Magnetic Fields / hepatoP 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
hepatoP, L,hepatoprotective: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
Hepatoprotective is the ability of a chemical substance to prevent damage to the liver.

Grapefruit:
-hepatoprotective potential has emerged from the study of naringenin and naringin.
Blueberries/cranberries:
-proanthocyanidins
Grape:
Nopal (Cactus pear) and tuna (Cactus pear fruit) “Opuntia ficus-indica”:
Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla or Chamomilla recutita):
Silymarin (Silybum marianum):
Blue green algae spirulina :
Propolis (bee glue):

POLYSACCHARIDES
β-glucans
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
3463- MF,    Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Alleviates Hepatic Oxidative Stress and Lipids Accumulation in db/db mice
- in-vivo, NA, NA
*hepatoP↑, PEMF exposure could protect the liver from oxidative stress injury by decreasing MDA and GSSG level, promoting reduced GSH level, and increasing GSH-Px activity and expression in comparison with sham group
*MDA↓,
*GSSG↓,
*GSH↑,
*GPx↑,
*antiOx↑, PEMF could increase antioxidant enzymes activity and alleviate lipid accumulation in fatty liver.
*SREBP1/SREBF1↓, PEMF exposure ameliorated hepatic steatosis through reducing the expression of SREBP-1c to regulate the lipid synthesis.

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↓,


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:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

ROS↑, 1,  

Mitochondria & Bioenergetics(tgid=3) ⓘ

ETC↓, 1,   MMP↓, 1,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Akt↓, 1,   Casp3↑, 1,   TumCD↑, 1,  

Transcription & Epigenetics(tgid=7) ⓘ

BowelM↑, 1,   ChrMod↑, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

TumCCA↑, 2,  

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

TumCG↓, 1,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

Ca+2↑, 1,   TumMeta↓, 2,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

CD4+↑, 1,   DCells↑, 1,   IL6↓, 1,   Imm↑, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

selectivity↑, 1,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

IL6↓, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

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

Infection & Microbiome(tgid=24) ⓘ

CD8+↑, 1,  
Total Targets: 32

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

antiOx↑, 1,   GPx↑, 1,   GSH↑, 1,   GSSG↓, 1,   MDA↓, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

AMPK↑, 1,   SREBP1/SREBF1↓, 1,  

DNA Damage & Repair(tgid=10) ⓘ

P53↓, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

P21↓, 1,  

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

mTOR↓, 1,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

β-Endo↑, 1,  

Synaptic & Neurotransmission(tgid=18) ⓘ

5HT↓, 1,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

BMD↑, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

AntiAge↑, 1,   hepatoP↑, 1,   OS↑, 1,  
Total Targets: 16

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: hepatoP, L,hepatoprotective
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#:1179  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page