PURPOSE: The nature of the transferrable factor which goes from irradiated objects to bystander objects remains undefined. Most agree that a chemical entity is the likely 'factor' although some authors have produced in vitro evidence for the involvement of a physical component or a very potent volatile capable of traveling through air distances. In this paper we test the hypothesis that the communicated signal may be physical at least in part. METHODS: The in vivo fish model was used to allow signal production and response to occur in organisms in vivo without any shared blood or central nervous system (CNS) connections. A reporter assay and calcium flux measurements were used to detect signal production when irradiated fish were separated from unirradiated fish by (a) a plastic container, and (b) a foil-wrapped plastic container. RESULTS: The unirradiated fish showed bystander effects in both cases. The use of foil excludes the possibility of a light signal and although a highly active volatile could travel from one tank to another, the arrangement of sham and irradiated tanks makes it highly unlikely that this could explain our result. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there must be a physical component in the mechanism such as a weak acoustic or electromagnetic signal.
PURPOSE: The nature of the transferrable factor which goes from irradiated objects to bystander objects remains undefined. Most agree that a chemical entity is the likely 'factor' although some authors have produced in vitro evidence for the involvement of a physical component or a very potent volatile capable of traveling through air distances. In this paper we test the hypothesis that the communicated signal may be physical at least in part. METHODS: The in vivo fish model was used to allow signal production and response to occur in organisms in vivo without any shared blood or central nervous system (CNS) connections. A reporter assay and calcium flux measurements were used to detect signal production when irradiated fish were separated from unirradiated fish by (a) a plastic container, and (b) a foil-wrapped plastic container. RESULTS: The unirradiated fish showed bystander effects in both cases. The use of foil excludes the possibility of a light signal and although a highly active volatile could travel from one tank to another, the arrangement of sham and irradiated tanks makes it highly unlikely that this could explain our result. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there must be a physical component in the mechanism such as a weak acoustic or electromagnetic signal.
Authors: Carl N Sprung; Alesia Ivashkevich; Helen B Forrester; Christophe E Redon; Alexandros Georgakilas; Olga A Martin Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Isheeta Seth; Jeffrey L Schwartz; Robert D Stewart; Robert Emery; Michael C Joiner; James D Tucker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Richard Smith; Jiaxi Wang; Colin Seymour; Cristian Fernandez-Palomo; Jennifer Fazzari; Elisabeth Schültke; Elke Bräuer-Krisch; Jean Laissue; Christian Schroll; Carmel Mothersill Journal: Dose Response Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 2.658
Authors: Jason Cohen; Nguyen T K Vo; David R Chettle; Fiona E McNeill; Colin B Seymour; Carmel E Mothersill Journal: Dose Response Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.658