Relevance of ELFs in Biological System

[rogerl]

What parts (molecular, cellular, etc.) and processes in the human body use ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) electric field and magnetic fields ? For instance. Findl in 1987 discovered that exogenous fields modify cellular calcium ion transport. Westerhoff et al. discovered that enzymatic processes themselves are field-sensitive, while Barnes in 1996 discovered that weak electric fields can change the probability that molecules of the reacting materials will
encounter each other. What other processes use such weak fields? Remember that birds have magnetites in the brain that act like compass.

We know that living system use chemical bond energy like ATP to power the cells. To what extend is ELF electric field/magnetic field important in the regulations of the organism?

 

[Andy Resnick]

The references you provided are (AFAICT) non peer-reviewed book chapters. I am unaware of any peer-reviewed literature showing acute or chronic biological responses to applied ELF/VLF fields in living organisms.

Given the wavelength of ELF/VLF radiation is much larger than a cell, how do you propose that ELF radiation couples to the ATP synthesis pathway?

 

[rogerl]

The references you provided are (AFAICT) non peer-reviewed book chapters. I am unaware of any peer-reviewed literature showing acute or chronic biological responses to applied ELF/VLF fields in living organisms.

Given the wavelength of ELF/VLF radiation is much larger than a cell, how do you propose that ELF radiation couples to the ATP synthesis pathway?

I didn't say ELF/VLF can affect the ATP synthesis pathway. But there are many research about ELF/VLF effects on calcium ion and other cellular processes like the following peer reviewed paper published in mainstream channel:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1397839

"Based on these findings it is proposed that membrane-mediated Ca2+ signaling processes are involved in the mediation of field effects on the immune system."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399675

"With regard to the positive effects of these fields, the possibility of testing further their efficacy in therapeutic protocols should also not be overlooked."

These effects should fall under biophysics. So you agree there are effects? If not, how come there are many findings of effects. You mean all are false? If you agree some of them are true. What is the possible theoretical mechanism of interaction?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ok, now we have actual references. I can't pull them down from home, I'll get them at work tomorrow.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ok, I looked through the two references you provided, and additionally, one of the primary references by Walleczek (FEBS letters 271, 157-160, 1990). I can't comment fully, but here's my summary:

The two references you provided are review articles, not original research papers. I was unable to pull up the overwhelming majority of the original literature- I really wanted to read the Science articles, but they are not available online to my library, and the majority of journals referenced (Bioelectromagnetics, for example), I don't have access to at all.

I did pull up the FEBS letters article- an original research paper, and there are some (I feel) unresolved issues.

First, it's clear the magnetic field only affects Con-A treated cells. What is Con A? Con A is short of concanavalin A, and does not naturally occur in mammalian cells. I don't know much about it, but it does bind to Calcium and cell surface receptors- this is a very different mechanism than 'calcium uptake'. For example, the Con A could bind to extracellular calcium and then bind to the cell membrane.

In any case, the effect of the applied field (most likely) should be interpreted as a differential effect on Con A, not the cell- Figure 3 shows that conclusively.

Now, the applied field: they used a 22 T magnetic field, which is in excess of 10^6 times the Earth's magnetic field. So already, there is no physiological significance to the results. Then, they say the induced electric field goes as E = pi*f*r*B, where f is the frequency, and r the radius of the annual wire. I don't think that's correct: the relative intensities of the electric and magnetic field goes as B ~ E/c. This means that their claimed electric field magnitude of 1 mV/cm should really be about 10^8 mV/cm. This is *extremely* important, because the membrane potential is about 10^4 V/cm. According to their calculations, the applied field is a vanishing fraction of the membrane potential, when in fact the actual applied field is many times greater- the effect is to open transient pores in the membrane, allowing macromolecules to enter freely- this is the basis for electroporation, which I use to transfect cells all the time.

Thus, if the cells are in fact subjected to such a high field, many of the claimed results in the review articles can simply be attributed to electroporation and the effects of such a process- for example, extracellular Con A binds to the extracellular Ca, the complex flows into the cell as a result of electroporation, and thus the cells appear to have taken up a certain amount of Ca. Without seeing the articles about DNA and RNA transcription, I can't make definitive statements, but a similar mechanism could take place, especially if the applied field is so high.

So, while I don't dispute the data presented in the FEBS article, I do dispute the conclusions and interpretations, because their calculations are faulty.

 

[rogerl]

Ok, I looked through the two references you provided, and additionally, one of the primary references by Walleczek (FEBS letters 271, 157-160, 1990). I can't comment fully, but here's my summary:

The two references you provided are review articles, not original research papers. I was unable to pull up the overwhelming majority of the original literature- I really wanted to read the Science articles, but they are not available online to my library, and the majority of journals referenced (Bioelectromagnetics, for example), I don't have access to at all.

I did pull up the FEBS letters article- an original research paper, and there are some (I feel) unresolved issues.

First, it's clear the magnetic field only affects Con-A treated cells. What is Con A? Con A is short of concanavalin A, and does not naturally occur in mammalian cells. I don't know much about it, but it does bind to Calcium and cell surface receptors- this is a very different mechanism than 'calcium uptake'. For example, the Con A could bind to extracellular calcium and then bind to the cell membrane.

In any case, the effect of the applied field (most likely) should be interpreted as a differential effect on Con A, not the cell- Figure 3 shows that conclusively.

Now, the applied field: they used a 22 T magnetic field, which is in excess of 10^6 times the Earth's magnetic field. So already, there is no physiological significance to the results. Then, they say the induced electric field goes as E = pi*f*r*B, where f is the frequency, and r the radius of the annual wire. I don't think that's correct: the relative intensities of the electric and magnetic field goes as B ~ E/c. This means that their claimed electric field magnitude of 1 mV/cm should really be about 10^8 mV/cm. This is *extremely* important, because the membrane potential is about 10^4 V/cm. According to their calculations, the applied field is a vanishing fraction of the membrane potential, when in fact the actual applied field is many times greater- the effect is to open transient pores in the membrane, allowing macromolecules to enter freely- this is the basis for electroporation, which I use to transfect cells all the time.

Thus, if the cells are in fact subjected to such a high field, many of the claimed results in the review articles can simply be attributed to electroporation and the effects of such a process- for example, extracellular Con A binds to the extracellular Ca, the complex flows into the cell as a result of electroporation, and thus the cells appear to have taken up a certain amount of Ca. Without seeing the articles about DNA and RNA transcription, I can't make definitive statements, but a similar mechanism could take place, especially if the applied field is so high.

So, while I don't dispute the data presented in the FEBS article, I do dispute the conclusions and interpretations, because their calculations are faulty.

There are just too many experimental works of effects of ELF electric fields on cells in the mainstream literature. Do you mean none of these are even accepted for investigations by more mainstream biologists/biophysicists? I thought biophysics deals with the study of these dynamics. For instance a random search would bring topic like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821199

"This study confirms our previous observation and supports the hypothesis that a 7 Hz calcium ICR electromagnetic field may modify cell biochemistry and interfere in the differentiation and cellular adhesion of normal keratinocytes, suggesting the possibility to use ICR electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of undifferentiated diseases".

Look. Even if ELF wavelength is wider than the cells. What seems to be occurring is that our cells have natural electronic circuitry made of living material that can interact and process with the ELF electric fields, etc. What's so hard to believe about all this considering that living system is the ultimate in sophistication. We can't even create artifical eye or neurons. So cellular electronic circuitry is not impossible. Is it?

 

[Andy Resnick]

For instance a random search would bring topic like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821199

"This study confirms our previous observation and supports the hypothesis that a 7 Hz calcium ICR electromagnetic field may modify cell biochemistry and interfere in the differentiation and cellular adhesion of normal keratinocytes, suggesting the possibility to use ICR electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of undifferentiated diseases".

Again, I am unable to read that article- I can only see the abstract. Thus, I cannot fully comment on their experimental design. Part of science is the ability to replicate experiments, and since I cannot do so, I cannot simply accept their claims as true.