Magnetic Fields / angioG 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
angioG, angiogenesis: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
Process through which new blood vessels.
Angiogenesis, the process of new blood vessel formation from pre-existing vessels, plays a crucial role in cancer progression and metastasis. Tumors require a blood supply to grow beyond a certain size and to spread to other parts of the body.
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF): VEGF is one of the most important pro-angiogenic factors. It stimulates endothelial cell proliferation and migration, leading to the formation of new blood vessels. Many tumors overexpress VEGF, which correlates with poor prognosis.
Hypoxia-Inducible Factor (HIF): In response to low oxygen levels (hypoxia), tumors can activate HIF, which in turn promotes the expression of VEGF and other angiogenic factors. This mechanism allows tumors to adapt to their microenvironment and sustain growth.
-Tumour development and progression beyond a size of few millimetres‐cubed crucially depends on the onset of angiogenesis, that is, the ‘angiogenic switch’
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
524- MF,    Inhibition of Angiogenesis Mediated by Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields (ELF-MFs)
- vitro+vivo, PC, MS-1 - vitro+vivo, PC, HUVECs
other↓, reduction of hemangioma size, of blood-filled spaces, and in hemorrhage.
TumCP↓,
TumCMig↓,
VEGFR2/KDR/Flk1↓,
TumVol↓, 20mm compared to 32mm
HSP70/HSPA5↓, HSP70 and HSP90 expression after 72 h of exposure to MF in MS-1 cells seemed markedly reduced.
HSP90↓,
TumCCA↑, (2 mT) induced cell cycle arrest but not apoptosis. “transient” arrest of MF-treated cells in G2/M phase
angioG↓, in vitro

525- MF,    Pulsed electromagnetic fields regulate metabolic reprogramming and mitochondrial fission in endothelial cells for angiogenesis
- in-vitro, Nor, HUVECs
*angioG↑, PEMFs promoted a shift in the energy metabolism pattern of HUVECs from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis.
*GPx1↑, 4x
*GPx4↑, 2.2x
*SOD↑, SOD1/2 3.5x
*PFKM↑, 3x
*PFKL↑, 2.5x
*PKM2↑, 2.6x : activation of PKM2 enhanced angiogenesis in endothelial cells (ECs) by modulating glycolysis, mitochondrial fission, and fusion
*PFKP↑, 2.8x
*HK2↑, 4x
*GLUT1↑, 1.5x
*GLUT4↑, 1.6x
*ROS↓, reminder: normal HUVECs cells
*MMP↝, no damage, (normal cells)
*Glycolysis↑, (PFKL, PFKLM, PFKP, PKM2, and HK2) encoding the three key regulatory enzymes of glycolysis, hexokinase, phosphofructokinase, and pyruvate kinase, sharply increased when HUVECs were exposed to PEMFs
*OXPHOS↓, PEMFs promoted a shift in the energy metabolism pattern of HUVECs from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis

3464- MF,    Progressive Study on the Non-thermal Effects of Magnetic Field Therapy in Oncology
- Review, Var, NA
AntiTum↑, frequency below 300 Hz) exert anti-tumor function, independent of thermal effects
TumCG↓, Magnetic fields (MFs) could inhibit cell growth and proliferation; induce cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, autophagy, and differentiation; regulate the immune system; and suppress angiogenesis and metastasis via various signaling pathways
TumCCA↑,
Apoptosis↑,
TumAuto↑,
Diff↑,
angioG↓,
TumMeta↓,
EPR↑, MFs not only promote the absorption of chemotherapy drugs by producing small holes on the surface of cell membrane
ChemoSen↑,
ROS↑, MF treatment has been shown to promote the generation of ROS in many studies (31, 71, 72), with exposure within a 60 Hz sinusoidal MF for 48 h in induced human prostate cancer for DU145, PC3, and LNCaP apoptoses
DNAdam↑, Repetitive exposure to LF-MFs induced DNA damage and accumulation of DSBs and triggered apoptosis in Hela and MCF7 cell lines
P53↑, PMFs could trigger apoptosis cell death by upregulating the p53 level and through the mitochondrial-dependent pathway
Akt↓, LF-MFs (300 mT, 6 Hz, 24 h) also induced apoptosis by suppressing protein kinase B (Akt) signaling, activating p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, and caspase-9, which is the executor of the mitochondrial apoptosis pathway
MAPK↑,
Casp9↑,
VEGFR2/KDR/Flk1↓, reducing the expression and activation levels of VEGFR2
P-gp/ABCB1↓, A combination with the SMF (8.8 m T, 12 h) decreased the expression of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in K562 cancer cells, while adriamycin itself induced an increase

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

3466- MF,    The effect of magnetic fields on tumor occurrence and progression: Recent advances
- Review, Var, NA
angioG↓, magnetic fields suppress tumor angiogenesis, microcirculation, and enhance the immune response.
ROS↝, magnetic fields suppress tumors by interfering with DNA synthesis, reactive oxygen species level, second messenger molecule delivery, and orientation of epidermal growth factor receptors.
EGFR↝,
TumCG↓, increasing evidence that MFs can inhibit tumor progression, the underlying mechanism is still poorly understood

3467- MF,    Pulsed Magnetic Field Induces Angiogenesis and Improves Cardiac Function of Surgically Induced Infarcted Myocardium in Sprague-Dawley Rats
- in-vivo, Nor, NA
*angioG↑, 15 Hz 6 mT PMF promotes myocardial angiogenesis and improves cardiac function after MI in rats.
*cardioP↑,

3477- MF,    Electromagnetic fields regulate calcium-mediated cell fate of stem cells: osteogenesis, chondrogenesis and apoptosis
- Review, NA, NA
*Ca+2↑, When cells are subjected to external mechanical stimulation, voltage-gated ion channels in the cell membrane open and intracellular calcium ion concentration rises
*VEGF↑, BMSCs EMF combined with VEGF promote osteogenesis and angiogenesis
*angioG↑,
Ca+2↑, 1 Hz/100 mT MC4-L2 breast cancer cells EMF lead to calcium ion overload and ROS increased, resulting in necroptosis
ROS↑,
Necroptosis↑,
TumCCA↑, 50 Hz/4.5 mT 786-O cells ELF-EMF induce G0/G1 arrest and apoptosis in cells lines
Apoptosis↑,
*ATP↑, causing the ATP or ADP increases, and the purinergic signal can upregulate the expression of P2Y1 receptors
*FAK↑, Our research team [53] found that ELE-EMF can induce calcium oscillations in bone marrow stem cells, up-regulated calcium ion activates FAK pathway, cytoskeleton enhancement, and migration ability of stem cells in vitro is enhanced.
*Wnt↑, ability of EMF to activate the Wnt10b/β-catenin signaling pathway to promote osteogenic differentiation of cells depends on the functional integrity of primary cilia in osteoblasts.
*β-catenin/ZEB1↑,
*ROS↑, we hypothesize that the electromagnetic field-mediated calcium ion oscillations, which causes a small amount of ROS production in mitochondria, regulates the chondrogenic differentiation of cells, but further studies are needed
p38↑, RF-EMF was able to suppress tumor stem cells by activating the CAMKII/p38 MAPK signaling pathway after inducing calcium ion oscillation and by inhibiting the β-catenin/HMGA2 signaling pathway
MAPK↑,
β-catenin/ZEB1↓,
CSCs↓, Interestingly, the effect of electromagnetic fields is not limited to tumor stem cells, but also inhibits the proliferation and development of tumor cells
TumCP↓,
ROS↑, breast cancer cell lines exposed to ELE-EMF for 24 h showed a significant increase in intracellular ROS expression and an increased sensitivity to further radiotherapy
RadioS↑,
Ca+2↑, after exposure to higher intensity EMF radiation, showed a significant increase in intracellular calcium ion and reactive oxygen species, which eventually led to necroptosis
eff↓, while this programmed necrosis of tumor cells was able to be antagonized by the calcium blocker verapamil or the free radical scavenger n -acetylcysteine
NO↑, EMF can regulate multiple ions in cells, and calcium ion play a key role [92, 130], calcium ion acts as a second messenger that can activate downstream molecules such as NO, ROS

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.

499- MF,    The Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Angiogenesis
- Review, NA, NA
angioG↑, normal tissue
VEGF↑, normal tissue
VGCC↑, normal tissue

509- MF,    Is extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields applicable to gliomas? A literature review of the underlying mechanisms and application of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields
- Review, NA, NA
Ca+2↑,
TumAuto↑,
Apoptosis↑,
angioG↓,
ROS↑,

3536- MF,    Targeting Mesenchymal Stromal Cells/Pericytes (MSCs) With Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Has the Potential to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Review, Arthritis, NA - Review, Stroke, NA
*Inflam↓, (PEMF), a biophysical form of stimulation, has an anti-inflammatory effect by causing differentiation of MSCs.
*Diff↑,
*toxicity∅, PEMF have been reported to last up to 3 months or longer in human patients with chronic inflammatory/autoimmune disorders (38) with no evidence of adverse effects (39).
*other↑, MSCs to promote immunomodulation and improve cartilage and bone regeneration in vitro (10) and in vivo (73).
*SOX9↑, enhanced chondrogenic gene expression in SOX-9, COL II, and aggrecan in MSCs
*COL2A1↑,
*NO↓, Prevented increases in NO
*PGE2↓, Exposure to PEMF induces early upregulation of adenosine receptors A2A and A3 that reduce PGE2 and pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, which combine to inhibit the activation of transcription factor NF-kB
*NF-kB↓,
*TNF-α↓, 1 h exposure to PEMF has been shown to down-regulate both NF-kB and TNF-α in murine macrophages
*IL1β↓, By inhibiting NF-kB activation (94), exposure to PEMF led to decreased production of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and PGE2 in human chondrocytes, osteoblasts, and synovial fibroblasts
*IL6↓,
*IL10↑, Inhibited release of PGE2, and IL-1β and IL-6 production, while stimulating release of IL-10 in synovial fibroblasts
*angioG↑, progenitor cells (EPCs) to an RA injury site is important for repair of vasculature and angiogenesis. PEMF has also been reported to increase the number and function of circulating EPCs in treating myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury in rat
*MSCs↑, Since PEMF have been shown to stimulate the production of MSCs
*VEGF↑, promoting the expression of growth factors such as VEGF and TGF-β
*TGF-β↑,
*angioG↝, modulate the aberrant angiogenesis present in RA: reported to significantly reduce activation levels of VEGF (15), to inhibit the proliferative ability of HUVECs, and to reduce the extent of vascularization in diseased tissue
*VEGF↓, diseased tissue
Ca+2↝, By restoring normal Ca2+ ion flux and Na+/K+ balance, the cell can begin the process of down-regulating inflammatory cytokines, HSPs, and proangiogenic molecules such as VEGF, making it possible for the body to commence rebuilding healthy cartilage.

3482- MF,    Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Increase Angiogenesis and Improve Cardiac Function After Myocardial Ischemia in Mice
- in-vitro, NA, NA
*cardioP↑, PEMF treatment with 30 Hz 3.0 mT significantly improved heart function.
*VEGF↑, PEMF treatment with 15 Hz 1.5 mT and 30 Hz 3.0 mT both increased capillary density, decreased infarction area size, increased the protein expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2
*VEGFR2/KDR/Flk1↑,
*Hif1a↑, and increased the mRNA level of VEGF and hypoxia inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) in the infarct border zone.
*FGF↑, Additionally, treatment with 30 Hz 3.0 mT also increased protein and mRNA level of fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), and protein level of β1 integrin, and shows a stronger therapeutic effect.
*ITGB1↑,
*angioG↑, PEMFs Improve Angiogenesis In Vivo

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,

3497- MFrot,  MF,    The Effect of a Rotating Magnetic Field on the Regenerative Potential of Platelets
- Human, Nor, NA
*PDGFR-BB↑, The highest concentration of PDGF-BB was observed in the samples placed in RMF for 1 h at 25 Hz
*TGF-β↑, For TGF-β1, the highest concentrations were obtained in the samples exposed to RMF for 3 h at 25 Hz and 1 h at 50 Hz.
*IGF-1↑, highest concentrations of IGF-1 and FGF-1 were shown in plasma placed in RMF for 3 h at 25 Hz.
*FGF↑,
*angioG↑, Magnetic fields have been shown to have a beneficial effect on vasodilation, angiogenesis, accelerating repair, regeneration, and healing of soft tissues, nervous tissues and bones, analgesic aspects, anti-swelling, reducing inflammation and pain, an
*Inflam↓,
*ROS↓, RMF exposure can increase resistance to heat stress, reduce levels of ROS, affect intracellular calcium ion concentrations, and contribute to cell aging deceleration


Showing Research Papers: 1 to 14 of 14

* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 14

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

Catalase↓, 1,   ROS↑, 5,   ROS↝, 2,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Akt↓, 1,   Apoptosis↑, 4,   Casp8↑, 1,   Casp9↑, 1,   MAPK↑, 2,   Necroptosis↑, 1,   p38↑, 1,  

Transcription & Epigenetics(tgid=7) ⓘ

other↓, 1,  

Protein Folding & ER Stress(tgid=8) ⓘ

HSP70/HSPA5↓, 1,   HSP90↓, 1,  

Autophagy & Lysosomes(tgid=9) ⓘ

TumAuto↑, 2,  

DNA Damage & Repair(tgid=10) ⓘ

DNAdam↑, 1,   P53↑, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

TumCCA↑, 3,  

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

CSCs↓, 1,   Diff↑, 1,   TumCG↓, 2,   VGCC↑, 1,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

Ca+2↑, 3,   Ca+2↝, 3,   Slug↓, 1,   p‑SMAD2↓, 1,   p‑SMAD3↓, 1,   TGF-β↓, 1,   TumCI↓, 1,   TumCMig↓, 2,   TumCP↓, 3,   TumMeta↓, 1,   Twist↓, 1,   Vim↓, 1,   β-catenin/ZEB1↓, 2,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature(tgid=14) ⓘ

angioG↓, 8,   angioG↑, 1,   EGFR↝, 1,   EPR↑, 1,   NO↑, 1,   VEGF↓, 1,   VEGF↑, 1,   VEGFR2/KDR/Flk1↓, 2,  

Barriers & Transport(tgid=15) ⓘ

P-gp/ABCB1↓, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

Imm↝, 1,   LIF↑, 1,   TNF-α↑, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

ChemoSen↑, 1,   eff↓, 1,   eff↝, 1,   RadioS↑, 1,   selectivity↑, 3,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

EGFR↝, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

AntiTum↑, 1,   TumVol↓, 2,  
Total Targets: 54

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

GPx1↑, 1,   GPx4↑, 1,   OXPHOS↓, 1,   ROS↓, 2,   ROS↑, 1,   SOD↑, 1,  

Mitochondria & Bioenergetics(tgid=3) ⓘ

ATP↑, 1,   MMP↝, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

Glycolysis↑, 1,   HK2↑, 1,   PFKL↑, 1,   PFKM↑, 1,   PFKP↑, 1,   PKM2↑, 1,  

Kinase & Signal Transduction(tgid=6) ⓘ

SOX9↑, 1,  

Transcription & Epigenetics(tgid=7) ⓘ

other↑, 1,  

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

Diff↑, 1,   FGF↑, 2,   IGF-1↑, 1,   MSCs↑, 1,   Wnt↑, 1,  

Migration(tgid=13) ⓘ

Ca+2↑, 1,   COL2A1↑, 1,   FAK↑, 1,   ITGB1↑, 1,   TGF-β↑, 2,   β-catenin/ZEB1↑, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature(tgid=14) ⓘ

angioG↑, 7,   angioG↝, 1,   Hif1a↑, 1,   NO↓, 1,   PDGFR-BB↑, 1,   VEGF↓, 1,   VEGF↑, 3,   VEGFR2/KDR/Flk1↑, 1,  

Barriers & Transport(tgid=15) ⓘ

GLUT1↑, 1,   GLUT4↑, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

IL10↑, 1,   IL1β↓, 1,   IL6↓, 1,   Inflam↓, 2,   NF-kB↓, 1,   PGE2↓, 1,   TNF-α↓, 1,  

Clinical Biomarkers(tgid=22) ⓘ

IL6↓, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

cardioP↑, 2,   toxicity∅, 2,  
Total Targets: 47

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: angioG, angiogenesis
14 Magnetic Fields
1 Magnetic Field Rotating
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#:447  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page