Magnetic Fields / Cyt‑c 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
Cyt‑c, cyt-c Release into Cytosol: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
Cytochrome c
** The term "release of cytochrome c" ** an increase in level for the cytosol.
Small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion where it plays a critical role in cellular respiration. Cytochrome c is highly water-soluble, unlike other cytochromes. It is capable of undergoing oxidation and reduction as its iron atom converts between the ferrous and ferric forms, but does not bind oxygen. It also plays a major role in cell apoptosis.

The term "release of cytochrome c" refers to a critical step in the process of programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis.
In its new location—the cytosol—cytochrome c participates in the apoptotic signaling pathway by helping to form the apoptosome, which activates caspases that execute cell death.
Cytochrome c is a small protein normally located in the mitochondrial intermembrane space. Its primary role in healthy cells is to participate in the electron transport chain, a process that helps produce energy (ATP) through oxidative phosphorylation.
Mitochondrial outer membrane permeability leads to the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria into the cytosol.
The release of cytochrome c is a pivotal event in apoptosis where cytochrome c moves from the mitochondria to the cytosol, initiating a chain reaction that leads to programmed cell death.

On the one hand, cytochrome c can promote cancer cell survival and proliferation by regulating the activity of various signaling pathways, such as the PI3K/AKT pathway. This can lead to increased cell growth and resistance to apoptosis, which are hallmarks of cancer.
On the other hand, cytochrome c can also induce apoptosis in cancer cells by interacting with other proteins, such as Apaf-1 and caspase-9. This can lead to the activation of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway, which can result in the death of cancer cells.
Overexpressed in Breast, Lung, Colon, and Prostrate.
Underexpressed in Ovarian, and Pancreatic.
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
520- MF,    Exposure to a 50-Hz magnetic field induced mitochondrial permeability transition through the ROS/GSK-3β signaling pathway
- in-vitro, Nor, NA
*MPT↑, MPT induced by MF exposure was mediated through the ROS/GSK-3β signaling pathway.
*Cyt‑c↑, induced Cyt-c release
*ROS↑, cells exposed to the MF showed increased intracellular reactive oxidative species (ROS) levels and glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) dephosphorylation at 9 serine residue (Ser(9))
*p‑GSK‐3β↑,
*eff↓, attenuated by ROS scavenger (N-acetyl-L-cysteine, NAC) or GSK-3β inhibitor
*MMP∅, no significant effect on mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm)
*BAX↓, Bax declined around 15% which was statistically significant while the total level of Bcl-2 reminded unchanged in cells
*Bcl-2∅,

2241- MF,    Pulsed electromagnetic therapy in cancer treatment: Progress and outlook
- Review, Var, NA
other↝, PEMFs act on the cell, it will firstly change the cell membrane transport capacity, osmotic potential and ionic valves
p‑ERK↝, Also, it will cause changes in mitochondrial protein profile, decrease mitochondrial phosphor-ERK (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase), p53, and cytochrome c, and activate OxPhos.
P53↝,
Cyt‑c↝,
OXPHOS↑,
Apoptosis↑, PEMFs decreases cellular stress factors, increase energy demand, this series of reactions will eventually lead to apoptosis.
ROS↑, The introduction of PEFs and PEMFs can improve the penetration efficiency of ROS, not only reduce the concentration of drugs, but also reduce the irradiation dose of CAP, w

2255- MF,    Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Induce Skeletal Muscle Cell Repair by Sustaining the Expression of Proteins Involved in the Response to Cellular Damage and Oxidative Stress
- in-vitro, Nor, SkMC
*HSP70/HSPA5↑, HSP70), which can promote muscle recovery, inhibits apoptosis and decreases inflammation in skeletal muscle, together with thioredoxin, paraoxonase, and superoxide dismutase (SOD2), which can also promote skeletal muscle regeneration following injury
*Apoptosis↓,
*Inflam↓,
*Trx↓,
*PONs↓, Paraoxonase 2 (PON2, Paraoxonase 3 (PON3) (+19% vs. controls)
*SOD2↓,
*TumCG↑, PEMF treatment enhanced muscle cell proliferation by approximately 20% both in cells grown in complete medium
*Diff↑, suggest the potential role of PEMF in the induction of muscle differentiation
*HIF2a↑, hypoxia-inducible transcription factor 2a (HIF-2a) (+40% vs. controls),
*Cyt‑c↑, Cytochrome c (+39% vs. controls)
P21↑, p21/CIP1 (+27% vs. controls)

3493- MFrot,  MF,    Mechanical nanosurgery of chemoresistant glioblastoma using magnetically controlled carbon nanotubes
- in-vivo, GBM, NA
TumCD↑, We show that GBM cells internalize mCNTs, the mobilization of which by rotating magnetic field results in cell death.
MMP↓, We detected the dissipation of mitochondria membrane potential of GBM cells upon mCNT + magnetic treatment
Cyt‑c↑, When mitochondria integrity is compromised, mitochondrial cytochrome C is released into the cytosol to initiate caspases-dependent apoptosis
Apoptosis↑,
OS↑, Consistent with tumor burden reduction, mCNT + magnetic field treatment significantly extended the survival of GBM-bearing mice (median survival: 22.2 ± 4.0 versus 26.8 ± 6.0 days, P = 0.0072; Fig. 3F).
DNAdam↑, Tumor cells in the treatment group also exhibited increased DNA damage

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

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)


Showing Research Papers: 1 to 6 of 6

* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 6

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

GSH↓, 1,   GSH/GSSG↓, 2,   H2O2↑, 2,   mt-H2O2↑, 1,   OXPHOS↑, 1,   ROS↑, 3,   Thiols↓, 1,  

Mitochondria & Bioenergetics(tgid=3) ⓘ

ETC↓, 1,   mitResp↓, 1,   MMP?, 1,   MMP↓, 3,   MPT↑, 2,   mtDam↑, 1,   OCR↓, 1,   SDH↓, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

lactateProd↑, 1,   TCA?, 1,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Apoptosis↑, 3,   Bak↑, 1,   BAX↑, 1,   Bcl-2↓, 1,   Casp3↑, 2,   Casp7↑, 1,   Casp9↑, 1,   Cyt‑c↑, 3,   Cyt‑c↝, 1,   TumCD↑, 2,  

Transcription & Epigenetics(tgid=7) ⓘ

other↝, 1,  

DNA Damage & Repair(tgid=10) ⓘ

DNAdam↑, 2,   P53↝, 1,  

Cell Cycle & Senescence(tgid=11) ⓘ

P21↑, 1,  

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

p‑ERK↝, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

Dose↝, 1,   eff↓, 2,   eff↑, 2,   selectivity↑, 2,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

OS↑, 2,  
Total Targets: 37

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress(tgid=1) ⓘ

antiOx↑, 1,   ROS↑, 1,   SOD2↓, 1,   Trx↓, 1,  

Mitochondria & Bioenergetics(tgid=3) ⓘ

MMP∅, 1,   MPT↑, 1,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis(tgid=4) ⓘ

PONs↓, 1,  

Cell Death(tgid=5) ⓘ

Apoptosis↓, 1,   BAX↓, 1,   Bcl-2∅, 1,   Cyt‑c↑, 2,  

Protein Folding & ER Stress(tgid=8) ⓘ

HSP70/HSPA5↑, 1,  

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

Diff↑, 1,   p‑GSK‐3β↑, 1,   TumCG↑, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature(tgid=14) ⓘ

HIF2a↑, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling(tgid=16) ⓘ

Inflam↓, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance(tgid=21) ⓘ

eff↓, 1,   selectivity↑, 1,  

Functional Outcomes(tgid=23) ⓘ

toxicity∅, 1,  
Total Targets: 20

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: Cyt‑c, cyt-c Release into Cytosol
6 Magnetic Fields
3 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#:77  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page