4.2 Review

Why magnetic and electromagnetic effects in biology are irreproducible and contradictory?

期刊

BIOELECTROMAGNETICS
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 1-13

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bem.21947

关键词

magnetic effects; magneto-biology; ATP synthesis; DNA synthesis; magnetic isotopes; radical pair mechanism

资金

  1. Russian National Scientific Fund [14-23-00018]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [14-23-00018] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main source of magnetic and electromagnetic effects in biological systems is now generally accepted and demonstrated in this paper to be radical pair mechanism which implies pairwise generation of radicals in biochemical reactions. This mechanism was convincingly established for enzymatic adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and desoxynucleic acid (DNA) synthesis by using catalyzing metal ions with magnetic nuclei (Mg-25, Ca-43, Zn-67) and supported by magnetic field effects on these reactions. The mechanism, is shown to function in medicine as a medical remedy or technology (trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, nuclear magnetic control of the ATP synthesis in heart muscle, the killing of cancer cells by suppression of DNA synthesis). However, the majority of magnetic effects in biology remain to be irreproducible, contradictory, and enigmatic. Three sources of such a state are shown in this paper to be: the presence of paramagnetic metal ions as a component of enzymatic site or as an impurity in an uncontrollable amount; the property of the radical pair mechanism to function at a rather high concentration of catalyzing metal ions, when at least two ions enter into the catalytic site; and the kinetic restrictions, which imply compatibility of chemical and spin dynamics in radical pair. It is important to keep in mind these factors to properly understand and predict magnetic effects in magneto-biology and biology itself and deliberately use them in medicine. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:1-13, 2016. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.2
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