Literature DB >> 2242052

Development of chicken embryos in a pulsed magnetic field.

E Berman1, L Chacon, D House, B A Koch, W E Koch, J Leal, S Løvtrup, E Mantiply, A H Martin, G I Martucci.   

Abstract

Six independent experiments of common design were performed in laboratories in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the United States of America. Fertilized eggs of domestic chickens were incubated as controls or in a pulsed magnetic field (PMF); embryos were then examined for developmental anomalies. Identical equipment in each laboratory consisted of two incubators, each containing a Helmholtz coil and electronic devices to develop, control, and monitor the pulsed field and to monitor temperature, relative humidity, and vibrations. A unipolar, pulsed, magnetic field (500-microseconds pulse duration, 100 pulses per s, 1-microT peak density, and 2-microseconds rise and fall time) was applied to experimental eggs during 48 h of incubation. In each laboratory, ten eggs were simultaneously sham exposed in a control incubator (pulse generator not activated) while the PMF was applied to ten eggs in the other incubator. The procedure was repeated ten times in each laboratory, and incubators were alternately used as a control device or as an active source of the PMF. After a 48-h exposure, the eggs were evaluated for fertility. All embryos were then assayed in the blind for development, morphology, and stage of maturity. In five of six laboratories, more exposed embryos exhibited structural anomalies than did controls, although putatively significant differences were observed in only two laboratories (two-tailed Ps of .03 and less than .001), and the significance of the difference in a third laboratory was only marginal (two-tailed P = .08). When the data from all six laboratories are pooled, the difference in incidence of abnormalities in PMF-exposed embryos (approximately 25 percent) and that of controls (approximately 19 percent), although small, is highly significant, as is the interaction between incidence of abnormalities and laboratory site (both Ps less than .001). The factor or factors responsible for the marked variability of inter-laboratory differences are unknown.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2242052     DOI: 10.1002/bem.2250110208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics        ISSN: 0197-8462            Impact factor:   2.010


  5 in total

1.  Bird on the wire: Landscape planning considering costs and benefits for bird populations coexisting with power lines.

Authors:  Marcello D'Amico; Inês Catry; Ricardo C Martins; Fernando Ascensão; Rafael Barrientos; Francisco Moreira
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2018-02-24       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 2.  Exposure to Power-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Infertility and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: Update on the Human Evidence and Recommendations for Future Study Designs.

Authors:  Ryan C Lewis; Russ Hauser; Andrew D Maynard; Richard L Neitzel; Lu Wang; Robert Kavet; John D Meeker
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 6.393

Review 3.  Human adverse reproductive outcomes and electromagnetic field exposures: review of epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  G M Shaw; L A Croen
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 9.031

4.  Biological effects of power frequency magnetic fields: Neurochemical and toxicological changes in developing chick embryos.

Authors:  P Rajendra; HN Sujatha; D Devendranath; B Gunasekaran; RB Sashidhar; C Subramanyam
Journal:  Biomagn Res Technol       Date:  2004-01-31

Review 5.  Life rhythm as a symphony of oscillatory patterns: electromagnetic energy and sound vibration modulates gene expression for biological signaling and healing.

Authors:  David Muehsam; Carlo Ventura
Journal:  Glob Adv Health Med       Date:  2014-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.