Literature DB >> 18583276

Light alters nociceptive effects of magnetic field shielding in mice: intensity and wavelength considerations.

Frank S Prato1, Dawn Desjardins-Holmes, Lynn D Keenliside, Julia C McKay, John A Robertson, Alex W Thomas.   

Abstract

Previous experiments with mice have shown that repeated 1 hour daily exposure to an ambient magnetic field-shielded environment induces analgesia (antinociception). The exposures were carried out in the dark (less than 2.0x1016 photonss-1m-2) during the mid-light phase of the diurnal cycle. However, if the mice were exposed in the presence of visible light (2.0x1018 photonss-1m-2, 400-750 nm), then the analgesic effects of shielding were eliminated. Here, we show that this effect of light is intensity and wavelength dependent. Introduction of red light (peak at 635 nm) had little or no effect, presumably because mice do not have photoreceptors sensitive to red light above 600 nm in their eyes. By contrast, introduction of ultraviolet light (peak at 405 nm) abolished the effect, presumably because mice do have ultraviolet A receptors. Blue light exposures (peak at 465 nm) of different intensities demonstrate that the effect has an intensity threshold of approximately 12% of the blue light in the housing facility, corresponding to 5x1016 photonss-1m-2 (integral). This intensity is similar to that associated with photoreceptor-based magnetoreception in birds and in mice stimulates photopic/cone vision. Could the detection mechanism that senses ambient magnetic fields in mice be similar to that in bird navigation?

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 18583276      PMCID: PMC2610319          DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2008.0156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Interface        ISSN: 1742-5662            Impact factor:   4.118


  33 in total

1.  Exposure to a hypogeomagnetic field or to oscillating magnetic fields similarly reduce stress-induced analgesia in C57 male mice.

Authors:  C Del Seppia; P Luschi; S Ghione; E Crosio; E Choleris; F Papi
Journal:  Life Sci       Date:  2000-02-25       Impact factor: 5.037

2.  Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass.

Authors:  Thorsten Ritz; Peter Thalau; John B Phillips; Roswitha Wiltschko; Wolfgang Wiltschko
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Light alters nociceptive effects of magnetic field shielding.

Authors:  Adrian M Koziak; Dawn Desjardins; Lynn D Keenliside; Alex W Thomas; Frank S Prato
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.010

4.  Daily repeated magnetic field shielding induces analgesia in CD-1 mice.

Authors:  Frank S Prato; John A Robertson; Dawn Desjardins; Jennifer Hensel; Alex W Thomas
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.010

Review 5.  Magnetoreception.

Authors:  Roswitha Wiltschko; Wolfgang Wiltschko
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.345

6.  Behavioural evidence that magnetic field effects in the land snail, Cepaea nemoralis, might not depend on magnetite or induced electric currents.

Authors:  F S Prato; M Kavaliers; J J Carson
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.010

7.  Speed, spatial, and temporal tuning of rod and cone vision in mouse.

Authors:  Yumiko Umino; Eduardo Solessio; Robert B Barlow
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-01-02       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  The case for light-dependent magnetic orientation in animals

Authors: 
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.312

9.  The role of extraocular photoreceptors in newt magnetic compass orientation: parallels between light-dependent magnetoreception and polarized light detection in vertebrates.

Authors:  J B Phillips; M E Deutschlander; M J Freake; S C Borland
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  Light-dependent magnetoreception in birds: increasing intensity of monochromatic light changes the nature of the response.

Authors:  Roswitha Wiltschko; Katrin Stapput; Hans-Joachim Bischof; Wolfgang Wiltschko
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 3.172

View more
  6 in total

1.  Reduction of the background magnetic field inhibits ability of Drosophila melanogaster to survive ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Lucas A Portelli; Dinu R Madapatha; Carlos Martino; Mark Hernandez; Frank S Barnes
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 2.010

2.  Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field exposure can alter neuroprocessing in humans.

Authors:  John A Robertson; Jean Théberge; Julie Weller; Dick J Drost; Frank S Prato; Alex W Thomas
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 3.  Biological effects of the hypomagnetic field: An analytical review of experiments and theories.

Authors:  Vladimir N Binhi; Frank S Prato
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Spontaneous expression of magnetic compass orientation in an epigeic rodent: the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus.

Authors:  Ludmila Oliveriusová; Pavel Němec; Zuzana Pavelková; František Sedláček
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2014-06-10

5.  Exposure to inhomogeneous static magnetic field beneficially affects allergic inflammation in a murine model.

Authors:  Anikó Csillag; Brahma V Kumar; Krisztina Szabó; Mária Szilasi; Zsuzsa Papp; Magdolna E Szilasi; Kitti Pázmándi; István Boldogh; Éva Rajnavölgyi; Attila Bácsi; János F László
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Magnetoreception in laboratory mice: sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields exceeds 33 nT at 30 Hz.

Authors:  Frank S Prato; Dawn Desjardins-Holmes; Lynn D Keenliside; Janice M DeMoor; John A Robertson; Alex W Thomas
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 4.118

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.