship Foundation
  2. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study we used a 6-min daily exposure of dipteran flies, Drosophila melanogaster, to GSM-900 MHz (Global System for Mobile Telecommunications) mobile phone electromagnetic radiation (EMR), to compare the effects between the continuous and four different intermittent exposures of 6 min total duration, and also to test whether intermittent exposure provides any cumulative effects on the insect's reproductive capacity as well as on the induction of apoptotic cell death. According to our previous experiments, a 6-min continuous exposure per day for 5 days to GSM-900 MHz and DCS-1800 MHz (Digital Cellular System) mobile phone radiation, brought about a large decrease in the insect's reproductive capacity, as defined by the number of F-1 pupae. This decrease was found to be non-thermal and correlated with an increased percentage of induced fragmented DNA in the egg chambers' cells at early- and mid-oogenesis. In the present experiments we show that intermittent exposure also decreases the reproductive capacity and alters the actin-cytoskeleton network of the egg chambers, another known aspect of cell death that was not investigated in previous experiments, and that the effect is also due to DNA fragmentation. Intermittent exposures with 10-min intervals between exposure sessions proved to be almost equally effective as continuous exposure of the same total duration, whereas longer intervals between the exposures seemed to allow the organism the time required to recover and partly overcome the above-mentioned effects of the GSM exposure. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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