4.7 Article

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Exposure Reduces Hypoxia and Inflammation Damage in Neuron-Like and Microglial Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 232, 期 5, 页码 1200-1208

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.25606

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Ferrara

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, the effect of low-frequency, low-energy pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) has been investigated by using different cell lines derived from neuron-like cells and microglial cells. In particular, the primary aim was to evaluate the effect of PEMF exposure in inflammation-and hypoxia-induced injury in two different neuronal cell models, the human neuroblastoma-derived SH-SY5Y cells and rat pheochromocytoma PC12 cells and in N9 microglial cells. In neuron-like cells, live/dead and apoptosis assays were performed in hypoxia conditions from 2 to 48 h. Interestingly, PEMF exposure counteracted hypoxia damage significantly reducing cell death and apoptosis. In the same cell lines, PEMFs inhibited the activation of the hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1 alpha), the master transcriptional regulator of cellular response to hypoxia. The effect of PEMF exposure on reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in both neuron-like and microglial cells was investigated considering their key role in ischemic injury. PEMFs significantly decreased hypoxia-induced ROS generation in PC12, SH-SY5Y, and N9 cells after 24 or 48 h of incubation. Moreover, PEMFs were able to reduce some of the most well-known pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin (IL)-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 release in N9 microglial cells stimulated with different concentrations of LPS for 24 or 48 h of incubation time. These results show a protective effect of PEMFs on hypoxia damage in neuron-like cells and an anti-inflammatory effect in microglial cells suggesting that PEMFs could represent a potential therapeutic approach in cerebral ischemic conditions. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据