| 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):
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
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
P: 0–30 min R: 30 min–3 hr G: >3 hr |
| Source: |
| Type: |
| Oxidative phosphorylation (or phosphorylation) is the fourth and final step in cellular respiration. Alterations in phosphorylation pathways result in serious outcomes in cancer. Many signalling pathways including Tyrosine kinase, MAP kinase, Cadherin-catenin complex, Cyclin-dependent kinase etc. are major players of the cell cycle and deregulation in their phosphorylation-dephosphorylation cascade has been shown to be manifested in the form of various types of cancers. Many tumors exhibit a well-known metabolic shift known as the Warburg effect, where glycolysis is favored over OxPhos even in the presence of oxygen. However, this is not universal. Many cancers, including certain subpopulations like cancer stem cells, still rely on OXPHOS for energy production, biosynthesis, and survival. – In several cancers, especially during metastasis or in tumors with high metabolic plasticity, OxPhos can remain active or even be upregulated to meet energy demands. In some cancers, high OxPhos activity correlates with aggressive features, resistance to standard therapies, and poor outcomes, particularly when tumor cells exploit mitochondrial metabolism for survival and metastasis. – Conversely, low OxPhos activity can be associated with a reliance on glycolysis, which is also linked with rapid tumor growth and certain adverse prognostic features. Inhibiting oxidative phosphorylation is not a universal strategy against all cancers. Targeting OXPHOS can potentially disrupt the metabolic flexibility of cancer cells, leading to their death or making them more susceptible to other treatments. Since normal cells also rely on OXPHOS, inhibitors must be carefully targeted to avoid significant toxicity to healthy tissues. Not all tumors are the same. Some may be more glycolytic, while others depend more on mitochondrial metabolism. Therefore, metabolic profiling of tumors is crucial before adopting this strategy. Inhibiting OXPHOS is being explored in combination with other treatments (such as chemo- or immunotherapies) to improve efficacy and overcome resistance. In cancer cells, metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark where cells often rely on glycolysis (known as the Warburg effect); however, many cancer types also depend on OXPHOS for energy production and survival. Targeting OXPHOS(using inhibitor) to increase the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) can selectively induce oxidative stress and cell death in cancer cells. -One side effect of increased OXPHOS is the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). -Many cancer cells therefore simultaneously upregulate antioxidant systems to mitigate the damaging effects of elevated ROS. -Increase in oxidative phosphorylation can inhibit cancer growth. |
| 525- | MF, | Pulsed electromagnetic fields regulate metabolic reprogramming and mitochondrial fission in endothelial cells for angiogenesis |
| - | in-vitro, | Nor, | HUVECs |
| 2242- | MF, | Electromagnetic stimulation increases mitochondrial function in osteogenic cells and promotes bone fracture repair |
| - | in-vitro, | Nor, | NA |
| 538- | MF, | The extremely low frequency electromagnetic stimulation selective for cancer cells elicits growth arrest through a metabolic shift |
| - | in-vitro, | BC, | MDA-MB-231 | - | in-vitro, | Melanoma, | MSTO-211H |
| 2247- | MF, | Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Treatment on Skeletal Muscle Tissue Recovery in a Rat Model of Collagenase-Induced Tendinopathy: Results from a Proteome Analysis |
| - | in-vivo, | Nor, | NA |
| 2249- | MF, | Pulsed electromagnetic fields modulate energy metabolism during wound healing process: an in vitro model study |
| - | in-vitro, | Nor, | L929 |
| 2241- | MF, | Pulsed electromagnetic therapy in cancer treatment: Progress and outlook |
| - | Review, | Var, | NA |
| 2260- | MF, | Alternative magnetic field exposure suppresses tumor growth via metabolic reprogramming |
| - | in-vitro, | GBM, | U87MG | - | in-vitro, | GBM, | LN229 | - | in-vivo, | NA, | NA |
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#:230 State#:% Dir#:%
wNotes=0 sortOrder:rid,rpid