| Features: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Magnetic Field Rotating — Rotating magnetic field (RMF) is a dynamic magnetic-field modality in which the magnetic-field vector rotates spatially with time, generated either by mechanically rotating permanent magnets or by phase-shifted orthogonal electromagnetic coils. Related implementations include spinning oscillating magnetic fields (sOMF/OMF), gradient rotating magnetic fields, rotating static magnetic fields, and nanoparticle-coupled magnetomechanical RMF. The Oncomagnetic platform is an important cancer-specific implementation in which rapidly rotating permanent magnets generate patterned sOMF without requiring magnetic nanoparticles. RMF should be distinguished from generic static magnetic fields, conventional alternating magnetic fields, pulsed electromagnetic fields, and transcranial magnetic stimulation because field geometry, rotation, frequency, amplitude, temporal pattern, and mechanical coupling substantially affect biological responses. Primary mechanisms (ranked):
Bioavailability / PK relevance: Not concentration-driven. RMF is a physical-field modality and therefore has no conventional absorption, plasma concentration, metabolism, or elimination. Therapeutic exposure instead depends on field strength, rotation frequency, spatial gradient, vector geometry, temporal pattern, tissue penetration, distance from the field source, and treatment duration. Nanoparticle-assisted RMF additionally depends on particle biodistribution, tumor uptake, intracellular localization, retention, clearance, and magnetic susceptibility. In-vitro vs systemic exposure relevance: Conventional concentration comparisons are not applicable. Translation depends on reproducing the relevant magnetic-field waveform and geometry within tissue. Oncomagnetic sOMF is specifically designed for non-contact field exposure without injected magnetic material, whereas many magnetomechanical RMF studies require nanoparticles and therefore should not be extrapolated to particle-free RMF. Field parameters from one RMF platform should not automatically be generalized to another. Clinical evidence status: Preclinical evidence is substantial but heterogeneous, including cultured cancer cells, glioma and breast-cancer animal models, and nanoparticle-assisted magnetomechanical systems. Human evidence remains limited. Historical small clinical studies have evaluated rotating magnetic-field approaches in advanced cancers, and published Oncomagnetic compassionate-use case reports describe prolonged treatment of individual malignant glioma patients. A prospective multicenter Oncomagnetic study in newly diagnosed glioblastoma is currently recruiting, making the modality investigational rather than an established cancer treatment. The strongest contemporary mechanistic evidence is for glioma Oncomagnetic sOMF and for metastasis-modulating RMF in breast-cancer models. Rotary Magnetic field can be generated by a spinning magnet or magnets. Or it can be implemented with 2 or more coils, power with a phase shift between them (90 deg for 2 coil implementation) (60deg for 3 coil implementation)Targets affected are mostly the same as for Magnet fields Main differences - may enhance the EPR effect allowing targeting of drugs to cancer cells - acts as wireless stirrer, especially on magnetic particles(inducing eddy currents in water media) - research for use in nano surgery, and mechanical destruction of cancer cells - continue to highlight ability to raise ROS in cancer cell and lower ROS in normal cells - RMF may be responsible for Ca2+ distribution to pass across the plasma membrane(differental affected for cancer and normal cells) Pathways: - induce ROS production in cancer cells, while decreasing ROS in normal cells. Ca2+ is critical and the Ca2+ balance is increased in cancer cells while decreased in normal cells (example for wound healing) - ROS↑ related: MMP↓(ΔΨm), Ca+2↑">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↓, p38↓, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines : TNF-α↓, IL-6↓, - inhibit Growth/Metastases : TumMeta↓, TumCG↓, MMPs↓, MMP2↓, MMP9↓, IGF-1↓, RhoA↓, NF-κB↓, TGF-β↓, ERK↓ - cause Cell cycle arrest : TumCCA↑, - inhibits Migration/Invasion : TumCMig↓, TumCI↓, TNF-α↓, ERK↓, - Others: PI3K↓, AKT↓, Wnt↓, AMPK, ERK↓, JNK, - Synergies: < Others(review target notes), Neuroprotective, Cognitive, - Selectivity: Cancer Cells vs Normal Cells Rotating Magnetic Field Cancer Mechanisms
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: Moderate-intensity rotating magnetic fields have shown disease-modifying effects in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Reported effects include direct inhibition of Aβ fibril formation, reduced cerebral amyloid deposition, reduced microglial activation and oxidative stress, improved cognition and memory, and increased autophagic signaling with suppression of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. These findings are preclinical; they do not establish clinical efficacy in human Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical status: Preclinical animal evidence only for the specifically rotating-field studies. Generic rTMS, PEMF, static-field, and other non-rotating magnetic-field studies should remain under the separate Magnetic Fields category rather than being used to establish RMF clinical efficacy. Rotating Magnetic Field Alzheimer’s Mechanisms
|
| Source: |
| Type: |
| In all eukaryotic cells, intracellular Ca2+ levels are maintained at low resting concentrations (approximately 100 nM) by the activity of the major Ca2+ extrusion system, the plasma membrane Ca2+-ATPase (PMCA), which exchanges extracellular protons (H+) for cytosolic Ca2+. Indeed, sustained elevation of [Ca2+]C in the form of overload, saturating all Ca2+-dependent effectors, prolonged decrease in [Ca2+]ER, causing ER stress response, and high [Ca2+]M, inducing mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT), are considered to be pro-death factors. In cancer the Ca2+-handling toolkit undergoes profound remodelling (figure 1) to favour activation of Ca2+-dependent transcription factors, such as the nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFAT), c-Myc, c-Jun, c-Fos that promote hypertrophic growth via induction of the expression of the G1 and G1/S phase transition cyclins (D and E) and associated cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK4 and CDK2). Thus, cancer cells may evade apoptosis through decreasing calcium influx into the cytoplasm. This can be achieved by either downregulation of the expression of plasma membrane Ca2+-permeable ion channels or by reducing the effectiveness of the signalling pathways that activate these channels. Such protective measures would largely diminish the possibility of Ca2+ overload in response to pro-apoptotic stimuli, thereby impairing the effectiveness of mitochondrial and cytoplasmic apoptotic pathways. Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCCs): Overexpression of VGCCs has been associated with increased tumor growth and metastasis in various cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. Store-Operated Calcium Entry (SOCE): SOCE mechanisms, such as STIM1 and ORAI1, are often upregulated in cancer cells, contributing to enhanced cell survival and proliferation. High intracellular calcium levels are associated with increased cell proliferation and migration, leading to a poorer prognosis. Calcium signaling can also influence hormone receptor status, affecting treatment responses. Increased Ca²⁺ signaling is associated with advanced disease and metastasis. Patients with higher CaSR expression may have a worse prognosis due to enhanced tumor growth and resistance to apoptosis. -Ca2+ is an important regulator of the electric charge distribution of bio-membranes. |
| 3491- | MFrot, | MF, | Magnetically controlled cyclic microscale deformation of in vitro cancer invasion models |
| - | in-vitro, | BC, | MDA-MB-231 |
| 3535- | MFrot, | MF, | Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation in Osteogenesis and Chondrogenesis: Signaling Pathways and Therapeutic Implications |
| - | Review, | Nor, | NA |
| 3499- | MFrot, | MF, | Rotating magnetic field delays human umbilical vein endothelial cell aging and prolongs the lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans |
| - | in-vitro, | Nor, | HUVECs |
| 203- | MFrot, | MF, | Rotating Magnetic Field Induced Oscillation of Magnetic Particles for in vivo Mechanical Destruction of Malignant Glioma |
| - | vitro+vivo, | GBM, | U87MG |
| 199- | MFrot, | MF, | Modulation of Cellular Response to Different Parameters of the Rotating Magnetic Field (RMF)—An In Vitro Wound Healing Study |
| - | in-vivo, | Wounds, | L929 | - | NA, | NA, | HaCaT |
| 198- | MFrot, | MF, | Biological effects of rotating magnetic field: A review from 1969 to 2021 |
| - | Review, | Var, | NA |
| - | Human, | Lung, | 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#:192 Target#:38 State#:% Dir#:%
wNotes=0 sortOrder:rid,rpid