| Literature DB >> 27529420 |
Yonis Soubere Mahamoud1,2,3, Meziane Aite1,2, Catherine Martin1,2, Maxim Zhadobov2,4, Ronan Sauleau2,4, Yves Le Dréan1,2, Denis Habauzit1,2.
Abstract
Millimeter Waves (MMW) will be used in the next-generation of high-speed wireless technologies, especially in future Ultra-Broadband small cells in 5G cellular networks. Therefore, their biocompatibilities must be evaluated prior to their massive deployment. Using a microarray-based approach, we analyzed modifications to the whole genome of a human keratinocyte model that was exposed at 60.4 GHz-MMW at an incident power density (IPD) of 20 mW/cm2 for 3 hours in athermic conditions. No keratinocyte transcriptome modifications were observed. We tested the effects of MMWs on cell metabolism by co-treating MMW-exposed cells with a glycolysis inhibitor, 2-deoxyglucose (2dG, 20 mM for 3 hours), and whole genome expression was evaluated along with the ATP content. We found that the 2dG treatment decreased the cellular ATP content and induced a high modification in the transcriptome (632 coding genes). The affected genes were associated with transcriptional repression, cellular communication and endoplasmic reticulum homeostasis. The MMW/2dG co-treatment did not alter the keratinocyte ATP content, but it did slightly alter the transcriptome, which reflected the capacity of MMW to interfere with the bioenergetic stress response. The RT-PCR-based validation confirmed 6 MMW-sensitive genes (SOCS3, SPRY2, TRIB1, FAM46A, CSRNP1 and PPP1R15A) during the 2dG treatment. These 6 genes encoded transcription factors or inhibitors of cytokine pathways, which raised questions regarding the potential impact of long-term or chronic MMW exposure on metabolically stressed cells.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27529420 PMCID: PMC4986955 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of exposure protocol for the microarray experiment.
| Sham | Expo | Sham_2dG | Expo_2dG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 h | 3 h | 3 h | 3 h | |
| 35.81±0.16 | 35.16±0.58 | 35.69±0.22 | 34.54±0.95 | |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
List of primers used to validate the differentially expressed genes determined by the GeneSpring analysis.
| Gene Symbol | Forward | Reverse | Refseq # |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSRNP1 | NM_033027 | ||
| FAM46A | NM_017633 | ||
| HBEGF | NM_001945 | ||
| HS3ST1 | NM_005114 | ||
| LIF | NM_002309 | ||
| PPP1R15A | NM_014330 | ||
| TRIB1 | NM_025195 | ||
| SOCS3 | NM_003955 | ||
| IER3 | NM_003897 | ||
| SPRY2 | NM_005842 | ||
| GAPDH | NM_002046 | ||
| TBP | NM_003194 |
Fig 1Relative cellular ATP concentration.
HaCaT cells were treated with or without 20 mM 2dG for 3 h. Additionally, cells were exposed (black histograms) or unexposed (white histograms) to 60.4 GHz (20 mW/cm2). Data are presented as the mean of four independent experiments and are expressed as the percent of an independent unexposed control that was set to 100%.
Conditions compared and genes determined as statistically relevant by Mann-Whitney analyses.
| Conditions compared | BH | FC | BH corrected p-value | BH uncorrected p-value | Gene list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | |||||
| Sham_2dG | 2.0 | 0.039 | 0.021 | CSRNP1 | |
| 1.73 | 0.039 | 0.021 | FAM46A | ||
| 2.74 | 0.039 | 0.021 | HBEGF | ||
| 2.29 | 0.039 | 0.021 | HS3ST1 | ||
| 1.78 | 0.039 | 0.021 | LIF | ||
| 1.67 | 0.039 | 0.021 | TRIB1 | ||
| 1.52 | 0.021 | ALDH1L1 | |||
| 1.50 | 0.043 | DUSP5 | |||
| 1.66 | 0.043 | IER3 | |||
| 1.54 | 0.021 | PIM1 | |||
| 1.61 | 0.043 | ERRFI1 | |||
| 1.60 | 0.043 | PPP1R15A | |||
| Down: | |||||
| 1.55 | 0.021 | ZNF555 | |||
| 1.57 | 0.021 | HUWE1 | |||
| (Sham+Sham_2dG) | 1.78 | 0.013 | 0.005 | SPRY2 | |
| 1.51 | 0.013 | 0.009 | IER3 | ||
| 1.79 | 0.009 | SOCS3 | |||
| 1.63 | 0.046 | CSRNP1 | |||
| 1.58 | 0.046 | HES1 | |||
| Down: | |||||
| 1.78 | 0.0063 | ZNF441 | |||
| 1.60 | 0.036 | LOC100130876 |
Fig 2The gene expression profiles of the validated genes.
Histograms represent the RT-qPCR data. The expression profiles were classified depending on their validation profiles as follows: (A) validated by RT-PCR or (B) not validated by RT-PCR.