Magnetic Fields / Hyperthermia Cancer Research Results

MF, Magnetic Fields: Click to Expand ⟱
Features: Therapy

Magnetic Fields — externally applied static or time-varying magnetic fields used to alter cellular signaling, redox state, ion handling, membrane behavior, metabolism, or neural activity without introducing a chemical agent. They are a physical therapeutic modality and include static magnetic fields (SMF), extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF), pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF), and other non-rotating oscillating/time-varying magnetic fields. Common abbreviations include MF, SMF, ELF-MF, EMF, and PEMF. Biological effects are strongly dependent on field strength, frequency, waveform, gradient, duty cycle, exposure duration, and tissue or cell type. Rotating magnetic fields are excluded here because they are represented separately as pid 192; magnetic-nanoparticle-dependent magnetothermal or magnetomechanical effects are also better assigned primarily to the magnetic nanoparticle product.

Primary mechanisms (ranked):

  1. Redox modulation and ROS perturbation, including radical-pair and mitochondrial mechanisms; cancer cells may develop sustained oxidative stress whereas normal cells frequently show adaptive antioxidant responses.
  2. Ca²⁺ and ion-channel modulation, particularly TRPC, voltage-gated channels, intracellular Ca²⁺ handling, and ER–mitochondrial Ca²⁺ communication.
  3. Mitochondrial and bioenergetic modulation, including membrane potential, electron transport, ATP production, mitochondrial permeability, and metabolic reprogramming.
  4. Cell proliferation, cell-cycle, apoptosis, and senescence signaling through pathways including EGFR/PI3K/AKT/mTOR, MAPK/ERK, caspases, PARP, Bax and survivin.
  5. Membrane permeability and drug-uptake modulation, producing context-dependent chemosensitization to agents including doxorubicin, etoposide and methotrexate.
  6. Inflammatory and stress-response modulation including NF-κB, cytokine signaling, HSPs, ER stress and adaptive antioxidant pathways.
  7. Migration, invasion, angiogenesis and tumor-microenvironment modulation; effects are field-parameter and tumor-model dependent.

Bioavailability / PK relevance: Conventional pharmacokinetic concepts do not apply because the intervention is a physical field rather than an absorbed drug. Relevant exposure variables are magnetic flux density, field gradient, frequency, waveform, pulse width, repetition rate, duty cycle, spatial distribution, treatment duration and tissue depth. Magnetic fields can penetrate tissue without the concentration gradients characteristic of drugs, but induced electric fields and biological coupling vary markedly with geometry and frequency.

In-vitro vs systemic exposure relevance: Effects are not concentration-driven. Many experimental results cannot be generalized between devices because apparently small differences in waveform, frequency, flux density, orientation, gradient and exposure duration can change the biological response. Static fields ranging from millitesla to tesla and PEMF/ELF protocols ranging from weak fields to substantially stronger stimulation should therefore be treated as distinct exposure regimens rather than as a single dose-response continuum.

Clinical evidence status: Cancer treatment remains predominantly preclinical, with cell-culture and animal evidence plus limited supportive or adjunctive human use. Evidence supports parameter-dependent anticancer effects and chemosensitization, but non-rotating magnetic-field exposure alone is not an established standard anticancer therapy. PEMF has established clinical use in several musculoskeletal applications and has been studied as supportive therapy in oncology. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has substantially stronger human evidence in neurological and psychiatric applications, including investigational use in Alzheimer’s disease, but should not be interpreted as evidence that generic magnetic-field exposure is an established systemic cancer treatment.

Magnetic Fields can be Static, or pulsed. The most common therapy is a pulsed magnetic field in the uT or mT range.
The main pathways affected are:
Calcium Signaling: -influence the activity of voltage-gated calcium channels.
Oxidative Stress and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Pathways
Heat Shock Proteins (HSPs) and Cellular Stress Responses
Cell Proliferation and Growth Signaling: MAPK/ERK pathway.
Gene Expression and Epigenetic Modifications: NF-κB
Angiogenesis Pathways: VEGF (improving VEGF for normal cells)
PEMF was found to have a 2-fold increase in drug uptake compared to traditional electrochemotherapy in rat melanoma models

Pathways:
- most reports have ROS production increasing in cancer cells , while decreasing in normal cells.
- ROS↑ related: MMP↓(ΔΨm), ER Stress↑, UPR↑, GRP78↑, Ca+2↑, Cyt‑c↑, Caspases↑, DNA damage↑, cl-PARP↑, HSP↓, Prx,
- Raises AntiOxidant defense in Normal Cells: ROS↓, NRF2↑, SOD↑, GSH↑, Catalase↑,
- lowers Inflammation : NF-kB↓, COX2↓, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines : NLRP3↓, IL-1β↓, TNF-α↓, IL-6↓, IL-8↓
- inhibit Growth/Metastases : TumMeta↓, TumCG↓, VEGF↓(mostly regulated up in normal cells),
- cause Cell cycle arrest : TumCCA↑,
- inhibits Migration/Invasion : TumCMig↓, TumCI↓, TNF-α↓,
- inhibits glycolysis /Warburg Effect and ATP depletion : HIF-1α↓, PKM2↓, GLUT1↓, LDH↓, HK2↓, PFKs↓, PDKs↓, ECAR↓, OXPHOS↓, GRP78↑, Glucose↓, GlucoseCon↓
- inhibits angiogenesis↓ : VEGF↓, HIF-1α↓, Notch↓, FGF↓, PDGF↓, EGFR↓, Integrins↓,
- Others: PI3K↓, AKT↓, STAT↓, Wnt↓, β-catenin↓, ERK↓, JNK, - SREBP (related to cholesterol).
- Synergies: chemo-sensitization, chemoProtective, cytoProtective, RadioSensitizer, RadioProtective, Others(review target notes), Neuroprotective, Hepatoprotective, CardioProtective,

- Selectivity: Cancer Cells vs Normal Cells

Magnetic Field Mechanisms in Cancer

Rank Pathway / Axis Cancer Cells Normal Cells TSF Primary Effect Notes / Interpretation
1 ROS and redox homeostasis ↑ ROS (context-dependent); ↑ oxidative stress ↑ transient ROS followed by ↔ or ↓ ROS in adaptive protocols P, R, G Redox perturbation One of the most recurrent MF mechanisms. Direction is strongly field- and cell-dependent; sustained ROS elevation is reported in several cancer models and during chemotherapy sensitization.
2 Ca²⁺ and ion-channel signaling ↑ Ca²⁺ signaling or dysregulation; altered TRPC and voltage-sensitive channel activity ↑ transient signaling with homeostatic recovery (context-dependent) P, R Electrophysiological signal transduction Ca²⁺ is a major mechanistic bridge between membrane sensing, mitochondria, ROS, proliferation and apoptosis. Response depends strongly on waveform and frequency.
3 Mitochondrial function and membrane potential ↓ ΔΨm; altered respiration; ↑ mitochondrial stress ↔ or reversible modulation (context-dependent) P, R, G Bioenergetic destabilization Mitochondrial effects can arise downstream of ROS and Ca²⁺ signaling and contribute to apoptotic commitment.
4 Apoptosis and caspase signaling ↑ apoptosis; ↑ caspases; ↑ PARP cleavage; ↑ Bax; ↓ survivin ↔ or substantially weaker response in selective protocols R, G Programmed cell death Reported with several PEMF and time-varying field protocols and can be amplified when combined with chemotherapy.
5 EGFR PI3K AKT mTOR signaling ↓ EGFR/AKT/mTOR signaling (model-dependent) ↔ or mixed R, G Growth-signal suppression Particularly supported in static-field experiments; response varies with cell type, cell density and field intensity.
6 Cell cycle and proliferation ↓ proliferation; ↑ cell-cycle arrest or mitotic disruption ↔ or mixed G Growth suppression Effects are highly protocol-specific. Some exposures are neutral or can stimulate proliferation, so suppression should not be treated as universal.
7 DNA damage and DNA-damage response ↑ DNA damage; ↑ ATM/p53/p21 signaling (context-dependent) ↔ or mixed; protective responses reported with some protocols R, G Genotoxic stress and repair modulation Often secondary to ROS and particularly evident during combination treatment with chemotherapy or radiation. Magnetic fields alone are not consistently genotoxic, and some static-field protocols can reduce radiation-associated DNA damage.
8 Chemosensitization and drug uptake ↑ chemotherapy response; ↑ drug uptake or cytotoxicity ↔ or ↑ toxicity (drug-dependent) R, G Adjunctive anticancer effect Documented with doxorubicin, etoposide and other agents. Selectivity is not guaranteed; normal-cell toxicity must be evaluated for each field-drug combination.
9 Glutathione and antioxidant buffering ↓ GSH reserve or altered GSH/GSSG balance (context-dependent) ↑ GSH or antioxidant adaptation in some protocols R, G Redox buffering modulation GSH depletion is best interpreted as a consequence of oxidative load rather than a universal direct MF target.
10 NRF2 antioxidant response ↔ / mixed; inadequate adaptive response in some oxidative protocols ↑ NRF2 and antioxidant-response signaling in some protective protocols R, G Adaptive antioxidant defense NRF2 direction is not uniform enough to classify MF globally as either an NRF2 activator or inhibitor.
11 ER stress and unfolded protein response ↑ ER stress and UPR (model-dependent) ↑ adaptive stress response or ↔ R, G Proteostasis stress Can develop secondary to ROS, altered Ca²⁺ handling and mitochondrial dysfunction.
12 Mitochondrial permeability transition ↑ MPTP opening propensity ↔ or reversible opening R Mitochondrial death commitment Supported mechanistically for specific ELF-MF exposures through ROS-sensitive pathways; should not be generalized to all magnetic fields.
13 Glycolysis and cellular energetics ↓ glycolytic flux or altered ATP production (model-dependent) ↔ or metabolic adaptation R, G Metabolic reprogramming Some frequency-tuned exposures suppress glycolysis, but this is substantially less universal than ROS or Ca²⁺ modulation.
14 HIF-1α and angiogenic signaling ↓ HIF-1α / VEGF in selected models ↑ VEGF or tissue-repair signaling in some regenerative protocols G Angiogenesis modulation Potential cancer-versus-normal-tissue divergence is attractive but remains highly exposure- and model-specific.
15 NF-κB and inflammatory signaling ↓ NF-κB and inflammatory signaling in selected models ↓ inflammatory cytokines in many regenerative PEMF applications R, G Inflammation modulation Better established as an anti-inflammatory/regenerative PEMF effect than as a universal cancer-cell mechanism.
16 Migration invasion and angiogenesis ↓ migration; ↓ invasion; ↓ angiogenic signaling in selected models ↔ or pro-repair angiogenesis (context-dependent) G Metastatic phenotype modulation Direction varies substantially with field protocol and normal-versus-tumor context.
17 Radiosensitization ↑ radiation-induced ROS and DNA damage in selected protocols Mixed; radioprotection has also been reported with other protocols R, G Modification of radiation response Both radiosensitizing and radioprotective responses have been reported; field parameters and tissue context determine direction.
18 Clinical Translation Constraint Field-specific response; substantial tumor heterogeneity Potential tissue-specific physiological effects G Translation limitation No pharmacokinetic dose metric exists. Field strength, frequency, waveform, geometry, gradients, duration and induced electric fields must be specified. Most anticancer evidence remains preclinical and protocols are poorly standardized.

P: 0–30 min     R: 30 min–3 hr     G: >3 hr

MPTP: opening represents a mitochondrial commitment event integrating ROS and Ca²⁺ stress; sustained opening indicates irreversible bioenergetic failure.




Alzheimer’s disease relevance: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive magnetic neuromodulation modality with randomized human evidence for modest improvement in global cognition in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. The strongest recent evidence supports excitatory stimulation of cortical cognitive-network regions, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The mechanism is principally neural-network and synaptic modulation rather than the systemic ROS-based mechanism often discussed for low-intensity PEMF. Meta-analyses generally report cognitive benefit, but protocol heterogeneity, small trials and uncertain durability remain important limitations. rTMS should therefore be classified as investigational or adjunctive for AD rather than an established disease-modifying treatment.

Clinical evidence status: Multiple RCTs and meta-analyses support a modest short-term cognitive signal. Longer-term benefit remains less certain, optimal frequency/intensity/site protocols are not standardized, and evidence does not establish prevention or reversal of Alzheimer pathology.

Magnetic Stimulation in Alzheimer’s Disease

Rank Pathway / Axis Modulation TSF Primary Effect Notes / Interpretation
1 Cortical network excitability ↑ P, R Neuromodulation High-frequency rTMS and excitatory stimulation of cortical network hubs can increase cortical responsiveness.
2 Synaptic plasticity ↑ R, G Plasticity enhancement Repeated stimulation can produce LTP-like network effects and is a leading explanation for persistence beyond the stimulation session.
3 Cognitive-network connectivity ↑ G Network normalization DLPFC and related cortical networks are the most consistently studied targets.
4 Global cognition ↑ G Clinical cognitive improvement Recent meta-analyses show modest improvement in MMSE, MoCA or ADAS-Cog outcomes, although heterogeneity remains substantial.
5 Neuroinflammation and neurotrophic signaling ↓ inflammation; ↑ neurotrophic signaling (context-dependent) G Secondary neurobiological effects Supported mainly by mechanistic and preclinical studies; less directly established than cortical-network effects in human AD.
6 Clinical Translation Constraint ↔ G Protocol heterogeneity Optimal stimulation site, frequency, intensity, pulse count, session number and maintenance schedule remain unresolved; long-term disease modification has not been demonstrated.

P: 0–30 min     R: 30 min–3 hr     G: >3 hr
HPT, Hyperthermia: Click to Expand ⟱
Features:
Mild Hyperthermia (Approximately 39°C to 41°C
Pathways and Effects:
-Heat Shock Protein (HSP) Induction: Mild heat stress triggers the production of HSPs (e.g., HSP70, HSP90) that help cells cope with stress, which can sometimes provide a transient protective effect. However, these proteins can also act as immunomodulators.
-Modulation of the Immune System: Mild hyperthermia can enhance dendritic cell activation and improve antigen presentation, leading to the stimulation of anti-tumor immune responses.
-Vasodilation: Increased blood flow and improved oxygenation can sensitize tumors to radiation therapy and certain chemotherapeutics.

Moderate Hyperthermia (Approximately 41°C to 43°C)
Pathways and Effects:
-Enhanced Cytotoxicity: At temperatures in this range, tumor cells become more vulnerable to radiation and some chemotherapeutic agents. This is partly due to the inhibition of DNA repair pathways.
-Increased Permeability: Moderate heat can increase the permeability of cellular membranes, aiding in drug delivery and the uptake of chemotherapeutic agents.
-Induction of Apoptosis: Elevated temperatures can trigger apoptotic signaling pathways in cancer cells, sometimes in conjunction with other therapies.

High Hyperthermia / Thermal Ablation (Approximately 43°C to 50°C and above)
Pathways and Effects:
-Direct Cytotoxicity: High temperatures can lead to protein denaturation, membrane disruption, and direct cell death.
-Coagulative Necrosis: Sustained high temperatures cause irreversible cell injury leading to necrosis of tumor tissues.
-Vascular Damage: Hyperthermia in this range can damage tumor vasculature, reducing blood supply and indirectly causing tumor cell death.
-Enhanced Immune Response: Although high temperatures can cause immediate cell death, the release of tumor antigens and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) can stimulate an anti-tumor immune response


Hyperthermia — a physical anticancer treatment modality in which tumor tissue is deliberately heated, usually to approximately 39–43°C for tens of minutes, using electromagnetic energy, ultrasound, infrared heating, heated perfusate, or related techniques. It is formally classified as a thermal therapy rather than a drug and is most commonly abbreviated HT; the Nestronics database uses HPT. Local, superficial, interstitial, and regional hyperthermia are distinct from thermal ablation, where substantially greater thermal doses are intended to directly destroy tissue. Therapeutic hyperthermia is primarily used as an adjunct to radiotherapy or chemotherapy rather than as a stand-alone systemic cancer treatment. Its biological activity depends strongly on temperature, duration, spatial temperature distribution, tumor perfusion, and timing relative to other therapy.

Primary mechanisms (ranked):

  1. Radiosensitization through inhibition of DNA-damage repair, particularly transient suppression of homologous recombination through BRCA2 degradation and impaired RAD51-dependent repair.
  2. Proteotoxic stress and disruption of protein folding, macromolecular complexes, membranes, and cytoskeletal structures as thermal dose increases.
  3. Tumor perfusion and oxygenation modulation; mild hyperthermia can increase blood flow and reduce hypoxia, thereby increasing radiation sensitivity.
  4. Chemosensitization through increased tumor perfusion and drug delivery, membrane permeability, impaired DNA repair, and heat-dependent enhancement of cytotoxic drug activity.
  5. Mitochondrial and cellular stress leading to apoptosis and, at greater thermal doses, irreversible necrotic cell injury.
  6. Heat-shock response with HSF1-driven HSP70/HSP90 induction; this is an important adaptive counter-response that can produce thermotolerance and partially oppose therapeutic cytotoxicity.
  7. Immune modulation through stress-protein signaling, antigen release, DAMP-associated signaling, and altered immune-cell trafficking and antigen presentation.
  8. ROS and oxidative-stress amplification as a secondary, temperature- and model-dependent contributor to mitochondrial injury, apoptosis, and radiosensitization.

Bioavailability / PK relevance: Not applicable in the conventional pharmacokinetic sense because hyperthermia is a locally delivered physical modality rather than a circulating drug. The analogous exposure variable is thermal dose, commonly characterized by achieved temperature, treatment duration, spatial coverage, and metrics such as cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C. Clinical effectiveness depends on adequate and reasonably homogeneous heating of the target while limiting normal-tissue hot spots. Tumor depth, perfusion, tissue composition, applicator geometry, coupling, thermometry, and treatment planning are therefore major delivery constraints.

In-vitro vs systemic exposure relevance: Hyperthermia is not concentration-driven. In-vitro temperature exposures can be tightly controlled and spatially uniform, whereas clinical tumors commonly exhibit substantial temperature heterogeneity. Mechanistic findings obtained at 41–43°C are clinically relevant when comparable intratumoral thermal doses are actually achieved; experiments at higher temperatures or prolonged exposures increasingly model thermal ablation rather than conventional oncologic hyperthermia.

Clinical evidence status: RCT-supported adjunct treatment in selected cancers, particularly in combination with radiotherapy, re-irradiation, or chemotherapy. Randomized studies demonstrate improved local response or progression-related outcomes in settings including superficial or recurrent breast tumors, locally advanced pelvic tumors, and high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma. Survival benefit is disease- and regimen-dependent and has not been demonstrated uniformly. Hyperthermia remains specialized and is not widely available. FDA-regulated RF/microwave hyperthermia systems have been cleared or approved for defined oncologic indications. Major practical limitations are achieving adequate target thermal dose, avoiding normal-tissue hot spots, specialized equipment and expertise, and integration with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Local adverse effects include discomfort, pain, burns and blistering; regional perfusion and whole-body techniques have additional systemic risks.

Hyperthermia Cancer-Relevant Mechanisms

Rank Pathway / Axis Cancer Cells Normal Cells TSF Primary Effect Notes / Interpretation
1 DNA repair inhibition and radiosensitization BRCA2 ↓; RAD51-dependent HR ↓; radiation sensitivity ↑ DNA repair may also be heat-sensitive, but normally perfused tissue is generally more thermally protected R Radiosensitization ↑ One of the best-defined molecular mechanisms. Approximately 41–43°C can transiently impair homologous recombination, creating a period of increased sensitivity to ionizing radiation and potentially other DNA-damaging therapies.
2 Proteotoxic stress and protein stability Protein unfolding ↑; aggregation ↑; proteostasis stress ↑ Proteotoxic stress ↑ (dose-dependent) P, R Cellular stress and thermal cytotoxicity ↑ Heat directly alters protein conformation and macromolecular complexes. Direct cytotoxicity becomes progressively more important as thermal dose increases.
3 Tumor perfusion and oxygenation Blood flow ↑; oxygenation ↑; hypoxia ↓ (mild hyperthermia, context-dependent) Perfusion ↑ P, R Radiation response ↑; drug delivery may ↑ Often strongest around mild temperatures near 39–42°C. At excessive thermal doses vascular function can instead deteriorate, so the direction is temperature- and tissue-dependent.
4 Chemosensitization Drug delivery ↑; drug cytotoxicity ↑; DNA repair capacity ↓ (drug-dependent) Drug exposure or toxicity may ↑ locally R, G Chemotherapy efficacy ↑ Synergy is agent-specific. Mechanisms include improved perfusion, altered membrane transport and protein function, and interference with repair of chemotherapy-induced DNA damage.
5 Heat shock response and thermotolerance HSF1 ↑; HSP70/HSP90 ↑; thermotolerance ↑ HSPs ↑; cytoprotection ↑ R, G Adaptive resistance ↑ A major counter-regulatory mechanism rather than a purely anticancer effect. Prior heat exposure can reduce sensitivity to subsequent heating, making treatment interval and thermal history important.
6 Mitochondrial injury and intrinsic apoptosis Mitochondrial dysfunction ↑; membrane potential ↓; cytochrome c release ↑; apoptosis ↑ Mitochondrial injury ↑ at excessive thermal dose R, G Programmed cell death ↑ Importance rises with temperature and exposure duration. Tumor susceptibility varies substantially among cell types.
7 Membrane and cytoskeletal disruption Membrane fluidity and permeability ↑; trafficking disruption ↑; cytoskeletal stress ↑ Similar changes ↑ (dose-dependent) P, R Cell stress and drug uptake ↑ Provides one contributor to heat-mediated chemosensitization but is not selectively confined to malignant cells.
8 Immune and DAMP signaling DAMP release ↑; extracellular HSP signaling ↑; tumor-antigen availability ↑ Immune-cell trafficking and activation ↝ (context-dependent) G Antitumor immune visibility ↑ Potentially useful for combination with radiotherapy and immunotherapy, but clinical magnitude depends strongly on thermal regimen, tumor type, immune context, and concurrent treatment.
9 Oxidative and mitochondrial ROS stress ROS ↑ (secondary, dose-dependent); oxidative damage ↑ ROS ↑ at sufficient thermal stress P, R Stress signaling and cell death ↑ Mechanistically relevant in multiple experimental systems but less central and less universal than DNA-repair inhibition, proteotoxicity, and perfusion-mediated radiosensitization.
10 Direct thermal cell death Apoptosis ↑; necrosis ↑ as thermal dose rises Collateral thermal injury ↑ at excessive dose R, G Tumor cell survival ↓ Conventional hyperthermia emphasizes sensitization and sublethal thermal stress. At substantially greater temperature-time exposures direct coagulative injury dominates and treatment should more appropriately be classified as thermal ablation.
11 Clinical Translation Constraint Therapeutic effect depends on temperature coverage, duration, tumor perfusion, depth, and combination-treatment timing Hot spots can cause pain, burns, blistering, or deeper tissue injury P, R, G Reproducibility and therapeutic window limitation No conventional PK applies. Thermal heterogeneity, applicator geometry, thermometry, treatment planning, patient anatomy, tumor perfusion, and specialized equipment are major determinants of clinical efficacy. Evidence supports selected adjunct applications rather than universal use across cancers.

P: 0–30 min    R: 30 min–3 hr    G: >3 hr

ul>

Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
2252- MF,  HPT,    Cellular Response to ELF-MF and Heat: Evidence for a Common Involvement of Heat Shock Proteins?
- Review, NA, NA
HSPs∅, *HSPs↑, eff↝, *eff↑, eff↑, eff↓,
2256- MF,  HPT,    Effects of exposure to repetitive pulsed magnetic stimulation on cell proliferation and expression of heat shock protein 70 in normal and malignant cells
- in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, Cerv, HeLa - in-vitro, Nor, HBL-100
HSP70/HSPA5↑, HSP70/HSPA5∅,

Showing Research Papers: 1 to 2 of 2

* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 2

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


Protein Folding & ER Stress(tgid=8) ⓘ

HSP70/HSPA5↑, 1,   HSP70/HSPA5∅, 1,   HSPs∅, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

eff↓, 1,   eff↑, 1,   eff↝, 1,  
Total Targets: 6

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Protein Folding & ER Stress(tgid=8) ⓘ

HSPs↑, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

eff↑, 1,  
Total Targets: 2

Query results interpretion may depend on "conditions" listed in the research papers.
Such Conditions may include : 
  -low or high Dose
  -format for product, such as nano of lipid formations
  -different cell line effects
  -synergies with other products 
  -if effect was for normal or cancerous cells

Filter Conditions: Pro/AntiFlg:%  IllCat:%  CanType:%  Cells:%  prod#:172  Target#:%  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=0  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page