Magnetic Fields / selectivity 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
selectivity, selectivity: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
The selectivity of cancer products (such as chemotherapeutic agents, targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and novel cancer drugs) refers to their ability to affect cancer cells preferentially over normal, healthy cells. High selectivity is important because it can lead to better patient outcomes by reducing side effects and minimizing damage to normal tissues.

Achieving high selectivity in cancer treatment is crucial for improving patient outcomes. It relies on pinpointing molecular differences between cancerous and normal cells, designing drugs or delivery systems that exploit these differences, and overcoming intrinsic challenges like tumor heterogeneity and resistance

Factors that affect selectivity:
1. Ability of Cancer cells to preferentially absorb a product/drug
-EPR-enhanced permeability and retention of cancer cells
-nanoparticle formations/carriers may target cancer cells over normal cells
-Liposomal formations. Also negatively/positively charged affects absorbtion

2. Product/drug effect may be different for normal vs cancer cells
- hypoxia
- transition metal content levels (iron/copper) change probability of fenton reaction.
- pH levels
- antiOxidant levels and defense levels

3. Bio-availability
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
2018- CAP,  MF,    Capsaicin: Effects on the Pathogenesis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- Review, HCC, NA
TRPV1↑, Capsaicin is an agonist for transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1)
eff↑, It is noteworthy that capsaicin binding to the TRPV1 receptor may be increased using a static magnetic field (SMF), thus enhancing the anti-cancer effect of capsaicin on HepG2 (human hepatoblastoma cell line) cells through caspase-3 apoptosis
Akt↓, capsaicin can regulate autophagy by inhibiting the Akt/mTOR
mTOR↓,
p‑STAT3↑, Capsaicin can upregulate the activity of the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (p-STAT3)
MMP2↑, increase of the expression of MMP-2
ER Stress↑, capsaicin may induce apoptosis through endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress
Ca+2↑, and the subsequent ER release of Ca2+
ROS↑, Capsaicin-induced ROS generation
selectivity↑, On the other hand, an excess of capsaicin is cytotoxic on HepG2 cells, and normal hepatocytes to a smaller extent, by collapse of the mitochondrial membrane potential with ROS formation
MMP↓,
eff↑, combination of capsaicin and sorafenib demonstrated significant anticarcinogenic properties on LM3 HCC cells, restricting tumor cell growth

2237- MF,    The Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation of Live Cells on Intracellular Ca2+ Dynamics Changes Notably Involving Ion Channels
- in-vitro, AML, KG-1 - in-vitro, Nor, HUVECs
Ca+2↑, In both the KG-1 and HUVECs, PEMF stimulation resulted in enhanced Ca2+ influx
selectivity↑, response of [Ca2+]i due to PEMF stimulation appeared in the opposite direction in HUVECs.
*Inflam↓, PEMF also effected a decrease in the inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and NFkB in macrophage-like cells [9]. Although these studies suggest that PEMF is effective in wound healing and at attenuating inflammation
*TNF-α↓,
*NF-kB↓,
*Ca+2↓, ATP-sensitive Ca2+ influx and ER Ca2+ release of HUVECs were decreased by PEMP stimulation.

526- MF,    Inhibition of Cancer Cell Growth by Exposure to a Specific Time-Varying Electromagnetic Field Involves T-Type Calcium Channels
- in-vitro, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, Pca, HeLa - vitro+vivo, Melanoma, B16-BL6 - in-vitro, Nor, HEK293
TumCG↓, Exposure to Thomas-EMF inhibited tumour growth in mice
Ca+2↑, exposure of malignant cells to Thomas-EMF for > 15 min promoted Ca2+ influx
selectivity↑, but did not effect non-malignant cells
*Ca+2∅, only malignant cells showed enhanced Ca2+ uptake following exposure to Thomas-EMF.
ROS↑, EMF-dependent increases in reactive oxygen species, rapid influx of Ca2+, or activation of specific signaling pathway
HSP70/HSPA5↑, Some studies have shown increased expression of HSP70, a marker of cellular stress responses, in response to EMF exposures
AntiCan↑, These observations suggest that the Thomas-EMF could provide a potential anti-cancer therapy.

532- MF,    A 50 Hz magnetic field influences the viability of breast cancer cells 96 h after exposure
- in-vitro, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, Nor, MCF10
TumCP↓,
MMP↓, MCF-7 breast cancer cells showed a significant decrease in ΔΨM compared with control cells after 4 and 24 h of exposure only when ΔΨM was analyzed at 96 h
ROS↑, All three breast cell lines analyzed showed an increase in ROS levels compared to those in nonexposed cells after both 4 h and 24 h of 1.0 mT ELF-MF exposure
eff↝, short-term exposure (4–8 h, 0.1 mT and 1.0 mT) led to an increase in viability in breast cancer cells, while long and high exposure (24 h, 1.0 mT) led to a decrease in viability and proliferation in all cell lines.
selectivity↑, Conversely, we did not observe significant differences in MCF-10A live cell number after 0.1 mT ELF-MF cell exposure

534- MF,    Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field parameters on the proliferation of human breast cancer
- in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vivo, Nor, MCF10
Ca+2↑, Exposure of the MDA-MB-231 cells to ELF-EMF also increased the fluorescence of the Ca2+ dye, FLUO-4 (AM) within 30 min, indicating an increase in Ca2+ influx compared to the control
Apoptosis↑,
eff↝, The cell viability increased with increases in the applied frequency. The ELF-EMF at 7.83Hz± 0.3 Hz showed the strongest inhibition of cell viability among the three frequency conditions
eff↑, The cells exposed to 6 h switching at 7.83Hz±0.3 Hz and 1mT for 2 consecutive days showed the strongest decrease in cell viability (from 100% to 40%)
selectivity↑, By contrast, the viability of the noncancerous M10 cells was unchanged by exposure to the T1 conditions,
eff↝, These differences in Ca2+ uptake behavior in the malignant cells could explain why MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells are more sensitive than non-malignant M10 breast cells to EMF exposure.
eff↝, Our study also showed a clear window of vulnerability of cancer cells to ELF-EMF and that greater doses and magnitudes would be not unnecessarily better

3465- MF,    Magnetic fields and angiogenesis
- Review, Var, NA
angioG↓, angiogenesis of tumor tissues can be inhibited by both static and dynamic magnetic fields at animal level.
*angioG↑, In contrast, long-term or high-intensity static magnetic field treatment of non-tumor tissue seems to be able to promote angiogenesis at animal level.
selectivity↑,
Ca+2↝, People speculate that magnetic field may regulate angiogenesis by affecting multiple signal transduction pathways including the calcium signaling pathway.
ROS↝, studies showing that other molecules could be involved in this process, including ROS (reactive oxygen species, ROS), ERK and membrane-bound receptors

3478- MF,    One Month of Brief Weekly Magnetic Field Therapy Enhances the Anticancer Potential of Female Human Sera: Randomized Double-Blind Pilot Study
- Trial, BC, NA - in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, Nor, C2C12
TumCP↓, Female sera from the magnetic therapy group (n = 12) reduced breast cancer cell proliferation (16.1%), migration (11.8%) and invasion (28.2%) and reduced the levels of key EMT markers relative to the control sera
TumCMig↓,
TumCI↓,
*toxicity∅, The provision of week 5 or week 8 PEMF sera to MCF10A cells did not alter their viability, being comparable to that observed with the control sera (
TGF-β↓, The week 8 PEMF sera resulted in the significant downregulation of (A) TGFβR2, (B) TWIST, (C) SNAI1, (D) SNAI2 (Slug), (E) β-catenin and (F) Vimentin protein expressions, when compared to week 8 control sera
Twist↓,
Slug↓,
β-catenin/ZEB1↓,
Vim↓,
p‑SMAD2↓, Week 5 PEMF sera primarily reduced the phosphorylation of SMAD 2/3 as well as the expression of TWIST protein expression.
p‑SMAD3↓,
angioG↓, Week 8 PEMF-plasma showed significant reductions in angiogenic biomarkers, including Angiopoietin-2, BMP-9, Endoglin, PLGF, VEGF-A, and VEGF-D
VEGF↓,
selectivity↑, PEMF sera did not adversely alter the growth of non-malignant cells such as MCF10A (breast epithelial) and C2C12 (myogenic).
LIF↑, Similarly, LIF (leukemia inhibitory factor) was upregulated one week after the final PEMF treatment.

3480- MF,    Cellular and Molecular Effects of Magnetic Fields
- Review, NA, NA
ROS↑, 50 Hz, 1 mT for 24/48/72 h SH-SY5Y (neuroblastoma Significantly increased ROS levels
*Ca+2↑, There is experimental proof that extremely low-frequency (ELF-MF) magnetic fields interact with Ca2+ channels, leading to increased Ca2+ efflux
*Inflam↓, PEMF stimulates the anti-inflammatory response of mesenchymal stem cells.
*Akt↓, nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line. Potentially, these alterations were caused by inhibition of the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway
*mTOR↓,
selectivity↑, Ashdown and colleagues observed disruptions in the human lung cancer cell line after PMF (20 mT) exposure; in comparison, normal cells were insensitive to PMF
*memory↑, Ahmed and colleagues proved that PMF has an impact on the hippocampus, the brain region responsible for spatial orientation and memory acquisition.
*MMPs↑, In wound closure, epithelial cells, connective tissue cells, and immune cells, which promote collagen production, matrix metalloproteinase activity, growth factor release (e.g., VEGF, FGF, PDGF, TNF, HGF, and IL-1), and inflammatory environment pro
*VEGF↑,
*FGF↑,
*PDGF↑,
*TNF-α↑,
*HGF/c-Met↑,
*IL1↑,

2244- MF,    Little strokes fell big oaks: The use of weak magnetic fields and reactive oxygen species to fight cancer
- Review, Var, NA
RPM↑, WEMFs affect multiple cellular processes through mechanisms such as the radical pair mechanism (RPM), which alters reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, mitochondrial function, and glycolysis
Glycolysis∅, WEMF parallel to the magnetic field (does not enchance glycolysis)
ROS↑, WEMF can augment this effect by enhancing mitochondrial respiration, which increases ROS levels within cancer cells. This augmentation makes cancer cells more susceptible to treatment by promoting oxidative stress that can lead to apoptosis
ChemoSen↑, Chemotherapeutic agents, such as doxorubicin, primarily exert their effects by generating ROS to induce cell death. WEMF can augment this effect by enhancing mitochondrial respiration, which increases ROS levels
RadioS↑, Similarly, WEMF can enhance the efficacy of radiation therapy by increasing ROS production and sensitizing cancer cells to radiation-induced DNA damage
selectivity↑, primary advantage of WEMF is its non-invasive, non-ionizing nature, which minimizes collateral damage to healthy tissue.

2260- MF,    Alternative magnetic field exposure suppresses tumor growth via metabolic reprogramming
- in-vitro, GBM, U87MG - in-vitro, GBM, LN229 - in-vivo, NA, NA
TumCP↓, proliferation of human glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells (U87 and LN229) was inhibited upon exposure to AMF within a specific narrow frequency range, including around 227 kHz.
TumCG↓, daily exposure to AMF for 30 min over 21 days significantly suppressed tumor growth and prolonged overall survival
OS↑,
ROS↑, This effect was associated with heightened reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and increased manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) expression.
SOD2↑,
eff↓, anti-cancer efficacy of AMF was diminished by either a mitochondrial complex IV inhibitor or a ROS scavenger.
ECAR↓, decrease in the extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) and an increase in the oxygen consumption rate (OCR).
OCR↑,
selectivity↑, This suggests that AMF-induced metabolic reprogramming occurs in GBM cells but not in normal cells. Furthermore, in cancer cells, AMF decreased ECAR and increased OCR, while there were no changes in normal cells.
*toxicity∅, did not affect non-cancerous human cells [normal human astrocyte (NHA), human cardiac fibroblast (HCF), human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC)].
TumVol↓, The results showed a significant treatment effect, as assessed by tumor volume, after conducting AMF treatment five times a week for 2 weeks
PGC-1α↑, Corresponding to the rise in ROS, there was also a time-dependent increase in PGC1α protein expression post-AMF exposure
OXPHOS↑, enhancing mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), leading to increased ROS production
Glycolysis↓, metabolic mode of cancer cells to shift from glycolysis, characteristic of cancer cells, toward OXPHOS, which is more typical of normal cells.
PKM2↓, We extracted proteins that changed commonly in U87 and LN229 cells. Among the individual proteins related to metabolism, pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) was found to be inhibited in both.

2261- MF,    Tumor-specific inhibition with magnetic field
- in-vitro, Nor, GP-293 - in-vitro, Liver, HepG2 - in-vitro, Lung, A549
ROS↑, It enhances cell oxidative stress response and regulates apoptosis signaling pathway, changing intracellular Ca2+ concentration to induce apoptosis
Ca+2↓,
Apoptosis↑,
*selectivity↑, No signicant difference was found between the exposed 293T cell count versus the control group without magnetic exposure on the third day of exposure.
TumCG↓, Hepg2, A549 cell counts were signicantly lower than the unexposed control groups (the highest inhibition rate of Hepg2 was about 18%, and the highest inhibition rate of A549 was about 30%).
*i-Ca+2↓, Normal cells 293T showed a significant decrease in intracellular free calcium ion,
i-Ca+2↑, solid tumor cells showed no signicant change, while suspended tumor showed a slight increase in calcium ion

496- MF,    Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields (LF-MFs) Inhibit Proliferation by Triggering Apoptosis and Altering Cell Cycle Distribution in Breast Cancer Cells
- in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, BC, ZR-75-1 - in-vitro, BC, T47D - in-vitro, BC, MDA-MB-231
ROS↑, LF-MFs Enhanced the ROS Levels in MCF-7 and ZR75-1 Cells
PI3K↓, and inhibited the activities of the PI3K/AKT signaling pathways in MCF-7 and ZR-75-1 cells
Akt↓,
GSK‐3β↑, LF-MF Induced MCF-7 and ZR75-1 Cells Apoptosis by Activating GSK-3β
Apoptosis↑, LF-MF Induced Breast Cancer Cell Apoptosis
cl‑PARP↑, cleaved PARP-1
cl‑Casp3↑,
BAX↑,
Bcl-2↓,
CycB/CCNB1↓, Cyclin B1
TumCCA↑, failure of the transition from the G2 phase to M phase
p‑Akt↓,
TumCP↓, LF-MF Inhibited the Proliferation of Breast Cancer Cells
selectivity↑, The viabilities of HUVECs did not markedly reduce after exposure in LF-MF at the four selected frequencies for 6, 12, 24 or 36 h
eff↓, attenuated by ROS scavenger NAC

507- MF,    Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on the tumor cell inhibition and the possible mechanism
- in-vitro, Liver, HepG2 - in-vitro, Lung, A549 - in-vitro, Nor, GP-293
MMP↓,
TumCG↓,
ROS↑, key to tumor growth inhibition
*Ca+2↓, Normal 293 T cells showed a significant decrease in the intracellular free calcium ion concentration.
Ca+2↑, The solid tumor cells showed no significant change, while the suspended tumor cells showed a slight increase in the calcium ion concentration
selectivity↑,
i-pH↑, In addition, the intracellular pH of A549 cells increased under the magnetic field.

512- MF,    Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMFs) Trigger Cell Death and Senescence in Cancer Cells
- in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vitro, Nor, FF95
TumCP↓,
*toxicity↓, PEMF application decreases the proliferation rate and viability of breast cancer cells while having the opposite effect on normal fibroblasts.
ChemoSen↑, ELF-PEMFs, as a pathology treatment approach, they have mainly been used as a complementary type of therapy, coupled with chemo-/radiotherapy,
RadioS↑,
selectivity↑, Collectively, these data indicate that PEMF irradiation exhibited not only anti-cancer properties but also beneficial effects for the normal cells.
Ca+2↑, The Thomas EMF was able to inhibit the growth of cancer cell lines including B16-BL6, MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 and HeLa via increased Ca2+ uptake through T-type Ca2+ channels but did not affect the growth of normal cells

501- MF,    Low Intensity and Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Selectively Impair Breast Cancer Cell Viability
- in-vitro, BC, MCF7 - in-vitro, Nor, MCF10
Apoptosis↑, MCF10 cells were slightly benefitted by these same PEMF parameters ****
*toxicity↓, harmless to non-malignant cell types
ChemoSen↑, adjuvant treatment to more traditional chemo- and radiotherapies with the aim of reducing their dosage, mitigating any harmful secondary side effects and enhancing patient prognosis.
chemoP↑,
selectivity↑, killing of MCF7 cells : 3 mT peak-to-peak magnitude, at a pulse frequency of 20 Hz and duration of exposure of only 60 minutes per day. By stark contrast, this same pulsing paradigm (cytotoxic to MCF-7s) was innocuous to normal MCF-10 breast cells
DNAdam↑, Once again, 60 minutes of 3 mT PEMFs for three consecutive days gave the greatest DNA damage in MCF7 cancer cells.

5241- MF,    A review on the use of magnetic fields and ultrasound for non-invasive cancer treatment
- Review, Var, NA
other↑, Magnetic fields have been found to stimulate collagen density in and around the joints, and help to trigger Ca2+ flow to the defect site resulting in faster bone healing
BloodF↑, blood microcirculation revealed that magnetic fields have strong influence on relaxation and constriction of capillary blood vessels which alters the blood flow.
Glycolysis↓, In general, the glycolysis and glucose oxidations are decreased in diabetic patients leading to lower ATP production.
ATP↓,
VEGF↓, Application of magnetic fields can significantly decrease VEGF level and therefore reduces the growth and distribution of cancer to other parts of the body
ROS↑, SMF interacts with the charged molecules (ions, proteins etc.) of biological system through several physical mechanisms and alters the activity, concentration, and life time of paramagnetic free radicals i.e. ROS (reactive oxygen species),
P-gp/ABCB1↓, study demonstrated that 8.8 mT SMF enhances cytotoxic potency of Adriamycin on K562 cells due to decrease in the P-gp expression
Apoptosis↑, n vitro analysis in terms of apoptosis and cell electrical properties showed that MCF7 cells are highly reactive to 3 mT flux density and normal cells (MCF10) are unaffected.
selectivity↑,
Ca+2↑, Long PMF (50 Hz, 0.1–1 mT) for 7 days Undifferentiated PC12, increased intracellular Ca+ concentration and Catalase activity.
Catalase↑,

4425- MF,  doxoR,    Brief Magnetic Field Exposure Stimulates Doxorubicin Uptake into Breast Cancer Cells in Association with TRPC1 Expression: A Precision Oncology Methodology to Enhance Chemotherapeutic Outcome
- in-vitro, BC, 4T1 - in-vitro, BC, MCF7
ChemoSen↑, PEMF therapy may enhance DOX cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells,
TRPC1↑, increased by TRPC1 overexpression,
Dose↓, PEMF exposure enhances DOX-mediated killing of breast cancer cells, reducing the IC50 value of DOX by half, whereas muscle cells, representative of collateral tissues, were less sensitive to PEMF-enhanced DOX-mediated cytotoxicity
selectivity↑, whereas muscle cells, representative of collateral tissues, were less sensitive to PEMF-enhanced DOX-mediated cytotoxicity.

4354- MF,  doxoR,    Modulated TRPC1 Expression Predicts Sensitivity of Breast Cancer to Doxorubicin and Magnetic Field Therapy: Segue Towards a Precision Medicine Approach
- in-vivo, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vivo, BC, MCF7
selectivity↑, PEMF exposure alone impaired the survival of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells, but not that of non-malignant MCF10A breast cells; the selective vulnerability of breast cancer cells to PEMF exposure was corroborated in human tumor biopsy samples
Apoptosis↑,
TumCI↓, PEMF exposure was shown to attenuate the invasiveness of MCF-7 cells in correlation with TRPC1 expression
tumCV↓, PEMF exposure was previously shown to impair the viability of MCF-7 breast cancer cells when administered at an amplitude of 3 mT for 1 h per day
TumVol↓, PEMF treatment alone significantly reduced tumor volume by ~-20%
eff↓, Notably, stronger PEMF exposures (5 mT) were ineffective at killing MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells
eff↑, PEMF and DOX treatments hence synergize in vitro to slow breast cancer cell growth.
ROS↑, figure 4. PEMF exposure stimulates ROS production in cancer (29, 30) and non-cancer (5, 31, 32) cells.
Ca+2↑, PEMF exposure (blue) consistently increased cytoplasmic calcium over baseline (red) and was further augmented with increasing DOX concentration
TumCMig↓, PEMF Exposure Slows the Migration and Decreases the Invasiveness of TRPC1-Overexpressing Breast Cancer Cells

8489- MF,    Pulsed electromagnetic fields induce ferroptosis in osteosarcoma cells and promote osteogenic differentiation
- in-vitro, OS, U2OS - in-vitro, OS, MG63
TumCP↓, PEMF markedly suppressed the proliferation and migration of osteosarcoma cells and triggered ferroptosis, manifested by down-regulated expression of GPX4 and SLC7A11 as well as elevated malondialdehyde (MDA) levels.
TumCMig↓,
Ferroptosis↑, Pulsed electromagnetic fields induce ferroptosis in osteosarcoma cells
GPx4↓,
xCT/SLC7A11↓,
BMD↑, PEMF facilitated osteoblast differentiation and improved bone mineral density and trabecular-bone-related parameters, without obvious damage observed to normal bone tissue.
selectivity↑,
Dose↝, intermittent pulsed electromagnetic fields at a frequency of 11.4 Hz, with a pulsed width of 50 μs, an interpulse interval of 80 ms, and a peak magnetic field intensity of 1.5 mT. produced by Helmholtz coils.
TumCG↓, Pulsed electromagnetic fields suppress osteosarcoma cell growth
Dose↝, with a daily exposure time of 15 min for 3 days to observe cell proliferation
OS↑, results revealed that PEMF could effectively improve lung metastasis of osteosarcoma (Fig. 1J-K) and enhance the survival rate of tumor-bearing mice
ROS↑, results showed that the increase in ROS, MDA, and Fe2+ levels induced by pulsed electromagnetic fields treatment
MDA↑,
Iron↑,
ChemoSen↑, n breast cancer cells, PEMF exposure potentiated the cytotoxic effects of doxorubicin and etoposide by further activating ROS generation and topoisomerase II inhibition pathways
TOP2↑,
radioP↑, PEMF has been shown to specifically protect osteoblasts from radiation-induced bone loss via intracellular calcium oscillation signaling, mitigating a major dose-limiting side effect of radiotherapy

8485- MF,  doxoR,    Static magnetic field promotes the doxorubicin toxicity effects on osteosarcoma cells
- in-vitro, OS, G292
tumCV↓, Results demonstrated that the combination of SMF and DOX significantly reduced G292 cell viability compared to DOX alone,
Dose↝, IC50 values decreased from 3.2 µM (at 3 mT, p < 0.01) to 0.8 µM (at 24 mT, p < 0.001) at 24 h
Apoptosis↑, Apoptosis rates increased from 8.12% with DOX alone to 16% with SMF + DOX.
ROS↑, SMF further amplified apoptosis by enhancing ROS generation and disrupting iron and calcium homeostasis.
i-Iron↓, total intracellular iron concentration in G292 cancer cells significantly decreased under all treatment conditions compared to untreated controls. G292 cells may decrease intracellular iron as a protective mechanism, potentially to modulate the activ
*Ca+2↓, notable decline in total calcium ion content was observed in HFF cells following treatment, whereas calcium levels in G292 cells remained stable.
*Iron↑, Conversely, the increased iron content in HFF cells upon exposure to SMF and combined treatments suggests that SMF may promote iron retention or uptake in normal cells
*chemoP↑, The increased iron content in normal cells following SMF and combined treatments may reflect a lower cytotoxic impact of SMF on these cells.
ROS↓, Our findings reveal a complex interaction between SMF, DOX, and ROS dynamics, where SMF increases ROS production in normal cells but decreases ROS levels in cancer cells, likely due to enhanced antioxidant defenses
ChemoSen↑, The results support the hypothesis that SMF can enhance the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents such as DOX.
selectivity↑, This study demonstrates the significant potential of combining a SMF with DOX to enhance cytotoxic effects on osteosarcoma cells while sparing non-cancerous cells.

8483- MF,    Magnetic Fields in Cancer Therapy: Mechanistic Insights, Signaling Pathways, and Evidence from Clinical and In Vitro Studies
- Review, Var, NA
Apoptosis↑, demonstrated the capacity to modulate proliferation, apoptosis, ferroptosis, migration, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in tumor cells, often through reactive oxygen species (ROS) modulation, ion channel regulation,
TumCP↓,
Ferroptosis↑,
TumCMig↓,
EMT↓,
ROS↝,
ChemoSen↑, The mechanistic diversity of MFs allows synergistic combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy.
RadioS↑,
Telomerase↓, exposure to ~150 mT SMF in 4T1 breast cancer cells accelerated proliferation but inhibited migration and telomerase activity, implicating biomechanical orientation effects and transcriptional regulation
selectivity↑, 8 Hz PEMFs at ~0.011 T reduced proliferation and induced senescence selectively in cancer cells while sparing normal fibroblasts, illustrating a non-thermal, selective cytotoxic effect
ROS↑, PEMFs (2.5 mT at 70 Hz for repeated exposures) heightened etoposide-induced cell death via increased ROS generation, DNA damage response, and caspase-dependent apoptosis
DNAdam↑,
Casp↑,
Ca+2↑, Recent studies show that MF-induced calcium influx via voltage-gated and mechanosensitive channels exacerbates mitochondrial depolarization, thereby accelerating ROS generation
MMP↓,
lysoMP↑, ROS can directly trigger lysosomal membrane permeabilization (LMP) through lipid peroxidation, linking calcium signalling, oxidative stress, and lysosomal instability into a single interconnected cascade
lipid-P↑,
NA↑, MFs, particularly when combined with iron or magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs), can enhance ROS production, leading to oxidative damage of DNA and proteins.
other↑, some studies report substantial heat generation in Fe3O4 nanoparticle suspensions when exposed to 100 kHz fields, especially at field amplitudes of a few millitesla
ChemoSen↑, PEMFs can reduce cancer cell proliferation, promote apoptosis, and sensitize tumor cells to chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin and cisplatin
P53↑, These effects are thought to be mediated through modulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), intracellular calcium signaling, and p53 activation

5534- MF,    Targeted Osmotic Lysis of Highly Invasive Breast Carcinomas Using Pulsed Magnetic Field Stimulation of Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels and Pharmacological Blockade of Sodium Pumps
- vitro+vivo, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vitro, Nor, MCF10
TumVol↓, In vivo, 30 min of PMF stimulation of MDA-MB-231 xenografts in J/Nu mice or 4T1 homografts in BALB/c mice, concurrently treated with 7 mg/kg digoxin reduced tumor size by 60–100%
VGSC↑, data presented is evidence that the PMFs to activate VGSCs in TOL provide sufficient energy to lyse highly malignant cells in vitro and to reduce tumor growth of highly malignant grafts
OS↑, and improve host survival in vivo
selectivity↑, without compromising noncancerous tissues. Using the 80 mT stimulus and 500 nM digoxin concentration, TOL had no effect on MCF-10a cells
eff↑, The MDA-MB-231 cells had been previously shown to express VGSC protein about 7.5-fold greater than “normal” MCF-10a cells

4092- MF,    Mechanisms and therapeutic effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in oncology
- Review, Var, NA
Apoptosis↑, 20 Hz; 3 mT, 60mins/day PEMFs increased apoptosis in MCF7 cells but had no effect on MCF10 cells
selectivity↑,
ROS↑, 50 Hz, 0.1–1.0 mT) for 30 min, and long‐term PEMF: undifferentiated PC12 cells increased ROS levels and decreased catalase activity
Catalase↓,
TumVol↓, 1 Hz, 100 mT, Mice exposed for 60 and 180 min daily showed a 30% and 70% tumor reduction
angioG↓, PEMFs inhibit angiogenesis in tumor tissues, suppressing tumor vascularization and reducing tumor growth, as shown by in vivo studies
Ca+2↝, During immediate PEMF exposure in undifferentiated PC12 cells, no change in intracellular Ca2+ concentration was observed, while it increased after long‐term exposure.
eff↝, undifferentiated PC12 cells were more sensitive to PEMFs exposure, while the differentiated PC12 cells were more stable and resistant to stress, probably due to the action of the cell surface NGF receptors such as p75NR
angioG↓, PEMFs inhibit angiogenesis in tumor tissues, suppressing tumor vascularization and reducing tumor growth, as shown by in vivo studies 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104.
Imm↝, PEMFs have also an immunomodulatory effect, as supported by in vivo evidence showing an increase in tumor necrosis factor alpha levels that induce an anti‐tumoral response
TNF-α↑,
Casp8↑, leading to the activation of a proapoptotic pathway induced by caspase‐8 interaction with Fas‐associated death domain,

205- MFrot,  MF,    Intermittent F-actin Perturbations by Magnetic Fields Inhibit Breast Cancer Metastasis
- vitro+vivo, BC, MDA-MB-231
OS↑, 31-46% prolonged survival
F-actin↓, decrease F-actin formation in vitro and in vivo
TumCI↓,
TumCMig↓, >4.5hrs
Rho↓,
selectivity↑, F-actin in noncancerous breast cells is much less sensitive than that in breast cancer cells, which indicate that the normal cells in our human bodies are less likely to be agitated by these magnetic fields.
TumMeta↓, Using an intermittent treatment modality, low-frequency rotating magnetic fields could significantly reduce mouse breast cancer metastasis, prolong mouse survival by 31.5 to 46.0% (P < 0.0001), and improve their overall physical condition.

2259- MFrot,  MF,    Method and apparatus for oncomagnetic treatment
- in-vitro, GBM, NA
MMP↓, Oncomagnetic patent Fig 2
Bcl-2↓,
BAX↑,
Bak↑,
Cyt‑c↑,
Casp3↑, caspase staining rises progressively until after 30 min most of the cells fluoresce positive for caspase, revealing activation of this enzyme
Casp9↑,
DNAdam↑,
ROS↑, applying the oscillating magnetic field to the tissue increases the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS )
lactateProd↑,
Apoptosis↑,
MPT↑, opening of the mitochondrial membrane permeability transition pore
*selectivity↑, repetitive magnetic stimulation has shown decreased apoptosis in non -cancerous cells .
eff↑, oncomagnetic therapy may be performed in conjunction with other forms of therapy such as with chemotherapy, other forms of radiative therapy, with drugs and prescriptions, etc
MMP↓, OMF which in turn produces rapidly fluctuating or sustained depolarizations of the mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) in the tissue .
selectivity↑, Because normal cells have a larger amount of mitochondria, have lower demand for ATP, and are not under stress, disruption of electron flow and small amount of ROS formation and MMP depolarization does not trigger apoptosis
TCA?, decrease in Krebs cycle metabolites
H2O2↑, increase in peroxide levels in GBM cells following stimulation by the system 100 using a rotating magnet
eff↑, combine the administration of BHB , or acetoacetate , or free fatty acid, or branched chain amino acid, or cryptochrome agonist , or MGMT inhibitor, or DNA alkylating agent, or DNA methylating agent, and OMF as a more effective treatment of cancer
*antiOx↑, upregulation of antioxidant mechanisms due to the application of OMFs further protects non -cancerous cells from any ROS -mediated apoptosis
H2O2↑, The experiments showed rapid increases in the levels of superoxide and H2O2 in GBM cells
eff↓, To test whether cell death is caused by the OMF - induced increase in ROS , a potent antioxidant Trolox was used to counteract it, while measuring the decrease in GBM cell count due to 4 h exposure to OMF.
GSH/GSSG↓, GSH/GSSG ratio almost exactly half that seen in control cells
*toxicity∅, No Cytotoxic Effect in Normal Cells
OS↑, OMF -Induced Prolongation of Survival in a Mouse Xenograft Model of GBM

187- MFrot,  MF,    Method for noninvasive whole-body stimulation with spinning oscillating magnetic fields and its safety in mice
- in-vivo, GBM, NA
selectivity↑, Our in vitro experiments demonstrated selective cancer cell death while sparing normal cells by sOMF-induced increase in intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels due to magnetic perturbation of mitochondrial electron transport.
ROS↑,
*ROS∅,
*toxicity∅, no significant adverse effects of chronic or acute sOMF stimulation on the health, behavior, electrocardiographic and electroencephalographic activities, hematologic profile, and brain and other tissue and organ morphology of treated mice
ETC↓, We have evidence that its mechanism of action involves alteration of electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS)(
TumVol↓, In a case report published recently we reported that 36-day treatment with this device caused a > 30% shrinkage of the contrast-enhanced tumor volume of a left frontal GBM in a 53-year-old male patient
Dose↝, rrangement of oncoscillators generates a magnetic field strength of >1 mT (range 1 – ~100 mT) in each cage

198- MFrot,  MF,    Biological effects of rotating magnetic field: A review from 1969 to 2021
- Review, Var, NA
AntiCan↑, RMF can inhibit the growth of various types of cancer cells in vitro and in vivo and improve clinical symptoms of patients with advanced cancer.
breath↑, 0.4T, 7Hz RMF was applied to treat 13 advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients (2 h/day, 5 days per week, for 6–10 weeks)
Pain↓, Decreased pleural effusion (2 patients, 15.4%), remission of shortness of breath (5 patients, 38.5%), relief of cancer pain (5 patients, 38.5%), increased appetite (6 patients, 46.2%), improved physical strength (9 patients, 69.2%), regular bowel mov
Appetite↑,
Strength↑,
BowelM↑,
TumMeta↓, The same RMF (2 h/day, for 43 days) can also suppress the growth and metastasis of B16-F10 cells in vivo
TumCCA↑, The up-regulated transcription of miR-34a induced cell proliferation inhibition, cell cycle arrest, and cell senescence by targeting E2F1/E2F3, two members of E2F family which are major regulators of the cell cycle,
ETC↓, 2h exposure) effectively inhibited the growth of two types of cultured brain cancer cells, glioblastoma cells and diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma cells. They found that the mitochondrial electron transport chain was significantly disturbed by RMF,
MMP↓, which caused loss of mitochondrial integrity, decreased mitochondrial carbon flux in cancer cells, and eventual cancer cell death (Sharpe et al., 2021).
TumCD↑,
selectivity↑, same group further reported that the same RMF can also selectively kill cultured human glioblastoma and non-small cell lung cancer cells, and leave normal cells unharmed
ROS↑, Mechanistic studies revealed that RMF can increase the mitochondrial ROS level, which further activated the caspase-3 and disturbed the electron fflow in the respiratory chain pathway in cancer cells. (Helekar et al., 2021).
Casp3↑,
TumCG↓, 0.4T, 7.5Hz RMF (2 h/day, for 5 days) inhibited the growth of mouse melanoma cell line B16–F10 in vitro,
TumCCA↑, and its mechanism involved cell cycle arrest and decomposition of chromatins.
ChrMod↑,
TumMeta↓, (2 h/day, for 43 days) can also suppress the growth and metastasis of B16–F10 cells in vivo,
Imm↑, benefiting from improved immune function, including decreased regulatory T cells, increased T cells, and dendritic cells
DCells↑,
Akt↓, inhibiting the activation of the AKT pathway (Tang et al., 2016). T
OS⇅, 51 women with advanced breast cancer underwent RMF treatment. The results showed that 27 patients among them achieved signicant therapeutic effects, and there were no side-effects
toxicity↓,
QoL↑, 13 advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients the quality of life was improved in different degrees. Median survival and 1-year survival rate was 50% and 100% longer
hepatoP↑, In addition, it seems that the RMF can also attenuate liver damage in mice bearing MCF7 and GIST-T1 cells (Zha et al., 2018)
Pain↓, The results showed that the RMF treatment reduced abdominal pain by 42.9% (9/21), nausea/vomiting by 19.0% (4/21), weight loss by 52.4% (11/21), ongoing blood loss by 9.5% (2/21), improved physical strength by 23.8% (5/21) and sleep quality by 19.0%
Weight↑,
Strength↑,
Sleep↑,
IL6↓, Furthermore, decreased levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and keratinocyte-derived chemokine (KC) were observed
CD4+↑, it was discovered that macrophages and dendritic cells were activated, CD4+ T and CD8+ T lymphocytes increased, and the ratio of Th17/Treg was balanced.
CD8+↑,
Ca+2↑, effects of RMF were strongly associated with increased calcium tunnel activity and intracellular Ca2+ level in CNS
radioP↑, These results suggest that RMF may be helpful to alleviate the damage of hematopoietic function caused by radiotherapy and chemotherapy
chemoP↑,
*BMD↑, 0.4T, 8Hz RMF treatment (30min/day, for 30 days) along with calcium supplement, synergistically improved bone density
*AntiAge↑, In 2019, Xu et al. reported that a 4h exposure to a 0.2T, 4Hz RMF delayed the aging of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC)
*AMPK↑, Mechanistic research revealed that RMF treatment increased the expression of AMPK while reducing the expression of p21, p53 and mTOR.
*P21↓,
*P53↓,
*mTOR↓,
*OS↑, They also discovered that the RMF (2 h/day, for 6, 10 or 14days) can prolong the health status lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans.
*β-Endo↑, 0.1–0.8T, 0.33Hz RMF treatment signicantly increased the β-endorphin level in the blood of rabbits and humans (23 times higher than before). Moreover, it decreased serotonin (5-HT) in brains, small intestine tissue and serum of mice.
*5HT↓,

186- MFrot,  MF,    Selective induction of rapid cytotoxic effect in glioblastoma cells by oscillating magnetic fields
- in-vitro, GBM, GBM - in-vitro, Lung, NA
mt-ROS↑, Cytotoxic effects of OMF may be caused by an increase in ROS
Casp3↑, Cell death is associated with activation of caspase 3
selectivity↑, OMF induces highly selective cell death of patient derived GBM cells associated with activation of caspase 3, while leaving normal tissue cells undamaged
TumCD↑, Exposure to OMF causes cancer cell death
ETC↓, The underlying mechanism is a marked increase in ROS in the mitochondria, possibly in part through perturbation of the electron flow in the respiratory chain.
H2O2↑, Figure 6A shows rapid increases in the levels of superoxide and H 2 O 2 in GBM cells,
eff↓, we used the potent antioxidant Trolox to counteract it,
GSH↑, We tested whether GSH synthesis was upregulated as a feedback protective effect in response to OMF-induced increase in ROS. An examination of GSH levels showed that there was a 20% elevation in treated cells
MMP↓, underlying mechanism involves a marked increase in ROS, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, fragmentation of mitochondrial network and activation of caspase 3.

184- MFrot,  MF,    Rotating Magnetic Fields Inhibit Mitochondrial Respiration, Promote Oxidative Stress and Produce Loss of Mitochondrial Integrity in Cancer Cells
- in-vitro, GBM, GBM
ROS↑, sOMF
mitResp↓, Inhibit Mitochondrial Respiration
mtDam↑, Produce Loss of Mitochondrial Integrity
Dose↝, Repeated intermittent sOMF was applied for 2 hours at a specific frequency, in the 200-300 Hz frequency range, with on-off epochs of 250 or 500 ms duration.
MMP?, ROS generation has been shown to be driven, in part, by elevated mitochondrial membrane chemiosmotic potential (ΔΨ) and ubiquinol (QH2)
OCR↓, Immediately after cessation of field rotation we observe a loss of mitochondrial integrity (labeled LMI), with a very rapid increase in O2 consumption
mt-H2O2↑, We have previously demonstrated that sOMF treatment of cells generates superoxide/hydrogen peroxide in the mitochondrial matrix
eff↓, we repeated the same experiment in the presence of Trolox, which protects thiols from ROS oxidation (47). sOMF treatment of RLM in State 3u pre-treated with Trolox (15 μM), show minimal inhibition,
SDH↓, SDH Inhibition by sOMF in State 3u RLM Is Caused by ROS Generation
Thiols↓, suggest that thiol oxidation in SDH may result from sOMF.
GSH↓, Glutathione in the mitochondrial matrix can provide some protection from ROS, but after solubilizing the mitochondria, this protection is lost and the SDH becomes more sensitive to sOMF.
TumCD↑, sOMF is highly effective at killing non-dividing GBM cell cultures,
Casp3↑, caspase-3 activation 1 h after sOMF
Casp7↑, rapid activation of caspase-3/7
MPT↑, OMF-treated cell that causes near simultaneous MPT, release of cytochrome c and other apoptosis-inducing factors, resulting in caspase-3/7 activation in these GBM cells.
Cyt‑c↑,
selectivity↑, differential sensitivity to sOMF of cancer cells over ‘normal’ cells becomes apparent. rapid increase in the reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the mitochondria to cytotoxic levels only in cancer cells, and not in normal human cortical neurons
GSH/GSSG↓, increasing GSSG/GSH ratio
ETC↓, completely arrest electron transport in isolated, respiring, rat liver mitochondria and patient derived glioblastoma (GBM)

2258- MFrot,  MF,    EXTH-68. ONCOMAGNETIC TREATMENT SELECTIVELY KILLS GLIOMA CANCER CELLS BY INDUCING OXIDATIVE STRESS AND DNA DAMAGE
- in-vitro, GBM, GBM - in-vitro, Nor, SVGp12
TumVol↓, GBM patient reversed the progression of his recurrent tumor causing >30% reduction in its contrast-enhanced volume within 4 weeks of treatment
OS↑, Mice with implanted mouse glioma cells in their brains also showed marked reduction in tumor size, increased survival (p< 0.05, n = 10)
γH2AX↑, higher DNA damage (g-H2AX foci) after sOMF treatment with a whole-body stimulation method developed by us
DNAdam↑,
selectivity↑, Normal mice exposed to sOMF for 4 months had no adverse effects on the brain and other organs
ROS↑, sOMF markedly increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels in cancer cells leading to the selective death of these cells, while sparing normal neurons and astrocytes
TumCD↑,
eff↑, sOMF exposure for just 2 h resulted in >40% loss of surviving GBM and DIPG cell colonies detected by clonogenic cell survival assay, similar to that produced by 2 Gy radiation dose.
eff↓, This loss was rescued by the antioxidant Trolox


Showing Research Papers: 1 to 30 of 30

* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 30

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


NA, unassigned(tgid=0) ⓘ

NA↑, 1,  

Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

Catalase↓, 1,   Catalase↑, 1,   Ferroptosis↑, 2,   GPx4↓, 1,   GSH↓, 1,   GSH↑, 1,   GSH/GSSG↓, 2,   H2O2↑, 3,   mt-H2O2↑, 1,   Iron↑, 1,   i-Iron↓, 1,   lipid-P↑, 1,   MDA↑, 1,   OXPHOS↑, 1,   ROS↓, 1,   ROS↑, 20,   ROS↝, 2,   mt-ROS↑, 1,   RPM↑, 1,   SOD2↑, 1,   Thiols↓, 1,   xCT/SLC7A11↓, 1,  

Mitochondria & Bioenergetics(tgid=3) ⓘ

ATP↓, 1,   ETC↓, 4,   mitResp↓, 1,   MMP?, 1,   MMP↓, 8,   MPT↑, 2,   mtDam↑, 1,   OCR↓, 1,   OCR↑, 1,   PGC-1α↑, 1,   SDH↓, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

ECAR↓, 1,   Glycolysis↓, 2,   Glycolysis∅, 1,   lactateProd↑, 1,   PKM2↓, 1,   TCA?, 1,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Akt↓, 3,   p‑Akt↓, 1,   Apoptosis↑, 10,   Bak↑, 1,   BAX↑, 2,   Bcl-2↓, 2,   Casp↑, 1,   Casp3↑, 4,   cl‑Casp3↑, 1,   Casp7↑, 1,   Casp8↑, 1,   Casp9↑, 1,   Cyt‑c↑, 2,   Ferroptosis↑, 2,   lysoMP↑, 1,   Telomerase↓, 1,   TRPV1↑, 1,   TumCD↑, 4,  

Transcription & Epigenetics(tgid=7) ⓘ

BowelM↑, 1,   ChrMod↑, 1,   other↑, 2,   tumCV↓, 2,  

Protein Folding & ER Stress(tgid=8) ⓘ

ER Stress↑, 1,   HSP70/HSPA5↑, 1,  

DNA Damage & Repair(tgid=10) ⓘ

DNAdam↑, 4,   P53↑, 1,   cl‑PARP↑, 1,   γH2AX↑, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

CycB/CCNB1↓, 1,   TumCCA↑, 3,  

Proliferation, Differentiation & Cell State(tgid=12) ⓘ

EMT↓, 1,   GSK‐3β↑, 1,   mTOR↓, 1,   PI3K↓, 1,   p‑STAT3↑, 1,   TOP2↑, 1,   TumCG↓, 6,   VGSC↑, 1,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

Ca+2↓, 1,   Ca+2↑, 10,   Ca+2↝, 2,   i-Ca+2↑, 1,   F-actin↓, 1,   MMP2↑, 1,   Rho↓, 1,   Slug↓, 1,   p‑SMAD2↓, 1,   p‑SMAD3↓, 1,   TGF-β↓, 1,   TRPC1↑, 1,   TumCI↓, 3,   TumCMig↓, 5,   TumCP↓, 7,   TumMeta↓, 3,   Twist↓, 1,   Vim↓, 1,   β-catenin/ZEB1↓, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature(tgid=14) ⓘ

angioG↓, 4,   VEGF↓, 2,  

Barriers & Transport(tgid=15) ⓘ

P-gp/ABCB1↓, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

CD4+↑, 1,   DCells↑, 1,   IL6↓, 1,   Imm↑, 1,   Imm↝, 1,   LIF↑, 1,   TNF-α↑, 1,  

Cellular Microenvironment(tgid=17) ⓘ

i-pH↑, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

ChemoSen↑, 8,   Dose↓, 1,   Dose↝, 5,   eff↓, 7,   eff↑, 8,   eff↝, 5,   RadioS↑, 3,   selectivity↑, 29,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

BloodF↑, 1,   BMD↑, 1,   IL6↓, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

AntiCan↑, 2,   Appetite↑, 1,   breath↑, 1,   chemoP↑, 2,   hepatoP↑, 1,   OS↑, 6,   OS⇅, 1,   Pain↓, 2,   QoL↑, 1,   radioP↑, 2,   Sleep↑, 1,   Strength↑, 2,   toxicity↓, 1,   TumVol↓, 6,   Weight↑, 1,  

Infection & Microbiome(tgid=24) ⓘ

CD8+↑, 1,  
Total Targets: 135

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

antiOx↑, 1,   Iron↑, 1,   ROS∅, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

AMPK↑, 1,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Akt↓, 1,   HGF/c-Met↑, 1,  

DNA Damage & Repair(tgid=10) ⓘ

P53↓, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

P21↓, 1,  

Proliferation, Differentiation & Cell State(tgid=12) ⓘ

FGF↑, 1,   mTOR↓, 2,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

Ca+2↓, 3,   Ca+2↑, 1,   Ca+2∅, 1,   i-Ca+2↓, 1,   MMPs↑, 1,   PDGF↑, 1,   β-Endo↑, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature(tgid=14) ⓘ

angioG↑, 1,   VEGF↑, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

IL1↑, 1,   Inflam↓, 2,   NF-kB↓, 1,   TNF-α↓, 1,   TNF-α↑, 1,  

Synaptic & Neurotransmission(tgid=18) ⓘ

5HT↓, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

selectivity↑, 2,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

BMD↑, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

AntiAge↑, 1,   chemoP↑, 1,   memory↑, 1,   OS↑, 1,   toxicity↓, 2,   toxicity∅, 4,  
Total Targets: 33

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: selectivity, selectivity
30 Magnetic Fields
7 Magnetic Field Rotating
3 doxorubicin
1 Capsaicin
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#:1110  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page