| Literature DB >> 26559811 |
Ion Udroiu1, Antonio Antoccia1, Caterina Tanzarella1, Livio Giuliani2, Francesca Pacchierotti3, Eugenia Cordelli3, Patrizia Eleuteri3, Paola Villani3, Antonella Sgura1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the toxicity and genotoxicity of extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) during prenatal and neonatal development. These phases of life are characterized by cell proliferation and differentiation, which might make them sensitive to environmental stressors. Although in vitro evidences suggest that ELF-MF may modify the effects of ionizing radiation, no research has been conducted so far in vivo on the genotoxic effects of ELF-MF combined with X-rays. AIM AND METHODS: Aim of this study was to investigate in somatic and germ cells the effects of chronic ELF-MF exposure from mid gestation until weaning, and any possible modulation produced by ELF-MF exposure on ionizing radiation-induced damage. Mice were exposed to 50 Hz, 65 μT magnetic field, 24 hours/day, for a total of 30 days, starting from 12 days post-conception. Another group was irradiated with 1 Gy X-rays immediately before ELF-MF exposure, other groups were only X-irradiated or sham-exposed. Micronucleus test on blood erythrocytes was performed at multiple times from 1 to 140 days after birth. Additionally, 42 days after birth, genotoxic and cytotoxic effects on male germ cells were assessed by comet assay and flow cytometric analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26559811 PMCID: PMC4641635 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
| Number of pups (two litters) | Sex ratio (M:F) | Weight at birth (means±SD) | Weight at weaning (means±SD) | Survival at weaning | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 27 | 0.93 | 1.52±0.09 g | 9.99±0.81 g | 88.9% |
|
| 20 | 1.22 | 1.53±0.20 g | 9.20±1.48 g | 95% |
|
| 25 | 1.50 | 1.22±0.10 g | 8.15±1.45 g | 92% |
|
| 31 | 0.82 | 1.34±0.10 g | 7.60±1.25 g | 80.6% |
In agreement with literature data [36], appearance of physiological landmarks (pinna detachment, eye opening, fur development, and testes descent) was delayed in the X-rays treated compared to the control group (data not shown). No differences were recorded between groups C and E and between groups X and XE.
Fig 1Micronucleus frequencies in peripheral blood erythrocytes.
The number of animals in each group is reported inside the histogram columns. Bars represent standard error. Significance compared to C: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001.
Fig 2(A) Relative testicular weights (testis weight/body weight * 100); (B) percentages of 1C post meiotic cells as evaluated by DNA content flow cytometric analysis of whole testis cells; (C) sperm number in cauda epididymis.
Columns represent the mean values of 7 controls (C), 11 ELF-MF exposed (E), 14 X-rays exposed (X), or 11 animals exposed to combined treatments (XE). Asterisks mark statistically different values between groups, *: p<0.05; **: p<0.005.
Fig 3Comet assay in epididymal sperm.
(A) Mean tail intensity values obtained with alkaline and neutral comet assay. (B) Percentage of sperm carrying clearly damaged DNA (with tail intensity values higher than 10%) after neutral assay. Columns represent the mean values of 4 controls (C), 5 ELF-MF exposed (E), 8 X-rays exposed (X), or 6 animals exposed to combined treatments (XE).