ID Number		1257
Study Type		In Vivo
Model		900, 1800 MHz (CW) exposure to mice as well as isolated human sperm and analysis of in viability, motility, and DNA damage.
Details		Mice (CD1 Swiss) were exposed to 900 MHz (CW) for 12 hours/day for 7 days at SARs ranging from 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg in a wave-guide. Following exposure at lower doses (0.9 W/kg), initial studies evaluated sperm viability and DNA damage in caudal epididymal spermatozoa as assessed by quantitative PCR and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. No effects of exposure were observed sperm number, morphology or vitality. Pulse gel electrophoresis also did not detect any single- or double- stranded DNA breaks. However, analysis of DNA integrity by PCR revealed statistically significant damage to mitochondrial (P < 0.05) and nuclear Beta-globin locus (P < 0.01) DNA. In a related study, purified human spermatozoa was exposed 1.8 GHz (CW) at SARs ranging from 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg. The authors report a dose-dependent decrease in motility, viability, and a dose dependent increase in reactive oxygen species, DNA adduct (8-OH-dG) formation, and DNA fragmentation (P<0.001) in mitochondrial DNA. The authors conclude exposure in the power range of mobile phone use can cause adverse effects on sperm. Authors' abstract: De Iuliis et al. 2009 (IEEE #4473): BACKGROUND: In recent times there has been some controversy over the impact of electromagnetic radiation on human health. The significance of mobile phone radiation on male reproduction is a key element of this debate since several studies have suggested a relationship between mobile phone use and semen quality. The potential mechanisms involved have not been established, however, human spermatozoa are known to be particularly vulnerable to oxidative stress by virtue of the abundant availability of substrates for free radical attack and the lack of cytoplasmic space to accommodate antioxidant enzymes. Moreover, the induction of oxidative stress in these cells not only perturbs their capacity for fertilization but also contributes to sperm DNA damage. The latter has, in turn, been linked with poor fertility, an increased incidence of miscarriage and morbidity in the offspring, including childhood cancer. In light of these associations, we have analyzed the influence of RF-EMR on the cell biology of human spermatozoa in vitro. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Purified human spermatozoa were exposed to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) tuned to 1.8 GHz and covering a range of specific absorption rates (SAR) from 0.4 W/kg to 27.5 W/kg. In step with increasing SAR, motility and vitality were significantly reduced after RF-EMR exposure, while the mitochondrial generation of reactive oxygen species and DNA fragmentation were significantly elevated (P<0.001). Furthermore, we also observed highly significant relationships between SAR, the oxidative DNA damage bio-marker, 8-OH-dG, and DNA fragmentation after RF-EMR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Houston et al. 2016 (IEEE #6479): Mobile phone usage has become an integral part of our lives. However, the effects of the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on biological systems and specifically the reproductive systems are currently under active debate. A fundamental hindrance to the current debate is that there is no clear mechanism of how such non-ionising radiation influences biological systems. Therefore, we explored the documented impacts of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system and considered any common observations that could provide insights on a potential mechanism. Among a total of 27 studies investigating the effects of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system, negative consequences of exposure were reported in 21. Within these 21 studies, 11 of the 15 that investigated sperm motility reported significant declines, 7 of 7 that measured the production of reactive oxygen species documented elevated levels and 4 of 5 studies that probed for DNA damage highlighted increased damage, due to RF-EMR exposure. Associated with this, RF-EMR treatment reduced antioxidant levels in 6 of 6 studies that studied this phenomenon, while consequences of RF-EMR were successfully ameliorated with the supplementation of antioxidants in all 3 studies that carried out these experiments. In light of this, we envisage a two-step mechanism whereby RF-EMR is able to induce mitochondrial dysfunction leading to elevated ROS production. A continued focus on research which aims to shed light on the biological effects of RF-EMR will allow us to
Findings		Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		U of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia - jaitken@mail.newcastle.edu.au
Funding Agency		Private/Instit.
Country		AUSTRALIA
References		De Iuliis, GN et al. PLoS One., (2009) 4:e6446-9 pages Aitken, RJ et al. Int J Androl, (2005) 28:171-179 Houston, B et al. Reproduction., (2016) 152:R263-R276 Houston, BJ et al. Sci Rep., (2019) 9:17478- Houston, BJ et al. Front Public Health., (2018) 6:270-
Comments		Exposure setup was non standard and dosimetry questionable. Controls were not placed in the waveguide setup as were exposed (less dark, different environment over 12 hour daily exposure time period). No mention of water bottle during 12 hr exposure (animals must have water, Guy et al previously showed with a 1 mW/cm2 exposure inside a cavity, the rat could experience ~ 180 W/kg at the tongue, tail and feet). Exposed animals were immediately next to RF generating equipment (per Figure 1) and noise / vibration may have been a confounding factor. Significantly, quantitative PCR is not quantitative enough to determine a 40% decrease (per figure 4a), and no internal amplification control was performed for sample prep, assay fidelity. The generator listed was a 3GHz generator, but apparently produced a 900 MHz signal (pure tone? tone is used for sound, not RF). For dosimetry, multiple animals in a cage is impossible to model  SAR complex, yet the authors seemed to use values extrapolated from the dosimetry handbook for single animals exposed to plane waves. Apparently, the study was not single or double blind.