Analysis of proto-oncogene and heat-shock protein gene expression in human derived cell-lines exposed<i>in vitro</i>to an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several studies have reported that radiofrequency (RF) fields, as emitted by mobile phones, may cause changes in gene expression in cultured human cell-lines. The current study was undertaken to evaluate this possibility in two human-derived immune cell-lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HL-60 and Mono-Mac-6 (MM6) cells were individually exposed to intermittent (5 min on, 10 min off) 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF fields at a average specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1 and 10 W/kg at 37 +/- 0.5 degrees C for 6 h. Concurrent negative and positive (heat-shock for 1 h at 43 degrees C) controls were conducted with each experiment. Immediately following RF field exposure (T = 6 h) and 18 h post-exposure (T = 24 h), cell pellets were collected from each of the culture dishes and analyzed for transcript levels of proto-oncogenes (c-jun, c-myc and c-fos) and the stress-related genes (heat shock proteins (HSP) HSP27 and HSP70B) by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). RESULTS: No significant effects were observed in mRNA expression of HSP27, HSP70, c-jun, c-myc or c-fos between the sham and RF-exposed groups, in either of the two cell-lines. However, the positive (heat-shock) control group displayed a significant elevation in the expression of HSP27, HSP70, c-fos and c-jun in both cell-lines at T = 6 and 24 h, relative to the sham and negative control groups. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence that exposure of cells to non-thermalizing levels of 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF fields can cause any detectable change in stress-related gene expression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".